Willie Pep deserved better...

[Nemesis]

OUR GREATEST DESERVES BETTER

Hartford Courant - Hartford, Conn.
Author: JEFF JACOBS
Date: Nov 29, 2006

The Rev. Thomas B. Campion said his father -- his biological one, not the heavenly one -- was a huge Willie Pep fan.

"He was an avid boxing enthusiast," the co-pastor at Corpus Christi Church said Tuesday morning. "He loved Willie Pep."

After Campion had finished celebrating a funeral mass for arguably the greatest pound-for-pound boxer in history, he couldn't resist looking up and telling the 100 mourners about his own dad.

Campion is only five years younger than Pep, who died Thanksgiving morning at 84, but his eyes lit up like a little boy's when he retold the story of his dad taking him to Braves Field in Boston.

The date was June 8, 1943.

Pep's featherweight crown was on the line against Sal Bartolo of Boston.

More than 14,000 fans, many from Hartford, arrived for an all- New England title bout.

"I'll never forget it," said Campion, whose own calling took him to the seminary rather than a minor league contract with the Brooklyn Dodgers. "Willie won that one in 15 rounds, as he won all his fights in those days."

Father Campion was on a roll now. He talked about how he used to go to fights at Capitol Park at the end of the trolley line on Wethersfield Avenue. He grew up in West Hartford, but he went to school at St. Joe's Cathedral in Hartford and, even as a kid, he'd go to the gym on Main Street just to watch Pep work out.

"He was so graceful, a master boxer," Campion said. "There was nobody like him. He could go 15 rounds and barely get touched. He was that deft. He was that artistic."

They laid Willie Pep to rest Tuesday in Rose Hill Memorial Park in Rocky Hill and decades before they did, those who knew boxing best had used many of the same words Campion did on Tuesday. Red Smith called Pep the artful dodger. With a 134-1-1 record after 136 fights, he was nicknamed Will o' the Wisp. Catching Willie, it was said, was like catching moonbeams in a jar. Pep hung with the big names in those days. They knew him at Toots Shor's place in New York. He knew DiMaggio. He knew Sinatra and Sammy Davis Jr. He knew all the big stars, back when Manhattan was Hollywood, back when boxing was second only to baseball in importance to a sports nation.

There were only eight weight divisions in those days and no alphabet-soup divisions among sanctioning bodies. Eight world champs and everyone knew their names. Sugar Ray. The Brown Bomber. Will o' the Wisp.

Willie Pep was named the fifth greatest fighter of the 20th century by an elite Associated Press panel. For some perspective, do you know who No. 5 was in baseball? Ty Cobb. He was sandwiched by Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio.

If the plane crash that nearly killed Willie in a 1947 snowstorm really did kill him, Corpus Christi Church would have been overrun by hundreds and hundreds of mourners ... celebrities, sports icons - - heck, given some of the accusations, maybe even the FBI. Those were the days when Hartford was Willie's town and anybody with a road map to greatness knew he was from here. He was UConn basketball in a pair of leather gloves.

"Willie didn't just do something great for Connecticut, he did something great for the world," said former welterweight champion Marlon Starling, hobbling from Corpus Christi on a crutch. "This is a sad day, but it's a day that Willie can go home. He won't hurt anymore. He'll be there with a lot of his friends."

It's a shame more of them couldn't be there for the wake and the funeral. Willie used to joke that first your legs go, then your reflexes go and then your friends go. Only that joke didn't seem so funny Tuesday morning. We live in a what-have-you-done-for-me- lately world and Willie hadn't won a fight in more than 40 years. Looking back in The Courant archives on his immortal victory over Sandy Saddler in 1949, you see a big, unsettling headline that Pep beat the "Harlem Negro" and you realize how long ago this was.

There are probably 100 reasons why only 100 people attended his funeral. Some had gone to the wake the previous night, generously estimated at 300 visitors. The hardest truth, of course, is that Willie outlived most of his contemporaries. Of those living, many are infirmed and called with their condolences. Willie, too, had been sick for years, Alzheimer's hammering away at his precious memories.

But what about boxing? John Scully, a young man with a noble sense of the sport's history, was a pallbearer. He cornered Pep's attorney Michael Georgetti to tell him how touched he was by the honor. Starling, who said he had hurt his ankle running to do his laundry, hobbled into church on a crutch.

It is improper and careless to wildly start pointing at individuals who didn't show. But there are so many big-name promoters, big-name boxers, big-time announcers, officials from international sanctioning bodies. Where were they?

