from what i read it seems many think that saddler had pep's number, and is a blotch on pep's resume... i must say, it doesn't seem like that to me at all. the first two fights were split, and the second pair were pretty even too. sure pep retired in the third fight, but based on the footage i've seen he seemed very much in control before an unfortunate injury. if anything, this rivalry adds a lot to the careers of both men. what do you guys think?
The Willie Pep that I saw in 1943, completely dominate Allie Stolz,a top lightweight,would have licked Sandy Saddler in my opinion, most every time. This was before Willie's terrible plane crash in 1947,when Pep was severely injured. I saw Saddler box a couple of times. He was a tall elongated rough and tough boxer,who was as strong as most lightweights,but fairly easy to hit...but the Pep of 1947,was not the Pep that i saw in 1943. Willie lost a step or two, in the plane crash in 1947...And speed was his forte...
amazing that you saw him live. so there was a major difference before and after the crash? taking that into account his achievements are all the more remarkable. sometimes i see saddler ranked above pep on all-time great lists (i assume because he has three wins over pep head to head), i take it you disagree with this assessment?
I sure do. When Pep was in his prime he was virtually unbeatable. Sandy Saddler,though a tough,rough hombre was beaten every so often.But he was great. His arms were like steel cables ,and his punches and bar brawl fighting overwhelmed his opponents. But this is interesting- I never recall Saddler challenge Ike Williams for a shot at Ike's lightweight crown...Never. That speaks for itself...Nor for that matter Willie Pep,never challenged Williams,for a bout... On the other hand the great Johnnie Dundee,who fought Benny Leonard several times...Dundee was a different bread of cat...A minuature Harry Greb. A rubber ball, tough as nails fighting in a tough era...
ah interesting. i've always wondered myself why pep didn't get involved in the mix for the lightweight title at any point. why didn't he? not confident enough? do you think he could have pulled off some big wins at lightweight? maybe he would have tried had the division not been so stacked at the time...
G,In fairness to the "Will of the Wisp",Pep did defeat the top lightweight boxer willie Joyce in 1944.Joyce was a great stylist boxer, but was no threat as a puncher.But Willie or Sandy wanted no part of Beau Jack or Bob Montgomery,both would have been too strong for either of these featherweights. For that matter, the greatest fighter I ever saw live, Ray Robinson chose a light punching light heavyweight Joey Maxim to fight,rather than an Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Harold Johnson,etc. These guys just hit too HARD. Pep, Saddler, Robinson, wisely knew their limitations,and made the correct choices for them... But a Fitz, Greb, Langford, Armstrong,etc were a different breed apart. They had no limitations ! Cheers...
I wouldn't use the word "afraid " to fight Ike Williams. The word is WISE.. He knew he had very little chance against the murderous punching Williams. Nor for that matter, my favorite action fighter Beau Jack. Nor Bob Montgomery,all who i have seen at MSG. Willie would have made a fortune to fight any of these three, but had zilch chance to win. And so with Saddler...Were Henry Armstrong,whom i saw lose to Ray Robinson in 1943 when he was a fading fighter, still in his featherweight prime, he would have tackled a Williams, Jack,Montgomery, for sure.. This is why swarmer I, and many,many others, are still in AWE of Harry Greb. He had no fear nor limitations..He had a style that combined enourmous speed of hand and foot,along with the toughness and physical strength to outrough any bigger men,regardless of weight. One tough ******* was the Pittsburgh Windmill !
thanks for your response, great to hear from someone who saw these fighters live! i guess as elusive as pep was, he would surely have been hit flush at least a couple of times by those guys, and that would have been that. really makes you appreciate the greatness of armstrong and greb, to surge through such talent-filled divisions, just knowing that their chins and power would hold up. back to pep... have you ever seen another boxer as defensively astute as him? in any division?
No;in his ability to anticipate his opponents next move,and dodge the bullet at the split second ,harry houdini,with gloves on. Pernell whitaker,had that ability too as a lightweight also.But pernell was a southpaw, with southpaw's advantages against orthodox fighters. Plus Pep held his greatness for close to FOUR times as many fights,that Whitaker had in his entire career. Big,big difference, I believe.As far as classic boxing style, there was a fighter in the 1940s called Tippy Larkin. A lightweight supreme boxer ,who Dan Parker, a great boxing writer of the times,called a Benny Leonard,without the chin. Tippy seldom ever lost a decision. He had to be knocked out to lose. How good was he as a pure boxer ? He won 9 out of 10 rounds from the prime master boxer Billy Graham in 1947. If Tippy Larkin had Billy Graham's beard, he would be as good, if not better than Pep,because he was a sharp two handed puncher...If, If, If..:good
yeah good point about whitaker's stance advantage. i guess there have been a few 'defence only' fighters, nico locche being one of them, but pep was so much more than that! i'll try to find some footage of larkin, thanks for the insight burt :thumbsup
I think the first time Saddler caught a pretty unaware Pep, who may have taken him slightly lightly. Still a great win though. In the rematch I feel Pep proved himself as a great and established himself as the better fighter. The subsequents fights actually show Pep in good light as he looks in controll just is unfortunate in them IMO. I think its the case of Pep being the better fighter and Saddler having a bad style for him, but not half as much as is made out.
