Willie Pep deserved better...

Pep was one of the greatest I know Carmen Basilio and Angelo Dundee rated him as the greastest fighter ever.

 

Pep was a tremendously skilled boxer. One of the greatest of all time, maybe even top 5 P4P. But make no mistake about it, he was no Whitaker. The only thing with seperates Pep being above Whitaker P4P, he had over 200 fights. He fought in an era when boxers were fighting every fornight, sometimes every week.

Whitaker was the best defensive fighter the history of the sport. What made him better?. Well he was equally as tough to hit, but his moves came with much more variety and pazazz.

What I will say with confidence. Pep couldn't box behind the jab like Whitaker while on the backfoot as an opponent was advancing. Backing up in a straight line while landing effective punches at the same time, not many can do it. Whitaker was the supreme master at reverse gear boxing.

 

Who cares is pep had over 200 fights, they both fought the same amount of contenders. Whitaker is greater than him.

 

I doubt you know much about Pep. I doubt because I know how you lack in boxing history before the '80s - we've come across this before in previous discussion.

So, then, you would not know that Pep was much more than a defensive boxer. You would not know that back in his day, back in his prime, he threw combinations with the grace of Ray Robinson. You would not know, because it has become all too common to think Pep was merely a boxer-mover, that in his youth he would often take the offence and bedazzle opponents with unorthodox flurries.

It is not simply a case of 'Whitaker defends as well as Pep.' Running and pecking was not all Pep had up his sleeve.

 

Whilst I think Whitaker looks a better defensive fighter than Pep on film let's be serious, there is hardly any footage of prime Pep out there. The few bits that are out there have poor speed tracking and you can't tell much from them.

Imagine all we had of Pea was his fights with Rivera and Hurtado in average quality film. We'd be saying Carlos Quintana had better defense than him, to say nothing of the other defensive masters.

What is evident on the film available of Pep though is that even at an advanced age, he threw some beautiful combinations whilst pivoting on his feet, and really I haven't seen even a prime Whitaker throw any better. One can only think how great of a combination puncher Pep was at his best.

 

I don't know much about Pep?. Well I do know a fair bit and enough to make an assesment. And I have seen footage of Pep on many ocassions, although its fairly limited to yourself as well as me. Well, one thing you were wrong about. He was more than a fighter who made an opponent miss all night. That I knew.

You said "you would not know that Pep was much more than a defensive boxer". Well he goes down as one of truely great defensive boxers ever, so when he springs to mind its defense which gets ingrained above everything else. And regarding his offense, I know he could flurry and score pin-point accurate punches upstairs and downstairs, ala Robinson. So for you to assume that I knew next to nothing about Pep is wrong.

In my previous post I compared both on defense, and stated why I thought Whitaker was better. I never said at any point that all Pep had was pecking and running going for him as a fighter.

I will always mind when we had the Whitaker v Duran debate months ago. You stated along the lines, I'll quote you accuratley as I can "Whitaker would lose to Duran because he stood inside and at arms length, he wasn't a mover". Well, that shows your lack of knowledge on Whitaker. So tit for tat.

I will freely admit I don't know as much as some others about old timers, but my knowledge on boxing history throughout all decades isn't too bad. Probably stronger on recent years because I want to look back when I'm 60 and say "I seen that fight live". And have a passion for todays greats. Unlike yourself who in 50 years time will still be banging on about Moore and Charles. Rightly so, but you'll not have moved with the times while your years advance.

I live for the moment when it comes to boxing, you don't. Now, there is no rule book to say as a teenager you must watch and study the game today, but I'm a bit broader minded than yourself.

To say todays fighters are "boring" is laughable. A comment you made on another thread just a few days ago.

 

Pep was the greatest lb 4 lb ever or at least top 3 with SSR and Henry Armstrong but Pep was a pure master

 

You've not convinced me.

I know that as well as anybody.

Well, to my advantage, before you have shown a lack of knowledge or naivity on various historical boxers. It's only right for me to assume you know little about Pep - and I still think that. I don't think he or other fighters of that era interest you enough for you to study them like I or certain others have.

Please do not misquote me. I said 'Whitaker did not move like Ray Leonard.' That means he didn't get on his bike in the same fashion as Leonard, and don't give me your examples (like the Nelson fight) because they just don't hold up.

To Whitaker's credit, I found his fighting style more effective than Leonard's overall; he was a more efficient fighter. However, Duran would suffocate him (just like he suffocated Leonard for that matter).

Broader minded, ha. In your disdain for older fighters, at times you are only a hair better than Brownpimp.

See, this is your problem; you don't like people disagreeing with you. You can't see beyond your fixed opinions; yes, I find them boring; they lack character and I don't believe they are all they're hyped up to be. As Stonehands pointed out earlier today, it is also perfectly reasonable to think boxers were better in the old days.