"I couldn't tell you," Starling said. "But I can tell you one thing: I'm here. I'm here out of respect for Willie Pep. And I'm here out of respect for boxing."

A cruel, disorganized sport, boxing is dying on the vine and on days such as this you begin to understand how it is poisoning itself.

"I am stunned by the number of ordinary people who didn't know him, new and old fans, who did feel compelled to show their respects and bid him farewell," said Georgetti, also a pallbearer. "There were so many familiar faces, too, simple and gentle people from his era.

"He was an amazing boxer. Connecticut was his home. Typically when a person is famous, politicians are out in droves. Where was the city of Hartford? Where was the state of Connecticut and the state legislature? The thing that I find so sad is that there was no real political presence at all. I don't know ... maybe he was just out of circulation for too long."

Maybe there's no political gain in showing up for an old pug's funeral. Maybe there's no political gain climbing into the same church pew as boxing anymore. Because the absence of the top state and city leaders is stupefying.

There was a blessing in Willie's death, however, a blessing no public shower of emotion could ever provide. The Papaleo family has been locked in some pretty fierce squabbles over the years and the last few days could have gone badly.

"The family came together and they embraced to pay tribute to Willie," Georgetti said. "They put aside their feelings and their anger. There's something wonderful in that. There is something beautiful in that."

It's a shame more people couldn't find the time to bid farewell to the greatest athlete Hartford has ever known.

John Scully posted this in general forum a couple of months ago and it received only two responses, shows the depth of the posters in there...

[UpWithEvil]

Arguably the best p4p fighter of the 20th century.

134-1-1? Can you imagine doing ANYTHING better than your opponent 134 out of 135 times with one draw?

I have some interesting rare footage of Willie in my archive somewhere, I'll try and dig it up over the weekend to share with the board. Thanks for posting this.

[Nemesis]

Arguably the best p4p fighter of the 20th century.

134-1-1? Can you imagine doing ANYTHING better than your opponent 134 out of 135 times with one draw?

I have some interesting rare footage of Willie in my archive somewhere, I'll try and dig it up over the weekend to share with the board. Thanks for posting this.

Please do UWE :good

Peak Pep footage is as rare as Peak Greb footage

[sthomas]

John Scully posted this in general forum a couple of months ago and it received only two responses, shows the depth of the posters in there...

Great to hear a relatively young guy like Marlon Starling showed up. The real shame is that the promoters and boxing higher ups did not pay their respect to a man who paved the road. However, the guy who wrote the article seems to be taking things a bit to far. When one is 84 years old, not all that many folks usually show up. My beloved aunt died @ 94 years and only about 50 of us were there, all family members and a few younger friends. None of her old friends were there as she outlived them all.

Personally I would never attend a funeral of somone I did not know unless it was to lend support to a grieving friend/family member.

[Nemesis]

Great to hear a relatively young guy like Marlon Starling showed up. The real shame is that the promoters and boxing higher ups did not pay their respect to a man who paved the road. However, the guy who wrote the article seems to be taking things a bit to far. When one is 84 years old, not all that many folks usually show up. My beloved aunt died @ 94 years and only about 50 of us were there, all family members and a few younger friends. None of her old friends were there as she outlived them all.

Personally I would never attend a funeral of somone I did not know unless it was to lend support to a grieving friend/family member.

I see what your saying, but the Boxing community should have made the effort to pay their respects to one of the forefathers of the sport.

LaMotta & Pep were supposed to be good friends I wonder whether Jake went

[TBooze]

Arguably the best p4p fighter of the 20th century.

134-1-1? Can you imagine doing ANYTHING better than your opponent 134 out of 135 times with one draw?


Well Ray Robisnon was 141-1-1;)

But seriously Pep was brilliant; if you do not have him in your top dozen fighters of all time, then perhaps you need to find another sport to love (I have him at #6).

[Nemesis]

Well Ray Robisnon was 141-1-1;)

But seriously Pep was brilliant; if you do not have him in your top dozen fighters of all time, then perhaps you need to find another sport to love (I have him at #6).

I've never done a list but I dont think I'd have him in my top ten, but thats because his resume isnt as deep as others, I dont doubt his greatness as boxer though

[Manassa]

I think Pep was the best fighter ever. If he wasn't, he is certainly near the top, and for me he's the best to watch on film.

[Manassa]

Well Ray Robisnon was 141-1-1;)

No.

[Nemesis]

No.

129-1-1?

[Drew101]

No.

