Pender disparaging Robby's boxing ability

I feel like there is a lot of semantics here, on top of bitterness.

 

Simply watch him on film, it's pretty easy to see what he may or may not have had.

 

Ray Robinson, like Roy Jones Jr. and Ali didn't need to be technically
perfect.
They had innate physical abilities most boxers in history simply
didn't have.
So Pender may be correct in his opinion of Willie Pep having
better skills overall.
But if they were the same size, and in the prime of their
career's Robinson beat's Pep nine out of ten times.
Which is the ultimate reason and result of fighting.
To beat the other guy.

 

Film is my absolute favorite way of determining one's talents and flaws

 

Hes kinda right, but its because Robinson was a great puncher that he never had to master that more outboxing safety first style to begin with. Robinson did what was best for himself

 

Robinson was first and foremost an aggressive fighter, who wanted to unleash his powerful combinations. We don’t typically think of fighters like that as “boxers,” we think of them as fighters. I don’t think that’s an inaccurate description of Ray.

 

I honestly think he’s 100% correct. It’s not an insult, maybe the line about Pep’s shoes can come off that way but Pep is Pep, one of the finest pure boxers to ever live.

 

Well, we know Willie could shine Sandy Saddler’s shoes as much time as he spent on the canvas looking at them.

 

Sandy was a great boxer too, no shame in it, I believe Peps best performance was his win over Saddler, Saddler really knew how to take the Wisp out of his game didn’t he? Do you dislike Pep or just trying to shake the bird cage a little lol?

 

I have all the respect in the world for Pep. I hold him in the highest regard.

I just think Sandy was better and people will do all sorts of gymnastics to avoid the conclusion that the guy who won 3 out of 4 (all by stoppage) was the better featherweight. Saddler’s three wins over Pep are far better than his best three wins at 126.

Pep put on one gorgeous performance, a true all-timer, to win once in the series, but Sandy mopped the floor with him the other three. And we’ll get the usual ‘Sandy was a dirty fighter’ without acknowledging that Willie was absolutely just as in-the-gutter, rough-and-tumble in their meetings. But people like Willie more so they just brush that off and paint him as a victim (and ignore that Saddler absolutely starched him with no allegations of rough stuff in their first meeting).

 

Emotion, bias (both ways) and some not knowing what they are looking at.

People aren't created equal hence the varying opinions. Some don't know jack, others are brilliant, and then we have everything in between. There will be comments from people that have barely ever seen Robinson or Pep fight, let alone watched virtually their entire catalogue. Some you'd need a blowtorch to get Mayweather some credit out of them, others will steadfastly claim he is the GOAT and argue anything toward that endeavor.

So watch for yourself, and reinforce that via opinions that are in depth and concise from people that you think are consistently strong in their views.

Pender fought Robinson when he was over the hill. It was a decade after he'd left welterweight, it was 9 years after he first won the middleweight title. Ask yourself what sort of version Pender faced. He says how he hit him with left jabs blah blah, why would he not at that career stage? LOL. The AP scored the first fight for Robinson by 4 points and ringside press heavily favored him as well. "This was a pale copy of the old Robinson". Ray was worse again in the rematch with Pender the popular winner. "Robinson, a bedraggled cariacture of the Sugar Ray that used to be".

Take into account that Pender is throwing forward one of the best "pure" boxers in history against a guy that is far more aggressive, looking to attack and knock you outcold with that disgusting blend of speed and power. While not chalk and cheese it's halfway there. Watch Robinson fight. Were there periods when he had/wanted to ease off the throttle and box? What did he do against bigger stronger guys like, say Maxim? Could he pile up rounds when not on the front foot all the time?

 

Yes agreed but some points I disagree on, didn’t Pep quit in a fight he was winning handily? He still lost but I don’t believe Sandy outright KO’d him or stopped him? nor was he winning? till Pep had enough being roughed up by the bigger stronger Mr Saddler is that correct? I haven’t checked but it came to me. Saddler really knew how to take Pep out of the fight, that mauling style of his was a great foil for Pep (Saddler was also a legit great) I also agree that Pep was dirty, I think mostly every pro is and I couldn’t care if Saddler was or wasn’t it just is as it is, it’s like when people say “OH without the PED’s Holyfield would…” I evaluate them as they are, what they weigh how they fought dirty or not etc. I’m not a Pep “fan” where I’ll defend the honour of a long dead boxer who couldn’t care less but I do believe Saddlers nasty work was a huge component in the win, he was dammed got at putting it all together with his real work which was damn fine, again I get critiqued for saying “Oh that guys not a great” blah blah blah but I think SS was GREAT but also a great with a big style advantage on a reduced Pep… sorry if this is written a little schizophrenic I am suffering from not slept in 30 something hours syndrome.

 

It's like a lot of posters on this site have the opnion Ray Leonard was a " runner". ( And when they write that nonsense, it instantly tells me their real knowledge of the sport)
Leonard wasn't a runner, he was an aggressive boxer-puncher that could fight on his toes when he needed to.
Ray Robinson didn't need to be as slick as Willie Pep.
Simply because Robinson had tools and physicality Pep didn't have.
Ray Robinson, Roy Jones Jr. And Muhammad Ali had physical advantages over everyone they faced in their primes.
They didn't need to be technically perfect.
Because they could do things in a boxing ring technically better fighters simply couldn't do.