Willie Pep deserved better...

I get annoyed that thread is called "Willie Pep deserved better" and the first thing robbi does is says "Willie Pep was no Pernell Whitaker" and then goes on to have a ******ed ***** fit with Manassa for like four pages of the forum. That just seems disrespectful to a great fighter.

 

Willie Pep was great, end of story. If I want to say "Willie Pep was no Pernell Whitaker" in terms of overall skill then thats the way it goes. I meant it with a twinkle in the eye, as they clearly are in each others league, the same league to be more precise. Also Pep deserves to be ahead of him "P4P". But you have to mind I'm putting in a case for Whitaker. Just because Pep had more fights, and he recovered from a tragic accident, it automatically puts him ahead of Whitaker?. His longevity at the top was longer, as he had more fights. But Whitaker moved up three divisions out of his comfort zone, Pep did not.

 

The Rings top 15 best fighters of the last 80 years.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Joe Lous
5. Roberto Duran
6. Willie Pep
7. Harry Greb
8. Benny Leonard
9. Sugar Ray Leonard
10. Pernell Whitaker
11. Carlos Monzon
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Ezzard Charles
14. Archie Moore
15. Sandy Saddler

* 18. Julio Cesar Chavez.

 

Many, many, many historians and analysts who have either seen Pep live or studied the films far more extensively than you would call your casual remark about how Whitaker being "more skilled than Pep" as foolishness. If you want to thumb your nose at legions, so be it.

My problem with you and Robbi is that you both are far too casual in your opinions regarding both Whitaker and Jones. We are all painfully aware of how amazed you both are at these two, but I suspect that I am not alone in my suspicions that you are not nearly as studious about the greats of yesteryear. So we call you on it. Then you go on the defensive and write post after post -many of which are riddled with fallacies and faulty argumentation, and that may at times even make cogent points. The problem hereagain, as I have already stated before in another thread, is that you begin with the premise and the assumption that Whitaker is superior to all mortals and then go from there. Neither of you approach the question thoughtfully.

Robbi has mentioned Pep's longevity begrudgingly -and in order to set up his check/checkmate of Pep before someone else can remind him of the plain fact. I see that Robbi ranks Pep ahead of your hero in terms of greatness ---do you?

I disagree yet again. Longevity, as I see it, is a more basic factor than "success at higher weights"... why? Because we should not unduly reward cherry-pickers over guys that dominate their divisions for a decade. Dominance is a major basic factor for greatness.

There are many who scoff at any fighter being considered an elite who has had less than 50 fights. I tend to agree with them.

If you like, you can call that little comment couched in my tribute post bait to prove that you are defensive about Whitaker.

Wrong!! The welterweight Chavez was nowhere near the featherweight Saddler's caliber -and your contortions will never make it so.

 

I will freely admit that Pep deserves to be mentioned above Whitaker overall in a "P4P" sense when taking everything into account. However, when it comes to pure boxing skills and what both fighters could do inside the ring, I see Whitaker as a better fighter. As I have stated, Whitaker was as good as anyone, probably better, at boxing effectively going backwards. And from what I have seen, his jab was better than Pep's. Thrown with venom, snappier.

If I happened to be around in the 40's and 50's or Pep happened to be around today with most of his fights being available for viewing, I could well change my tune. You only make the call as you see fit. Some people read about Pep, listen to the high esteem he's held in by old time writers, look at his record, the amount of fights he's had, and say he was better than someone like Whitaker. Its an opinion, not a plain fact. Both fighters were rather awesome the in era's they fought in.

Others from todays era might look at, lets say 8 Pep fights, and don't know much else about his other wins, and look at Whitaker's career and say he was better. Mostly all of Whitaker's fights are available from DVD collectors, and the quality of his opponents are can be better researched, most anyway. Each individual might bring their conclusion together differently, and have one over the other.

 

The above list IMO, has been put together and fairly constructively from probably Nigel Collins, The Ring editor. Now, I'm not having a pop at Manassa's list. But I viewed his "P4P" list a few weeks ago. Some damn fine fighters he's got listed as well. The Armstrong's, the Langfords, the Charles'. He's even got Toni Canzoneri just outside his top 10. But I noticed he doesn't have many fighters from the last 50 years within his top 15. If memory serves me correctly, Duran and Ali are the only ones. I probably would have more fighters from the last 50 years inside the top 15 than Manassa. Stonehands might not agree with Whitaker being above Charles, and Manassa might argue why other fighters are not included above.

