The greatest boxer of all time...

Fair call prolly. He certainly deserved the nods over Ramirez and Chavez.

 

For all of Pea's technical prowess, crossing his feet and leaving himself vulnerable to being dropped by being countered when off balance was one of Pea's many repeated technical offences. He got away with it, predominantly, because his footspeed, judgment of range and reflexes were so good. His crossing of the feet is something that was picked up on and. if memory serves me correctly, mentioned a fair no. of times during the commentary for the first fight with Ramirez.

 

jack johnson

 

The angles that he dodged punches from would still be an aspect of technical prowess. The crossing of his feet is a major technical "don't do". Pea was an amazing fighter, but let's not paint him perfect ... and yes, he was able to do it without running.

 

I was just watching Angott's fight with Slugger White. Great pressure fighter and kind of reminds me of a more skilled version of Ricky Hatton. But I don't think he beats Pernell and here's why:

Whitaker had the strength to fight well in the clinches, whereas Pep never did. Pernell wasn't Hercules, but pressure fighters never had any success against him not only becuase of his evasiveness but becuase whenever they did get him on the inside, they were surprised by how competent Whitaker was there. See the rude awakening Chavez got in the second half of his fight with Pea for evidence of that.

Another reason that I think Pernell beats Angott, whereas someone like Pep couldn't, is that Pep relies heaps on sideways movement, and as Angott loved to barge his way in with hooks, he was able to keep Pep within his wingspan and then move in with his post-punch-hug routine.

Against someone like Whitaker, who fights more on the backfoot than side to side, Angott would be leaping in with hooks and constantly running into Pernell's jab and counter lefts. Once on the inside Whitaker will hang with him and hold his own, neutralising any edge Angott enjoys on the inside.

It will be an ugly, rugged fight, but I don't see Angott being ahead at the end, be it 12 or 15 rounds.

And oh, I think Pep is greater than Pea, but Pea is better against pressure fighters.

 

But he fought some of the great guys like Saddler after he was past his prime, and after his horrble plane crash. Its hard to get footage of him in his prime, but he was better than Pernell when he was.

 

:good

 

I'm not arguing that Pep is the more complete fighter, because he is not. But he wasn't the same after the plane crash, and thats the footage you are most likely seeing. Also, IMO the quality of footage has a lot to do with what people think and see. Which IMO is why a lot of people think the heavyweight division right now is better than the one say 50 years ago, 40 years ago. Other then them just being morons its the footage quality. You can't base everything on what you see. Because a lot of times its not the whole thing.

 

Joe Louis

 

Sugar Ray Robinson.

 

Pernell was an innovator and he fought in an extremely unorthodox manner ("shimmy and shake" is merely a fancy way of saying that) -that isn't close-minded. The point is that Angott may have been the most seasoned ever at neutralizing a stylist.

Pernell was absolutely not a "damn near technically perfect boxer." As a matter of fact, his game was actually "anti-technique" -he threw off the other guy's timing and used a mode of attack based on odd angles and imaginative combinations. The whole style was formed around creating illusions and capitalizing on missed shots. But in so doing, he could be off balance and open. Sometimes wide-open... then his athleticism would kick in and a guy like Ramirez, as good as was with conventional boxers, couldn't do much with that.

I would agree that Angott's chances probably depend on the era and a liberal referee.

 

Barney Ross, no ifs ands or butts about it.

 

Sugar Ray Robinson.

 

Sugar Ray Robinson