Of course, you'll never accept that, or even begin to fathom why someone would think that for any other reason than they are 'nuthuggers.' Ask yourself this: why, just what reason would I have to cling to the past? I'm a modern man. I like modern music, I like modern fashion - if anything, I should cling to the modern boxers. But I don't, because I like better what I see in ye olden days. What's your problem with that? Can you say I'm definitely wrong?

I find you to be a very strange character. Normally people are either top blokes, decent enough people or total wankers. You are none of these; you continue to somewhat harrass me on a near daily basis by quoting (or misquoting to your convenience) me on everything you disagree with, taunting me and insulting me with all kinds of unsavoury words and terms, yet when we speak on MSN or via PM you are all happy-chappy and matey. You're creepy in a way. Notice it's never me who initiates conversation; I don't even like you.

So, er, bollocks to you and bollocks to your opinions. I won't be replying.

 

Manassa "So, then, you would not know that Pep was much more than a defensive boxer"

Then I said. "Well, one thing you were wrong about. He was more than a fighter who made an opponent miss all night. That I knew"

Manassa "I know that as well as anybody"

I was stating to your first reply that I "knew", I wasn't trying to tell you something you never.

 

you could up load the Pep fights lol. I think I got em from UpWithEvil. Or was it SS?
I do have Pep vs Saddler 3 and 4, one of the fights 30 mins long, all 15 rounds with the Rock commenting. Amazing footage.

I was watching a Prime Chavez fight, and at the time Henry Armstrong had just died a week earler. And they gave Armstrong the ten bell ring before the main event.
Did Pep get a ten bell ring??? Nope, hell Max Scmeling didnt get a ten bell ring. What ever happen to that old honor?? I guess you have to die young to get that honor these days.

 

Doubt it was all 15 rounds, as neither Pep-Saddler III or IV went 15. I think it might have been 30 min from fights III & IV combined.

UNLESS YOU HAPPENED TO COME ACROSS A 30 MIN. VERSION OF PEP-SADDLER II, IN WHICH CASE GUARD IT WITH YOUR LIFE (but let's do another trade :yep )

 

right the last one went 9 rounds, and the other ten or something like that. I hardly watch it because fights 3 and 4 was too dirty of a fight for my taste.

 

The reason I haven't convinced you is because Im not agreeing with you. No other reason. If I stated Pep was better than Whitaker in all area's then no doubt you'd a happy man. But your not.

.

You never even read and responded to what I was coming back with. Not quite following the script.

Give me an example where I have shown a lack of knowledge. For example being entirely wrong on a fact concerning a historical fighter. Pep does interest me, maybe not quite to the extent he interests you right enough. But that doesn't mean to say my opinion regarding him is wrong. I have given him props and rated him among the best fighters ever, and thats not done with a serious lack of knowledge.

Well your now telling porky pies. You did say that Whitaker would have lost to Duran based on his "lack of movement". I will give you credit as you later tried to paper over the cracks and made the comparison with Leonard's strategy. But you did say Whitaker would lose to Duran based on lack of movement in your opinion.

Distain for older fighters?. I have picked many greats from the 40's and 50's over todays current crop. Your just a nuthugger full stop for Charles, Pep, and Armstong among others. Maybe Im not as into old timers as yourself, but to say I have a distain for them is wrong. Again, back to me disagreeing with you. It gets right under your skin more often than not.

Harrass you on a near daily basis. Thats over the top. Weekly basis I'd agree, but nah your totally wrong on "daily basis". What you don't like on here is me winding you up. Ive noticed that your a very sensitive young man when my fishing rod comes out, and I slowly wind the reel. With you I know your always tugging the end of the line. Caught. Taunting you, yes. Insulting you, no.

Your the strange one. Not me. See I can have laugh on here with others. I can disagree with others on boxing, Stonehands and JT. I sweep it under the carpet with them. It's in the past. It seems to be that once you take offence, you hold a grudge with a capital G. And may I ask what are the unsavoury words?. One thing I never do that you do on a regular basis is use bad language in posts. Thats just cheap and nasty. So have a look in the mirror when it comes to accussing me of "unsavoury words". Your making it out as if I have outright abused you with every nasty word in the dictionary.

I think your daily consumption of alcohol, and lack of sleep, doesn't do your brain much good. You have openly admitted to me on MSN your an alcoholic. That tells me you have the personality deficency. Because people with a drink problem react differently to others who don't. Hence, your very sensitive responses.

If you read back, the Pep-Whitaker debate was strictly boxing, until you were the one who got personal first in your very last reply.

 

Now there's some fights in need of a Joe Cortez!

 

It was me, on the same DVD with Jim Jeffries spitting a loogie

Gentleman, with Dempsey1238's kind approval:good, I offer you just a taste of some rare fruit - the great Willie Pep in the ring in 1945 - two years prior to his nearly-fatal airplane crash.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/btzrvt

I have about 15 minutes of footage in total and it's an interesting fight. Walton does a good bit of holding and mugging early but Willie starts to get his timing on point in the middle rounds.

The clip is encoded with the Xvid codec and has not been deinterlaced. Enjoy.