Your Hottest Takes:

Where we disagree, and where I think you’re misinterpreting something, is to take everything that happened late in Pep’s career — every fighter in history (including Marciano, even though he didn’t lose) faded some later in their careers— and apply it to say Pep was washed or diminished when he fought Saddler.

Before he lost to Collins, Pep beat a top-10 lightweight. I don’t think it stands to reason that Willie is damaged goods if he’s still fighting at that level, and still No. 1 at featherweight well beyond the fourth fight with Sandy.

He had one uncharacteristic KO loss (Collins) and one outright dive (Lulu) after the Saddler series, but where I disagree is you’re attaching those later losses (and ones that followed) and saying ‘well after the plane crash he wasn’t as good.’ But he only lost to Saddler in a span of nearly 60 fights after the plane crash.

You seem to be saying ‘he wasn’t as good when Sandy fought him because he lost to Sandy.’ Because apart from those three losses, he was 56-0 — which is better than his record up to the plane crash if you take out the Saddler fights. (My contention being Sandy and ONLY Sandy could beat him at that time — certainly no one else did.)

Counting later losses after the Saddler series against Pep to say ‘well he wasn’t as good when Sandy fought him because these other guys beat him’ is like saying Ezzard Charles just wasn’t as good when Joe Walcott beat him because Ezz lost to Marciano later.

I’m saying maybe Willie wasn’t quite the same after the fourth fight with Sandy because Saddler whipped the tar out of him and diminished him over the course of their four fights. There’s no evidence that Pep wasn’t still in his prime when he fought Saddler four times — the only evidence being that he lost to Saddler. Because all those guys you mentioned as Willie’s’ best wins pre-crash are also pre-Saddler, and they just weren’t as good as Saddler … or at least they weren’t made for Pep the way Sandy was.

I don’t think Archie Moore was quite at his best yet at the times of the Charles fights. As I noted, he had losses and draws with others around those time, then went on an otherworldly streak after Ezzard. And even if Moore was, he’s not as good of a scalp as Pep because Archie isn’t regarded as the best light heavyweight of all time apart from Charles, at least not by many — he’s behind Ezz and Greb and arguably Spinks and Tunney, maybe even Loughran. Archie was elite, but not as elite as Pep when regarded only in each’s best division.

I respect your opinion but have to disagree, although I’d probably say the three wins by Charles over Moore is the second best three wins over the same person (and among the best three wins period) by any fighter in history.

I appreciate the discussion on a topic about which I have strong feelings — that Saddler > Pep. That’s why it’s my hot take, haha.

Keep posting my friend. I regard your contributions highly and, as you know, often call on your research on guys’ records in and around a weight class often.

 

You are saying: Whyte got screwed even though it was of his own doing by not fighting the eliminators he was asked to fight, regardless of reason.

Dillian is that most special of snowflakes who doesn’t have to do what the sanctioning body requires to get a mandatory. Poor fella. Why should he have to jump through the same hoops other fighters have to jump through — not fair!

And he turned down a title shot vs. AJ, right? So unless he had some ridiculous hard-on for a green belt as opposed to wanting to be a world champion regardless of sanctioning body, there’s another he-did-it-to-himself opportunity to become a world champion lost.

Here’s who screwed Whyte (besides himself) — Hearn. His own promoter was AJ’s promoter, and that promoter clearly did anything and everything to enhance and support AJ come hell or high water, including keeping Whyte as a gatekeeper and failing to take action to get his guy the eliminators needed to get those shots. Fast Car Eddie clearly had a conflict of interest in handling both, and made no bones about which of his heavyweights he was putting first.

 

Thanks. It also says he’s recovered.

I’d like to see if there are any reports talking about how Pep is a shell of his former self and just doesn’t have his fastball anymore due to the crash. If he was looking severely diminished from his previous form, surely some accounts would have noted it.

I think his one win in the Saddler series showed he could be every bit as brilliant as before.

 

My argument isn't Pep was past prime when he fought Saddler, because he lost to Saddler. In fact, I don't consider Pep past prime by Saddler 1 and I'm not certain he was no longer at his absolute peak. I don't know if the Saddler from their first fight would have beaten any version of Pep. I just don't know.

My argument is both Saddler, and particularly Pep, were past prime by their 4th contest. It was the great Saddler’s only win in 5, a streak ended by KO'ing the decidedly average Tommy Collins.
The same Tommy Collins who stopped Pep just 9 months after Saddler 4. I can't accept a Pep 9 months away from losing to Tommy Collins was the same fighter who won 9 out 9 vs Chalky Wright, Sal Bartolo, Willie Joyce and Manuel Ortiz.

Neither can I accept a 34-year old Archie Moore, with 109 fights against amongst the highest quality of opposition in all of boxing history, was pre his physical prime or green. Look at the fighters Moore fought around the Charles series vs those Pep fought around the Saddler series. The difference in quality is stark. Moore won the vast majority of fights aside from those vs Charles around this time, but you can't keep mixing it in that kind of company that frequently, without the odd loss.

