Willie Pep vs. Manny Pacquao, prime vs. prime?

Tell me, is Marquez a better technician than Whitaker...?

I'm going to have to say that to the untrained eye, Marquez is a better technician than both. He consistently demonstrates sound technique, sure, and if you are only willing to appreciate fundamentals as fundamentals and nothing more, then that's your choice. But you are missing the beauty of Pep's innovation that can be seen even in the scant film we have. Bach is great, but Beethoven took it to another level. Hell, if everyone gushed forever about Sinatra, Elvis would have kept on driving a truck for Crown Electric.

Well, Robbi, this is a boxing site after all. Sometimes you make assertions -excuse me- you step into the ring, and invite controversy -excuse me- you invite countershots. If you don't like counters, then pick your shots more carefully.

 

Perhaps, we can agree on this. I'd grant you that Marquez's style demonstrates sounder technique, so perhaps we can say that he is a more consistent technician... but Pep and Whitaker are more advanced.

 

Want to know something Stonehands. And I'm confident you'll agree. No two fighters are identical twins. And thats why boxing can be a complicated matter when it comes to discussing who had the better fundementals; defense, footwork, etc? Who was more complete between Whitaker and Pep? Who had the best right hand? And who was the most complete boxer of all-time? It's a very tough gauge when many agree, eg; me and you, that two fighters are percieved to be almost equals in each area of the questions I just asked. I'm not looking for you to awnser them obviously.

Marquez was a better basic technician, and Whitaker a better innovative technician.

Agreed.

You love a tear-up. I know that Mr Stonehands. You are on here every single day looking for a sparring partner to tangle with. I tend to use the speedbag, more often than not.

 

We agree.

Well, I like to read the threads that interest me and the opinions -particularly from my favorite posters (you're among them). Sometimes, someone will make an assertion that I won't let ride and so I offer a retort. If the debate is cordial, great. If it is more of a discussion and an exchange of ideas or information ensues, that's even better. But if a brawl ensues, then that's fine too.

The speedbag? It can't hit back! What fun is that?? Everyone on this site should feel the masculine thrill of a broken lip and the pleasure of returning the favor plus tax.

 

Pac v Pep would be really fascinating but I feel Pep outboxes him from start to finish more or less, he was just so good at hitting you, waiting for the rush in & then he would spin you around & pepper you with a combination.

I think Pac would buy just about every faint Pep gave him & get beat to the punch consistantly.

If Marquez & Morales got the best of Pac by using their superior boxing skills, its not pretty to think what Willie could do.

I take nothing from Pac but he is in there with probably the most gifted pure boxer in history.

 

Pep would win a very wide decision.

 

pep

 

Really, the question is "Pep vs Pac" I realize, but to question Pac's chin? What does he have to do, break the other guy's fists onhis chin to demonstrate how good it is? He hasn't, like you say, been down in years for pete's sake....I think he's demonstrated a world-class set of whiskers.

 

So, did Arguello lack a world-class chin because he was stopped in te early stages of his career? Pedroza? Armstrong? Saddler?

Pacquiao's durabilty seems to have improved as his weight has increased, and at featherweight, his chin was sound enough to withstand the best power-punches of Barerra and Marquez. I don't know what more could be asked of him.

By the way, I still favor Pep to win this fight, as Pacquiao never really started to channel his speed into a more technical fashion until after he left this division.

 

Does that mean that you would favour the current version of Pac (if he was still a 126 lber) to beat Pep ?

I actually think the more ragged Pac would do better vs Pep because the current Pac might try box with Pep too much & Willie would just outland him rd after rd... I actually think Pac`s ragged style would take a few rds for Pep to time properly & he might make it awkward for Pep early on & in spots throughout but ultimately that version gets beat too.

Trying to land anything meaningful without being called Sandy Saddler on Willie Pep is a borderline waste of time & Pac, dare I say it, might get taught a severe boxing lesson... the sort of lesson that some morons claim Marquez did teach him in those close fights.


Botswana :smoke

 

Don't see that...

Thing is...Pacquiao's attack, for the most part, was still move, throw two jabs and a cross, and then dart out straight back, and that would be an easier method to defend against due to its predictabilty than a fighter who, at this point, is capable of mixing up his combinations and varying his move from straight-in-straight-out to side-to-side as the need requires. Plus, the wider variety of combinations means that Pac has a greater chance of scoring something meaningful on Pep, and might keep him fighting in a strictly defensive manner for more of the fight.

The Pac of 2003-2004 might take about four or five rounds, and be a factor throughout a fight. The Pac of this year could conceivably win one of three from Pep in a three fight series, and would certainly make the fight clsoer on the cards, imo.

 

Pac at FW was not as skilled as he is now.

He would be boxing thin air, and even though his aggression would win him some rounds I think it would be a near shutout in favour of Pep (pre/post injury, it doesn't matter)