Indeed. SRR was 124-1-2 at one point.

[UpWithEvil]

Please do UWE :good

Peak Pep footage is as rare as Peak Greb footage

Nah, I'm pretty sure peak Pep footage actually exists :yep

I'll see what I can scrounge up, I know I have some footage of Pep sparring with Sugar Ray Robinson, in case you haven't seen that. I'll post it, but only if Dempsey1238 approves - I'm his bitch until I repay him a couple of favors :nut

[Nemesis]

Nah, I'm pretty sure peak Pep footage actually exists :yep

I'll see what I can scrounge up, I know I have some footage of Pep sparring with Sugar Ray Robinson, in case you haven't seen that. I'll post it, but only if Dempsey1238 approves - I'm his bitch until I repay him a couple of favors :nut

Robinson and Pep sparring? no I have never seen that, that'd be great

I am sure Dempsey1238, will be OK about it as long as you acknowledge that Barney Ross is indeed the greatest fighter of all time

[Nemesis]

Indeed. SRR was 124-1-2 at one point.
Robinson drew twice before Turpin are you sure, the Hecht fight was ruled no contest (after Ray was originally DQ'ed)

[TBooze]

Indeed. SRR was 124-1-2 at one point.
I stand corrected: 128-1-2

[Minotauro]

Pep was one of the greatest I know Carmen Basilio and Angelo Dundee rated him as the greastest fighter ever.

[Robbi]

I think Pep was the best fighter ever. If he wasn't, he is certainly near the top, and for me he's the best to watch on film.

Pep was a tremendously skilled boxer. One of the greatest of all time, maybe even top 5 P4P. But make no mistake about it, he was no Whitaker. The only thing with seperates Pep being above Whitaker P4P, he had over 200 fights. He fought in an era when boxers were fighting every fornight, sometimes every week.

Whitaker was the best defensive fighter the history of the sport. What made him better?. Well he was equally as tough to hit, but his moves came with much more variety and pazazz.

What I will say with confidence. Pep couldn't box behind the jab like Whitaker while on the backfoot as an opponent was advancing. Backing up in a straight line while landing effective punches at the same time, not many can do it. Whitaker was the supreme master at reverse gear boxing.

[brownpimp88]

Who cares is pep had over 200 fights, they both fought the same amount of contenders. Whitaker is greater than him.

[Manassa]

Pep was a tremendously skilled boxer. One of the greatest of all time, maybe even top 5 P4P. But make no mistake about it, he was no Whitaker. The only thing with seperates Pep being above Whitaker P4P, he had over 200 fights. He fought in an era when boxers were fighting every fornight, sometimes every week.

Whitaker was the best defensive fighter the history of the sport. What made him better?. Well he was equally as tough to hit, but his moves came with much more variety and pazazz.

What I will say with confidence. Pep couldn't box behind the jab like Whitaker while on the backfoot as an opponent was advancing. Backing up in a straight line while landing effective punches at the same time, not many can do it. Whitaker was the supreme master at reverse gear boxing.

I doubt you know much about Pep. I doubt because I know how you lack in boxing history before the '80s - we've come across this before in previous discussion.

So, then, you would not know that Pep was much more than a defensive boxer. You would not know that back in his day, back in his prime, he threw combinations with the grace of Ray Robinson. You would not know, because it has become all too common to think Pep was merely a boxer-mover, that in his youth he would often take the offence and bedazzle opponents with unorthodox flurries.

It is not simply a case of 'Whitaker defends as well as Pep.' Running and pecking was not all Pep had up his sleeve.

[sweet_scientist]

Whilst I think Whitaker looks a better defensive fighter than Pep on film let's be serious, there is hardly any footage of prime Pep out there. The few bits that are out there have poor speed tracking and you can't tell much from them.

Imagine all we had of Pea was his fights with Rivera and Hurtado in average quality film. We'd be saying Carlos Quintana had better defense than him, to say nothing of the other defensive masters.

What is evident on the film available of Pep though is that even at an advanced age, he threw some beautiful combinations whilst pivoting on his feet, and really I haven't seen even a prime Whitaker throw any better. One can only think how great of a combination puncher Pep was at his best.

[Robbi]

I doubt you know much about Pep. I doubt because I know how you lack in boxing history before the '80s - we've come across this before in previous discussion.

So, then, you would not know that Pep was much more than a defensive boxer. You would not know that back in his day, back in his prime, he threw combinations with the grace of Ray Robinson. You would not know, because it has become all too common to think Pep was merely a boxer-mover, that in his youth he would often take the offence and bedazzle opponents with unorthodox flurries.