My contention is that the Charles from the 3 x Moore fights was greater than the Saddler from the 4 x Pep fights. Charles both ranks higher on all time p4p lists and was prime for all 3 x fights whereas Saddler was clearly past prime by the end of the Pep series. It is also that the Moore that Charles beat was better than the Pep from Saddler 3 and especially Saddler 4, for the reasons I've given.

Yes, your views on this subject are a good example of the thread topic and I appreciate your kind words. You've made your living in professional boxing and I haven't, so im always respectful of your views Pat, even if I debate my own in a robust way - that's just me being me.

 

Wait really? I think he took enough punishment as it was.

 

Maybe trolling,no sane man would recommend that.

 

It is my hottest take. He put up a good effort against Berbick. I even scored it for him. There was still tread on those tires.

 

On a fight-by-fight basis, James Toney wasn't much better than Marlon Starling. Both of them counterpunchers, both of them hard to hit cleanly even though they were always right there in front of you, both of them occasionally guilty of low punch output, both of them capable of beating excellent fighters, both of them capable of shockingly poor performances against beatable opponents.

Toney ballooned up in weight and beat a 40-year-old Holyfield and a cruiser whose name gets mentioned only within the context of Toney's career. Other than that they're basically the same guy.

 

Toney has way better wins

 

He has better names on his resume. Most of the best fighters he beat were in stark decline when they fought Toney.

Best prime fighters he beat were Nunn (and even Nunn had fallen off from his 1987 self) and Johnson, not really much different from Honeyghan and undefeated Breland. And plenty of people think Toney should have lost against Johnson. That's another thing. Toney had a LOT of close fights in his career, won some lost some, whereas Starling never once got the benefit of the doubt in a fight that could have gone either way.

 

That’s just not accurate. Toney beat Michael Nunn when Nunn was the reigning, defending champion with multiple quality title defenses—against guys like Kalambay, Barkley, Starling, and Curry. That’s a strong run, and Toney stopped him. Johnson was a tough fight, sure, but it was a clear win for Toney over a slick, awkward opponent.

You’re also brushing aside the McCallum fights. McCallum was an all-time great technician and still very much world-class and gave Toney razor-close, high-level fights, and Toney arguably won both. Barkley might not have been at his peak, but he was coming off a win over Hearns. That wasn’t some washed-up name being thrown to the wolves.

Then you’ve got the Jirov win—Toney fighting as a blown-up middleweight against an undefeated, legit cruiserweight champion in a brutal war and clearly winning. That alone is better than anything on Starling’s resume. Add the Holyfield win—faded or not, still a big, experienced, dangerous heavyweight. Then there’s Ruiz, a legit titleholder who had beaten guys like Rahman and Holyfield. And you can add that he arguably deserved the nod against Peter in their first fight.

You can knock Toney for having close fights, for being inconsistent at times, but you absolutely can’t knock the quality of his wins. Comparing that to Starling, who had a solid but not standout resume? Not even close. It’s not even the same tier.

 

Nunn: Can't knock this one. Nunn hadn't put together a particularly impressive performance in a couple of years by the time he fought Toney (he spent 1990 fighting welterweights), but Toney marched into his backyard and stole his zero and his belt. I put this at about the same level as Starling's win over Honeyghan. I could see someone arguing that '91 Nunn was better than '89 Honeyghan, but Starling was clearly more dominant in his win.

Johnson: In some ways Toney's most impressive victory, as he came back from an early deficit against an excellent fighter who posed stylistic issues for him. I think I scored it for Toney the last time I watched it, but this was anything but a clear win. It's still debated to this day. Fairly close in value to Starling beating Breland.

McCallum: McCallum is a great fighter and a personal favorite. Their first fight was a classic. At the end of the day it's a 23-year-old holding a 35-year-old to a draw. Maybe he should have won on the cards, or maybe he should have done more to distance himself from an old man. The dirty little secret of this rivalry is that their second fight was really weak (McCallum just tapped and tapped, whereas Toney fought for about sixty seconds each round), and yet you have a lot of people who think that Toney shouldn't even have won it. Their third fight has been forgotten by history and rightly so.

Barkley: Very likely weight-drained (no one cares about weight-making when it's Toney's opponents). Always a dangerous fighter but always a beatable fighter. He beat Hearns the year before, but the last time he beat Hearns it took him three years to win his next fight. Not convinced this is more impressive than beating an up-and-coming Simon Brown.

Jirov: Jirov's sole place in boxing lore is as the cruiserweight that lost to James Toney. He is never mentioned in any other context.

Ruiz: Not an actual win, as Toney got popped for steroids shortly after. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

 

Cool but don't you think he took a lot of punishment by then?