Willie Pep is he the 'Greatest Pure Boxer' Of all time?

Mantequilla hit the nail on the head to start. First, what is the definition of a pure boxer?

Willie Pep, Benny Leonard and Jimmy Wilde were techinically sound fighters, same goes for Alexis Arguello and Pernell Whitaker. Some even say Oscar DelaHoya was as pure a boxer as any of the above greats.

I'd go with Archie Moore as one of the best pure boxers, moreso because he knew where to place his shots for maximum effect. Larry Holmes also deserves mention, because of his jab alone.

 

Probably Pernell Whitaker, but Pep is definitely up there if not right behind...

 

Boxing is hit & not be hit as has been said numerous times.... Willie Pep was the best at this so he is the best `pure boxer` of all time more than likely.

 

Nice way of putting it Mr. Cutting. Wouldn't Ali be included too if pure boxing is "not" getting hit?

 

I think this saying Locche isn't well rounded enough to be mentioned is totally off. Asking who is the most well rounded and who is the best pure boxer is two different topics imo.

Well rounded is a fighter who is versatile and is good in many aspects of the game, as in Carlos Ortiz, Sugar Ray Robinson, Marco Antonio Barrera for example. There are people who are better than them in terms of effectiveness but this debate is mainly revolving around styles, not how 'good' one was.

Pure boxer is a fighter who essentially wants to hit and not be hit as his main part of his stylistic make up. That could very well be a counter-puncher who doesn't employ much mobility as long as he has that method working for him in terms of (yet again) hitting and not being hit. Locche for me is a dark horse here because of his lack of well roundedness, but actually fits the bill very well. The only way i am willing to exclude him personally is on the grounds that i mentioned before when conversing with Mantequilla, which is on the grounds that given we establish that the 'hitting' part of hitting and not being hit, can be broken down into categories of hitting with effect and simply countering without effect. If the power of the shots doesn't matter then he fits the bill perfectly for me, his defense and countering was that good against any style of opponent. But if we are talking about hitting and not being hit as in being able to power punch wand evading punishment then i think he falls somewhat short. Robinson would come through there though, his ability to land telling blows whilst on the backfoot is beyond imagination. Floyd Mayweather is good, and Whittaker is brilliant, you can't fault him for his power, he was mixing it up when moving bacwards, not laterally, fuking backwards. Like i say, the technique is not a factor for me, that would only be a factor in a debate on who was the most complete, it's the effectiveness and Whittaker cannot be denied

 

Pep was always considered best along with Robinson by those who fought or covered that era. It was competitive era, and Pep had great record. Pep had 7 years a schamp, interupted by military service, and suffered broken back in plane crash, came back and competed at top level, though no longer a sgreat as prior to accident.

In fight where he won title, against Chalkey Wright (if I'm not mistaken) he put on the performance that got him notice of boxing people. If nayone has access to old New York Times articles read report of fight day after he won title, it gives great description of bout.

Pep also had great amateur record, 500 fights as amateur. One was loss to Ray Robinson.