It is not simply a case of 'Whitaker defends as well as Pep.' Running and pecking was not all Pep had up his sleeve.

I don't know much about Pep?. Well I do know a fair bit and enough to make an assesment. And I have seen footage of Pep on many ocassions, although its fairly limited to yourself as well as me. Well, one thing you were wrong about. He was more than a fighter who made an opponent miss all night. That I knew.

You said "you would not know that Pep was much more than a defensive boxer". Well he goes down as one of truely great defensive boxers ever, so when he springs to mind its defense which gets ingrained above everything else. And regarding his offense, I know he could flurry and score pin-point accurate punches upstairs and downstairs, ala Robinson. So for you to assume that I knew next to nothing about Pep is wrong.

In my previous post I compared both on defense, and stated why I thought Whitaker was better. I never said at any point that all Pep had was pecking and running going for him as a fighter.

I will always mind when we had the Whitaker v Duran debate months ago. You stated along the lines, I'll quote you accuratley as I can "Whitaker would lose to Duran because he stood inside and at arms length, he wasn't a mover". Well, that shows your lack of knowledge on Whitaker. So tit for tat.

I will freely admit I don't know as much as some others about old timers, but my knowledge on boxing history throughout all decades isn't too bad. Probably stronger on recent years because I want to look back when I'm 60 and say "I seen that fight live". And have a passion for todays greats. Unlike yourself who in 50 years time will still be banging on about Moore and Charles. Rightly so, but you'll not have moved with the times while your years advance.

I live for the moment when it comes to boxing, you don't. Now, there is no rule book to say as a teenager you must watch and study the game today, but I'm a bit broader minded than yourself.

To say todays fighters are "boring" is laughable. A comment you made on another thread just a few days ago.

[Bummy Davis]

Pep was the greatest lb 4 lb ever or at least top 3 with SSR and Henry Armstrong but Pep was a pure master

[Manassa]

I don't know much about Pep?. Well I do know a fair bit and enough to make an assesment. And I have seen footage of Pep on many ocassions, although its fairly limited to yourself as well as me. Well, one thing you were wrong about. He was more than a fighter who made an opponent miss all night.

You said "you would not know that Pep was much more than a defensive boxer". Well he goes down as one of truely great defensive boxers ever, so when he springs to mind its defense which gets ingrained above everything else. And regarding his offense, I know he could flurry and score pin-point accurate punches upstairs and downstairs, ala Robinson. So for you to assume that I knew next to nothing about Pep is wrong.

In my previous post I compared both on defense, and stated why I thought Whitaker was better. I never said at any point that all Pep had was pecking and running going for him as a fighter.

I will always mind when we had the Whitaker v Duran debate months ago. You stated along the lines, I'll quote you accuratley as I can "Whitaker would lose to Duran because he stood inside and at arms length, he wasn't a mover". Well, that shows your lack of knowledge on Whitaker. So tit for tat.

I will freely admit I don't know as much as some others about old timers, but my knowledge on boxing history throughout all decades isn't too bad. Probably stronger on recent years because I want to look back when I'm 60 and say "I seen that fight live". And have a passion for todays greats. Unlike yourself who in 50 years time will still be banging on about Moore and Charles. Rightly so, but you'll not have moved with the times while your years advance.

I live for the moment when it comes to boxing, you don't. Now, there is no rule book to say as a teenager you must watch and study the game today, but I'm a bit broader minded than yourself.

To say todays fighters are "boring" is laughable. A comment you made on another thread just a few days ago.

I don't know much about Pep?. Well I do know a fair bit and enough to make an assesment. And I have seen footage of Pep on many ocassions, although its fairly limited to yourself as well as me.

You've not convinced me.

Well, one thing you were wrong about. He was more than a fighter who made an opponent miss all night.

I know that as well as anybody.

You said "you would not know that Pep was much more than a defensive boxer". Well he goes down as one of truely great defensive boxers ever, so when he springs to mind its defense which gets ingrained above everything else. And regarding his offense, I know he could flurry and score pin-point accurate punches upstairs and downstairs, ala Robinson. So for you to assume that I knew next to nothing about Pep is wrong.

Well, to my advantage, before you have shown a lack of knowledge or naivity on various historical boxers. It's only right for me to assume you know little about Pep - and I still think that. I don't think he or other fighters of that era interest you enough for you to study them like I or certain others have.

