Ring P4P Top 10 1922-2012.

McLarnin is a bad matchup for Forrest IMO. Forrest open to wide shots and likes to fight in his rhythm

 

I knew I was forgetting something. Apologies for the delay.

It's a simple point... Fighting local heroes with no chance as a favor to small towns who just wanted to see greatness is far better for a fighter than not fighting! I don't care if Pep fought Glass Joe 50 times, it's still riskier than going to parties with mummified celebrities.

242 fights dwarfs 40 fights, no matter how you slice it. If you would like to examine Pep's record and find the names of 202 "tomato cans," be my guest.

I'd say 95% too (...........if I didn't recognize the names).

 

If we could make a comparison in a fight to their careers. Leonard would be throwing 20 punches a round and landing 10, Pep would be throwing 80 and landing 10.

"I'd say 95% too (...........if I didn't recognize the names)" Exactly, we don't recognise most of the names because they were tomato cans.

If you can somehow find the unrecognizeable names on his list as very good or great fighters, be my guest. :good

 

Huh?

Nah, lets not reverse things. I'm not going to do your work for you! After all, you are the one charging that "95% of Pep's opponents were tomato cans."

 

Thats simple to work out.......read again.

 

Leonard mopped the floor with several of the top ten en route to his title shot and nobody gives a flying turd. People make it seem that the four or five biggest wins he had were the only competitive fighters he got in the ring with. If that were the case, it'd be even more amazing. He may of catapulted himself into the spotlight with his gold medal, but you still have to get in the ring and do it. It always comes back to his biggest wins, the ones in which you're fighting at the highest level and that define a career.

 

Leonard was great, no one's disputing that. Was he greater than Pep?

"Yes" is a strrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrretch.

And trying to dismiss Pep's 242 fights ain't the way to do it.

 

That's Robbi. :deal

I'd say "Maybe", based on his best of the best wins. For many, this is the single most important factor, overshadowing title reigns, defenses, longevity, etc. And Leonard would indeed have to be great... Duran beating him damn near eclipsed his entire career and is the biggest reason he finds himself in the the top ten. The man compiled a 71-1 record, made a record number of defenses at lightweight, is still the only former LW champion to claim any portion of the middleweight title (even in this day of abcd trinkets). He could've beaten anybody for the WW title and would've been the first former LW to so in 44 years. You know all this... and yet, it has as much to do with Leonard's ability and skills as the reason being it's arguably the greatest win at 147, or anywhere for that matter. :good

I wouldn't undermine the risks a fighter takes each time he steps into the ring. Pep's longevity and consistency are certainly enough to give him a case over most fighters. The fact that he looks awesome on film only add to his case. And of course, he didn't fight all bums. He makes the cut in all areas. Leonard has a screaming surplus in Greatest wins and skills, but falls woefully short in other areas compared to the other legends he's standing next to.

 

I'm not saying Pep wasn't great. However, I think people make rate him so highly based on the amount of fights he had, although his skillset and wins against Saddler and Wright, etc, obviously count a great deal. All I'm highlighting is that the massive amount of fights and wins he had would look better if he fought and beat more very good or great fighters. Pep was fighting four, five times a month for a few reasons..... 1. He was a very good defensive boxer. 2. I also believe that the competition in the vast majority of his fights was weak to say the least. They were more or less sparring sessions. I have no doubt whatsoever, that a similar fighter like Whitaker could have chalked up a similar record if he was matched with the same calibre of opponents Pep was put in with.

I have just browsed through Pep's record on Boxrec. And some of the fighters he fought in his prime had shocking records. Infact, all the way through his career the vast majority were journeymen to say the least.

Pep had finished with a record of 229-11-1.

Why did he have that record? Not just because he was a superbly skilled fighter....but also the reasons below.

Here are some fighters records at the time Pep fought them and some of them ended up with there numbers looking even worse when they hung up their gloves.

Harold Gibson

This content is protected

-

This content is protected

-0
Mexican Joe Rivers

This content is protected

-

This content is protected

-0
Abie Kaufman

This content is protected

-

This content is protected

-9
Carlos Manzano

This content is protected

-

This content is protected

-1
Jimmy Joyce

This content is protected

-

This content is protected

-5
Georgie Knox

This content is protected

-

This content is protected

-2
Buddy Spencer

This content is protected

-

This content is protected

-3

He did defend his featherweight title against far better fighters than the ones listed above. However, Pep was fighting these types in or around his prime, often.

