Let's switch Willie Pep and Sweet Pea

Are they both going to attempt their actually achieved feats but just the other man's era? As in Whittaker fights at welterweight, then moves up etc etc, and Pep has a career long featherweight campaign going until past his prime?

Just checing what we are being asked sorry.

 

Even though it's difficult to envision, I think a fun game would be to imagine Willie Pep as a natural lightweight facing the opponents Whitaker faced and Whitaker as a natural featherweight facing the opponents Willie Pep faced.

 

Let's look at their competition in the respective era changes:

Pep would be faced with prospect of beating a list of guys (say from the late 70's to the early 90's to compare with Pep's long career) like Salvador Sanchez, Azumah Nelson, Jeff Fenech, Eusebio Pedroza, Antonio Esparragoza, Barry McGuigan, etc. Also, if he were to move up and face a top LW or two, which he did in his day with Angott, he'd be faced with a guy like Arguello.

How do you see him going about that? I could see him realistically losing to Sanchez, Nelson, Fenech, Arguello, and Pedroza, though that's not to say he'd do so more often than not.

Whitaker, during Pep's era, would be faced with the prospect of winning and defending his title against the likes of: Sammy Angott, Beau Jack, Bob Montgomery, Jimmy Carter, Juan Zurita, Tippy Larkin, Willie Joyce, Fritzie Zivic, Ray Robinson, Kid Gavilan, etc.

Suffice it to say that neither is getting along easily, but Whitaker likely has the tougher road in a tougher era, especially when considering he is looking to prove himself in multiple weights.

 

No need to apologise there. So we are talking about Whittaker taking part in an actual great era of lightweights, regularly in title contention with the likes of Bob Montgommery, Beau Jack, the great Ike Williams and Sammy Angott. All of these are men i would take Pernell over most likely based on one-off head to head match-ups, but to fight so regularly in a different dynamic for me means the likelihood he suffers defeats. There is also the fact that Whittaker's lightweight era wasn't quite as strong as this one. I think i'll go on record saying he emerges as the best of the era and could maybe have a great trilogy with Ike Williams.

Then he goes for it at light-welterweight. Still in his prime there is actually no division, or based on the not too lengthy amount of time he spent at 135, he may just catch the division on its way out. Anyhow we are talking about him taking on Tippy Larkin. Don't know too much but i'm taking Pernell on what i do.

Then welterweight, oh my. Sugar Ray Robinson, Charley Burley, Cocoa kid, Kid Gavilan (a young one, and possibly a champion version as Pea remained here after his prime). Robinson beats him for me, even if it is on points, this Whittaker stayed in the pocket a lot, a stoppage is not out of the question. Cocoa Kid Pea can win, but will be hard pressed to, Gavilan may be too good at this weight, great fight and close though. And the one with Burley would be a chess match to savour. I still think Pea may be good enough to beat the likes of Tommy Bell, Charley Fusari etc etc.

There is no 154 pound division.

Willie Pep faces the likes of Esparragoza, Jeff Fenech, Espinoza, Paez, then Hamed Kelly Medina Johnson.

Too much to think about! But i think Pep is the greatest of all of them, this era is deeper than his own though, and he can lose, a similar prospect to Whittaker's own

 

Are you serious? Outside of a heavier arguello and sanchez, I see Pep winning clear cut decisions over the rest of them. Sanchez would be a tough battle, but I fully expect Pep to outbox and outsmart the great champion for a close decision in a classic battle.


Do you realize Pep talent and natural gifts wise is on the level of sugar ray robinson? Sorry I just dont see most featherweights coming close to beating Willie Pep in his prime.

 

Sandy Saddler, Humberto Sierra, Phil Terranova, Eddie Compo Albert Chalky Wright, Sal Bartolo, were all very good top contenders/champions/fighters. Pep dominated in a deep 1940s era.

 

Except that he has none of the power of Robinson whatsoever.

I think Pep would probably fare better against Arguello than he would a guy like Nelson or Fenech to be honest. History shows us that stylists of that nature are the most difficult for Pep. Again, not saying he'd lose more often than not against a guy like Fenech, just that he was capable of it.

On the other hand, I think Pedroza is a terrible matchup for Pep and actually would beat him more often than not.

 

IMO, Pep's style was suited to fighting often. He kept his engine oiled fighting as often as he did considering he fought a lot of nobodies. It's not as if he was physical type of fighter who took many punches and was in wars. He was perhaps the greatest defensive fighter in the history of the sport to many observers. Whitaker would probably have done equally as well if he fought in the same era fighting lightweights.

 

Oh i don't take anything away, i just like the other division as deeper, that's all. And as Sweet Pea has outlined, we could be adding in the likes of Pedroza possibly, depending on the cut off dates here.

 

And yes Pedroza is a ad matchup for him, always thought this.

 

He more than makes up for it in other areas. In my opinion p4p, Pep is by far the hardest fighter to outpoint in history. He is the best all around Boxer of all time. I do think you underrate Peps offense. Willie was quite the combination puncher, and had some late stoppages over some durable top ranked contenders.

I respect and like Fenech. But in my opinion, I think Pep is on a whole different planet than Fenech and would outclass him badly. Say 12 rounds to 3 type decision. Not a kick in the arse to Fenech, I think Pep would do this to most featherweights in his prime.

Either you grossely underrate Pep, or I underestimate Pedrozas h2h ability...

Sander Saddler is far better in every department than pedroza including pressure and dirtiness. STILL, a past his prime Willie Pep easily outboxed Saddler in 3 of the 4 outings. Saddler is MUCH MUCH better than Pedroza. Honestly take Willie Pep in his prime, and I doubt if Pedroza wins more than 1 round of 15 against Pep. Ive watched plenty of Pedroza, he struggled with movers. Footwork would make him dizzy. Combinations/technical boxing was his nightmare. Even 2nd raters like bernard Taylor he could not beat. Others(lockride, laporte) took him to the brink of defeat. He was not dominant in the ring....Willie Pep was. If you won more than 4 rounds out of 15 against Willie Pep, it was a huge accomplishment. Pedroza simply does not have the physical tools to cope with Peps style, let alone skills. Pedroza would be outclassed BADLY. Pedroza never proved himself vs the great fighters of the era. In fact the best fighter he fought, Alfonso Zamora, he got knocked out by. To compare Pedroza vs the greatest featherweight and one of the best h2h fighters of all time...is really pushing it


Pep by SHUTOUT 13 rounds to 2 decision over Pedroza

 

Pep beats all of Whitakers opponents. Whitaker was never really in with the experienced type Pep fought and beat, I would expect a few losses on Sweat Peas resume but I do think his talent would surface. Remember most of Pep's losses came after the plane crash that he could have retired from...Willie loved boxing and pass on a huge settlement after the crash to come back. Sweat Pea was bigger and had the better success in the higher weight classes

 

To beat a Prime Willie Pep..you need FREAKISH PHYSICAL TOOLS, Great punching power in both fists, superhuman strength and pressure, Dirty instincts and a solid jab. Sandy Saddler had most of these traits but a Past his Prime Willie Pep still managed to find a way. I dont think Saddler beats Pep in his prime. Saddler is one of the few feathers in history who has these tools. I dont think most feratherweights would come close to beating Pep.