I will always mind when we had the Whitaker v Duran debate months ago. You stated along the lines, I'll quote you accuratley as I can "Whitaker would lose to Duran because he stood inside and at arms length, he wasn't a mover". Well, that shows your lack of knowledge on Whitaker. So tit for tat.

Please do not misquote me. I said 'Whitaker did not move like Ray Leonard.' That means he didn't get on his bike in the same fashion as Leonard, and don't give me your examples (like the Nelson fight) because they just don't hold up.

To Whitaker's credit, I found his fighting style more effective than Leonard's overall; he was a more efficient fighter. However, Duran would suffocate him (just like he suffocated Leonard for that matter).

I will freely admit I don't know as much as some others about old timers, but my knowledge on boxing history throughout all decades isn't too bad. Probably stronger on recent years because I want to look back when I'm 60 and say "I seen that fight live". And have a passion for todays greats. Unlike yourself who in 50 years time will still be banging on about Moore and Charles. Rightly so, but you'll not have moved with the times while your years advance.

I live for the moment when it comes to boxing, you don't. Now, there is no rule book to say as a teenager you must watch and study the game today, but I'm a bit broader minded than yourself.

Broader minded, ha. In your disdain for older fighters, at times you are only a hair better than Brownpimp.

To say todays fighters are "boring" is laughable. A comment you made on another thread just a few days ago.

See, this is your problem; you don't like people disagreeing with you. You can't see beyond your fixed opinions; yes, I find them boring; they lack character and I don't believe they are all they're hyped up to be. As Stonehands pointed out earlier today, it is also perfectly reasonable to think boxers were better in the old days.

Of course, you'll never accept that, or even begin to fathom why someone would think that for any other reason than they are 'nuthuggers.' Ask yourself this: why, just what reason would I have to cling to the past? I'm a modern man. I like modern music, I like modern fashion - if anything, I should cling to the modern boxers. But I don't, because I like better what I see in ye olden days. What's your problem with that? Can you say I'm definitely wrong?

I find you to be a very strange character. Normally people are either top blokes, decent enough people or total wankers. You are none of these; you continue to somewhat harrass me on a near daily basis by quoting (or misquoting to your convenience) me on everything you disagree with, taunting me and insulting me with all kinds of unsavoury words and terms, yet when we speak on MSN or via PM you are all happy-chappy and matey. You're creepy in a way. Notice it's never me who initiates conversation; I don't even like you.

So, er, bollocks to you and bollocks to your opinions. I won't be replying.

[Robbi]

Manassa "So, then, you would not know that Pep was much more than a defensive boxer"

Then I said. "Well, one thing you were wrong about. He was more than a fighter who made an opponent miss all night. That I knew"

Manassa "I know that as well as anybody"

I was stating to your first reply that I "knew", I wasn't trying to tell you something you never.

[Dempsey1238]

you could up load the Pep fights lol. I think I got em from UpWithEvil. Or was it SS?
I do have Pep vs Saddler 3 and 4, one of the fights 30 mins long, all 15 rounds with the Rock commenting. Amazing footage.

I was watching a Prime Chavez fight, and at the time Henry Armstrong had just died a week earler. And they gave Armstrong the ten bell ring before the main event.
Did Pep get a ten bell ring??? Nope, hell Max Scmeling didnt get a ten bell ring. What ever happen to that old honor?? I guess you have to die young to get that honor these days.

[sweet_scientist]

you could up load the Pep fights lol. I think I got em from UpWithEvil. Or was it SS?
I do have Pep vs Saddler 3 and 4, one of the fights 30 mins long, all 15 rounds with the Rock commenting. Amazing footage.

I was watching a Prime Chavez fight, and at the time Henry Armstrong had just died a week earler. And they gave Armstrong the ten bell ring before the main event.
Did Pep get a ten bell ring??? Nope, hell Max Scmeling didnt get a ten bell ring. What ever happen to that old honor?? I guess you have to die young to get that honor these days.
Doubt it was all 15 rounds, as neither Pep-Saddler III or IV went 15. I think it might have been 30 min from fights III & IV combined.

UNLESS YOU HAPPENED TO COME ACROSS A 30 MIN. VERSION OF PEP-SADDLER II, IN WHICH CASE GUARD IT WITH YOUR LIFE (but let's do another trade :yep )

[Dempsey1238]

right the last one went 9 rounds, and the other ten or something like that. I hardly watch it because fights 3 and 4 was too dirty of a fight for my taste.

