Willie Pep deserved better...

Well damn, seems Stonehands was doing a bit of exagerrating.

 

Please read the posts and refrain from misquoting me. Who said it was one-sided? Who said Pep was shot?

I said it was a miraculous win considering the circumstances. I said that he had no business ever beating Saddler after the plane crash. I don't think for a moment that Pep would have handled Saddler easily before the plane crash. Saddler struck me as Pep's foil. Which heightens the win in a manner somewhat similar to Holyfield's defeat of Bowe.

 

--especially when you misquote and distort what I wrote.

 

Had you read that, what context would you take it in? I took it that you meant his win was a much better display of boxing brilliance than Locche's win over Fuji or some of Whitaker's best displays. You referenced those two and then claimed they both paled in comparison to Pep's win over Saddler. I took it to mean you believed it to be a more dominant, one sided, brilliant display.

 

Just because a battle isn't "one-sided" doesn't mean for a moment that it isn't brilliant. In fact, a brilliant display of strategy and skill and talent is best shown against live guys who are real threats. Saddler was a serious threat to any featherweight who ever lived. The beating Pep got testifies to the seriousness of the opponent and the win testifies to his greatness.

 

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

Again he held the "P4P" title because he was damn good with a superb number of wins under his belt against Taylor, Camacho, etc, at LWW. Your right in saying he wasn't at his peak at LWW, but he fought in that division the longest throughout his career.

Stonehands also mentioned the amount of fights and wins Pep had throughout his career. Whitaker's fight/win ratio is pale in comparison. Whitaker's wasn't in a tragic accident like Pep either to prove he could come back from something similar. Anyway, thats irrelevant as we are comparing facts. Different era when it comes to the number of fights, I'm sure thats agreed on. The chances of Whitaker having 200 + fights, as slim as slim can be.

Pep should have a black mark against him as he never moved up, only when stacking his career against Whitaker's right enough. Because Whitaker at only 5' 6" with hardly a massive frame, moved up three divisions past his best weight. Pep did not move up from featherweight and claim a title.

Looking at the type of style Pep possesed, superb movement, great skills, pin-point accurate punches, ring generalship, and generally regarded as a defensive genius. He had the ideal ingredients to make bigger men look foolish. Junior divisions weren't around then unlike Whitaker's era, but many fighters back then were moving up. Robinson from WW to MW, Charles LW to HW, and Artmstrong won titles at FW, LW, and WW.

Pep had over 200 fights and was consistent. Whitaker never had anywhere near as many fights. Advantage Pep.

Whitaker moved up and won titles in four weight divisions, Pep never. Advatange Whitaker.

 

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

 

For what its worth, I ranked Pep second in my top P4P list since 1950 (in my book BOXING IS MY SANCTUARY). Locche was an incredible defensive fighter as well capable of doing things in the ring that most could only dream about...and I have the footage to back that up. :bbb Peace. But to the point, more boxing ppeople should have attended the services in my opinion. :think

 

Quote where I said that please. Someone mentioned Saddler's win over Pep's being better than any of Pea's wins by far, and I responded by pointing out Pea's win over Chavez, which is on the same level the way I see it, considering how it was done.

Based on resumes, you could make a good argument for both being outside of the top 10, surely. I give Whitaker the edge because I considered him a more overall skilled boxer, just slightly. Anyone who sees anything wrong with someone thinking Whitaker is more skilled is foolish. Bottom line.

 

And that slight edge would see Whitaker do the opposite of what Pep did against Saddler. He'd win three fights, and lose one. Different weights, but matching them as close to each other as possible with both retaining speed and power, Whitaker would have put a clinic on Saddler.

The first man to convincingly beat up Whitaker was Trinidad, one of the hardest punchers of the modern era. If Trinidad was around during the 40's, trust me when I say this, many bodies would have slumped to the canvas. And make no mistake about, Whitaker was shot at the age of 35 when he fought Trinidad. Reflexes gone, speed diminished, and ring generalship in disarray.

 

No matter how skilled Whitaker was, how finely tuned he was physically, how quick he was, and basically how he came together as a package. How can he be overall more skilled than Pep? He wasn't around when Winston Churchill was prime minister of the United Kingdom, and coloured television was two or three decades away. If Whitaker was even superman, tough, he wasn't born back in Pep's day.

 

...complete and utter foolishness.

I would love to know what Sweet Pea and Robbi have as the factors deciding how great a fighter is, the problem is that it is likely that they would go into contortions in order to propel their hero higher than he should be.

Sweet Pea seems to hold that "skill" is the deciding factor. Robbi seems to hold "performance against larger men" as the deciding factor.

How convenient that they do not really factor in the major factors of longevity, win/loss ratio (Robbi's blip of this notwithstanding), and dominance.

I have to state that I find their defensiveness about Whitaker annoying. This thread is entitled "Willie Pep deserved better...." -and after this thread, he still does -only more so.

The whole Whitaker tangent began with Sweet Pea asserting that Whitaker's draw against Chavez was at least as impressive as Pep's comeback from death and then defeat, in a blood and guts victory over the great Sandy Saddler. This is also utter foolishness and his subsequent arguments on that score fail -clearly- to any objective mind.

 

I hold that performance at higher weights is matched by Pep's longevity(considering it's not as though his resume was stacked like Greb's over the great amount of fights), and that Whitaker's overall skill advantage in my opinion gives him the slight edge. I personally believe Whitaker to be a better fighter in the ring, which is my main point when bringing up these debates.

Robbi has mentioned Pep's longevity damn near every post, so let's not try all that.

As said above, Pep's longevity is matched by Whitaker's success at higher weights. Win/loss ratio goes in favor of Pep because of robberies in Pea's career, otherwise(by my account) Whitaker actually is on par or holds a slight edge in ratio. Another thing, over half of Whitaker's fights were against titlists or ranked contenders, nothing like the same with Pep's, but that is understandable given the amazing number of fights. Dominance? I feel no question Whitaker in his prime was as dominant as not only Pep, but anyone. I feel he was never even tested at LW, his best weight. Unlike Pep, who lost in his prime.

Sorry, but you made a remark comparing the two(you, not us) and I made a simple one word post in response.

Pep was past his prime(as he was for about 18 years no less) in his fight with Saddler. Whitaker was near his prime, but not at his prime weight, Chavez was past his prime, but still nowhere near shot. All top notch fighters, none quite prime, except for Saddler. Advantage Pep on that point. Pep lost 3 of 4, and his win was not as dominant as Whitaker's win over Chavez. Advantage Whitaker. If you want to hold Pep's singular win as more meaningful, do so, I was merely stating, when this argument started, that Pea had in fact, beaten someone of Saddler's caliber.