Tyson could have had one hell of a record if he fought professionally against Peter McNeeley quality four or five times a month in between his defenses.

 

Can you imagine the criticism the likes of Whitaker would have recieved if he was keeping warm in his prime fighting fighters who had no business being in the ring with him with records similar to what Pep was fighting.

Leonard taking a 5 year lay off and beating Hagler looks good for a reason. :good

I'll take quality over quantity any day of the week.

 

I couldn't disagree more. You offer 7 guys with bum records, which proves nothing at all.

I don't think that you realize how difficult it is to get in the ring and fight 100 times, never mind over 200 times. Boxing was a lifestyle for guys like Pep. Comparatively speaking, boxing was a hobby for Ray. A HOBBY.

Here's another thing -I think that your line of thinking here is very much like many others today. I call it "Floyd's fallacy." It places way to much of a premium on glamour. I just don't see much glamour on a guy with less than 50 fights. Ray's resume is exceptional, but the point remains that it is easier to fight once or twice a year than it is 4 or 5 times a month.

No one on the planet can say for certain that Ray Leonard could have maintained the kind of schedule that a Saddler, or a Pep, or a Moore, or a Cocoa Kid maintained for years on end.

Here's some Pep facts for you, complements of Manassa:
....................
A list of 'name' fighters beaten, i.e., ones who were rated in the RING's top ten at one point or another (although, apart from a few exceptions, they were mostly rated at or near the time he beat them):

Spider Armstrong
Pedro Hernandez x2
Bobby Ivy
Vince Dell'Orto x2
Bill Speary x2
Allie Stolz
Sal Bartolo x3
Jackie Wilson x2
Willie Roache x2
Willie Joyce
Lulu Constantino
Joey Peralta
Charley Lewis x3
Phil Terranova
Jackie Graves
Lefty LaChance x2
Humberto Sierra x2
Jock Leslie
Miguel Avacedo
Teddy Davis x3
Paddy DeMarco
Eddie Compo
Harold Dade
Charley Riley
Ray Famechon
Bobby Bell x2
Carlos Chavez
Eddie Chavez
Baby Neff Ortiz
Rodolfo Gonzales
Gil Cadilli
Chalky Wright x4
Manuel Ortiz
Sandy Saddler

It's worth noting that many of the fighters he beat were heavier than him by nearly a full division.
...............


Pep fought those 34 guys 51 times. Ray had 36 wins total.

 

Stonehands,

Out of curiosity, what is the highest placing range Leonard has an argument for on your list: 16-20, 21-25, worse?

 

Good list i like where Henry Armstrong is placed, i agree that Barney Ross should be on there

 

Quantity in and of itself doesn't mean much, but when you beat a high quantity of good fighters, as Pep did, that DOES mean a lot. It speaks for his dominance, which is one of my big p4p criteria.

But even as far as quality goes, I don't think Pep is really all that lacking if at all. Especially if you consider the timing of when he beat the guys he did and when Ray beat the guys he did.

For instance, I think Sandy Saddler, at the point Pep beat him, was a better fighter than anyone Ray ever beat at the time that he beat them, Tommy Hearns included.

Someone like Willie Joyce is arguably as good as the Benitez win. I know Benitez was good, but if we look at how Willie beat guys like Ike Williams, we're talking about a seriously good fighter here.

IMO Ray got edged by Hagler. Is an old Hagler really better than say a prime Sammy Angott, who edged Pep?

If you think he beat Hagler, how about a prime Paddy DeMarco, who Pep beat?

Was Roberto Duran, in the condition he was in, really better than a Manuel Ortiz, who was in the middle of his prime when he lost to Pep?

Even if you think Ray's wins are of a higher calibre, I don't think you can just dismiss the fact that Pep beat a lot of good fighters.

The fact that Pep beat 200 guys is not in and of itself much of a claim. But if you look at how he beat about 30 guys that were of good calibre or better, that IS impressive.

 

After 25. While you have to score him high in Ring Generalship and even Experience despite his 40 fights, he gets really hurt in two categories -Longevity and Dominance.