i've heard the argument made that whitaker had a more multi tiered defense. i can see that in a way but pep was a master of the fundamentals of defense to such a degree that you couldn't always tell what he was doing, so subtle were his movements and tricks. whitaker's defense was more eye catching and flashy at times but i don't see it being more effective
It's all six and half a dozen really. you either have a great defence or you don't, for the most part.I've not came across any one great defensive specialist i've thought was ahead of the pack by any real amount...though of course some are greater than others for reasons outwith defence.
It's splitting hairs really to quibble about whether Whitaker was better than Pep or Pep was better than Whitaker..or to even put Locche into the mix and no doubt a few others who were equally dazzling on defense. It's pointless to carry on about that sort of thing. At their level of artistry it truly is six of one, half a dozen of the other.
These three guys are at the top and pretty much peerless...Pep, Locche and Whitaker..and I've listed them more or less chronologically and not in order of one being better than the other.
Sort of an inside joke with me and Boxed Ears. Well I think it had more to do with him having Sicilian blood. But some people just don't understand.
Great post, very informative. Is there anything to pin him down on a fundamental or technical level that makes him so great? Or did he just go to the beat of his own drum and inane instincts which made him so poetic and wonderful. The reason I ask is because I know Pep is great and we all know. Film shows us this... but it seems amazing to be the best pure boxer of all time while it's his artistry and not conventional technique that we can point toward as to why he was special. He must've been just such a special athlete. And I know he did a lot of things right. Feinting, punching, etc. But it was mostly his smarts and clever-ness combined with his talent and artistry that made him paint a wonderful canvas inside the ring.
So a lot of it comes down to exceptional innate skills. The greatest pure boxer wasn't the greatest by the book. He literally danced to his own rhythm? I find this in and of itself amazing. Am I completely over-blowing this?
He did things his own way, but there was definite fundamentals in there he, just like any great, adapted them for his use.
This is largely what I thought. And basically sums it up aptly. All the description in the world doesn't make the best pure boxer a boxing purist. He just had a gift.
Sort of like Ali? Perhaps without the equaled inane anticipation and cleverness. Although, from my knowledge I would rank Ali as a better strategist as a man who could adjust possibly better than anyone (Might be a stretch). It's a different smarts though.
Ali did it to an extent. Almost all of the top fighters are fundamentally sound but they have moulded it to suit them.
I'd agree, yes. His punching technique isn't the kind of thing you'd want an amateur to copy, and he made unorthodox moves that only he could get away with. Hence my comment that Whitaker was the better technician which SuzieQ found so hilarious - with Whitaker, offensively at least, you can look at his perfectly executed jab, superb timing and accuracy, pinpoint combinations as technical aspects to his game that made him special. Pep is more unorthodox technically. Not that that means he did things wrong, obviously - he had reasons for them and it worked for him. But it was his talent that carried him through.