One thing I can agree on with the list above, its not laughable IMO. Some places I agree with, some I don't. Depending on what criteria people use. Does longevity mean more than fighters moving up divisions and picking up titles?. What about skill, should that be held more strongly over achievements?. Should a fighter be penalised on the list because he only had 40 or 50 fights?.

 

I'm not going to throw in a few moderners just to make up their numbers, spread 'em about a bit. No - the older fighters accomplished greater things - that's a near fact. They fought more. Archie Moore fought at the top level for years and years; of course he's going to achieve more.

... And 'even' Tony Canzoneri? Just because you don't know a lot about him, you don't have to say it like that.

And nobody is penalising anybody for having less fights. As I said - more fights equals more achievements, mostly. That's it. There is no addition of modern fighters just because it seems unfair to leave them off.

 

Many historians think someone like Bob Fitzsimmons would dominate today's era. You don't think there's a hint of bias for old timers in that?

Well you're wrong, at least as far as I go. I study the greats of the past very throughly. I rank most of them at the top, but I just think Pep in general is a bit overrated when you consider him the best ever with a resume not nearly as good as a Robinson, Greb, Charles, etc. In terms of boxing skill, I think he is equaled by quite a few(though perhaps not at his own style), some with better resumes, which is why I don't rank him quite as high as most do.

That's bull****.

No, as I have said time and time again, why do we always get into these arguments? You should know I rank Whitaker slightly ahead. Both arguably top 10. No real problems with someone ranking Pep ahead, but I feel I obviously have to defend by position of why I personally have Whitaker ahead.

Well, still, many many fighters beat better opposition than Pep. You can dominate a **** era and be called a dominant fighter, look at Mosley at LW. Not saying that about Pep, just saying in general. Again, dominance is a major factor, Whitaker dominated from 135 to 147. Pep dominated longer at one weight.

Leonard's not elite? Why? I'm the opposite. I think someone's ranking has to do with the competiton they face, rather than how many fights they have against lesser comp just to boost their record. Is Chavez greater than Whitaker?

I am. He is my favorite fighter, and I have my opinions and thoughts of him, If someone says he has no chance against Tommy Hearns, I will agree. If someone says he has no chance against Duran, I will call BS. I have my opinions of him and many other fighters, and will defend them.

Why do you guys make such a big deal out of Chavez fighting at WW? He was pretty much just as good as the Chavez who fought at 140, which I have explained.

 

No hard feelings. When I said "even" it was wasn't as if I was surprised you placed him there, not by any means. I do know about Canzonneri. He won the lightweight title twice, and at LWW he won the title. He battled Ambers and Berg, and was Italian-American. You will no doubt no more about him than myself, no question. One thing I do know about him, he fought often, was consistent, and was one the finest fighters from the 30's.

 

..fair enough. I shall try to let go of my grudge against you for the Whitaker gives Saddler a clinic comments.

 

I think that they often suffer from the same disorder as you. Additionally, I have gone to war with them several times over such assertions.

Actually I think I'm more wrong about Robbi in that part of the post than you. However, I see that you are at least attempting to think through what you write about Pep -which is appreciated.

Well, I threw some haymakers at you ---and never expected you to smile about it. And it was a sincere shot. Perhaps it will have the result of you examining your bias and striving for more objectivity. Perhaps not. Time will tell.

I didn't feel that there was any compelling need to tear Pep down on this thread of all threads in order to boost Whitaker. It annoyed the hell out of me -and others.

I question anyone's claim to greatness who hasn't had more than 50 fights. Leonard would be my first exception. However, 'elite' for me is top 5. Leonard doesn't make the top 10. Part of the reason was his lack of activity.

I don't remember you sayding that he has no chance against Hearns. Anyway, you should let go of your defensiveness and consider such questions with an open mind. You don't at this point. Your posts are good now, but you wouldn't invite counters because objectivity is gold around here -as it is in any debate or discussion.

Again, compared to a Sandy Saddler at featherweight, Chavez was a non-threat. You are just going to have to accept that. Whitaker would not be blasphemed if you did!

 

This content is protected

This content is protected