[Robbi]

You've not convinced me.

The reason I haven't convinced you is because Im not agreeing with you. No other reason. If I stated Pep was better than Whitaker in all area's then no doubt you'd a happy man. But your not.



I know that as well as anybody..

You never even read and responded to what I was coming back with. Not quite following the script.



Well, to my advantage, before you have shown a lack of knowledge or naivity on various historical boxers. It's only right for me to assume you know little about Pep - and I still think that. I don't think he or other fighters of that era interest you enough for you to study them like I or certain others have

Give me an example where I have shown a lack of knowledge. For example being entirely wrong on a fact concerning a historical fighter. Pep does interest me, maybe not quite to the extent he interests you right enough. But that doesn't mean to say my opinion regarding him is wrong. I have given him props and rated him among the best fighters ever, and thats not done with a serious lack of knowledge.




Please do not misquote me. I said 'Whitaker did not move like Ray Leonard.' That means he didn't get on his bike in the same fashion as Leonard, and don't give me your examples (like the Nelson fight) because they just don't hold up.

To Whitaker's credit, I found his fighting style more effective than Leonard's overall; he was a more efficient fighter. However, Duran would suffocate him (just like he suffocated Leonard for that matter).


Well your now telling porky pies. You did say that Whitaker would have lost to Duran based on his "lack of movement". I will give you credit as you later tried to paper over the cracks and made the comparison with Leonard's strategy. But you did say Whitaker would lose to Duran based on lack of movement in your opinion.


Broader minded, ha. In your disdain for older fighters, at times you are only a hair better than Brownpimp.

Distain for older fighters?. I have picked many greats from the 40's and 50's over todays current crop. Your just a nuthugger full stop for Charles, Pep, and Armstong among others. Maybe Im not as into old timers as yourself, but to say I have a distain for them is wrong. Again, back to me disagreeing with you. It gets right under your skin more often than not.




See, this is your problem; you don't like people disagreeing with you. You can't see beyond your fixed opinions; yes, I find them boring; they lack character and I don't believe they are all they're hyped up to be. As Stonehands pointed out earlier today, it is also perfectly reasonable to think boxers were better in the old days.

Of course, you'll never accept that, or even begin to fathom why someone would think that for any other reason than they are 'nuthuggers.' Ask yourself this: why, just what reason would I have to cling to the past? I'm a modern man. I like modern music, I like modern fashion - if anything, I should cling to the modern boxers. But I don't, because I like better what I see in ye olden days. What's your problem with that? Can you say I'm definitely wrong?

I find you to be a very strange character. Normally people are either top blokes, decent enough people or total wankers. You are none of these; you continue to somewhat harrass me on a near daily basis by quoting (or misquoting to your convenience) me on everything you disagree with, taunting me and insulting me with all kinds of unsavoury words and terms, yet when we speak on MSN or via PM you are all happy-chappy and matey. You're creepy in a way. Notice it's never me who initiates conversation; I don't even like you.

So, er, bollocks to you and bollocks to your opinions. I won't be replying.


Harrass you on a near daily basis. Thats over the top. Weekly basis I'd agree, but nah your totally wrong on "daily basis". What you don't like on here is me winding you up. Ive noticed that your a very sensitive young man when my fishing rod comes out, and I slowly wind the reel. With you I know your always tugging the end of the line. Caught. Taunting you, yes. Insulting you, no.

Your the strange one. Not me. See I can have laugh on here with others. I can disagree with others on boxing, Stonehands and JT. I sweep it under the carpet with them. It's in the past. It seems to be that once you take offence, you hold a grudge with a capital G. And may I ask what are the unsavoury words?. One thing I never do that you do on a regular basis is use bad language in posts. Thats just cheap and nasty. So have a look in the mirror when it comes to accussing me of "unsavoury words". Your making it out as if I have outright abused you with every nasty word in the dictionary.

I think your daily consumption of alcohol, and lack of sleep, doesn't do your brain much good. You have openly admitted to me on MSN your an alcoholic. That tells me you have the personality deficency. Because people with a drink problem react differently to others who don't. Hence, your very sensitive responses.

If you read back, the Pep-Whitaker debate was strictly boxing, until you were the one who got personal first in your very last reply.

[sweet_scientist]

right the last one went 9 rounds, and the other ten or something like that. I hardly watch it because fights 3 and 4 was too dirty of a fight for my taste.

Now there's some fights in need of a Joe Cortez!

[UpWithEvil]

you could up load the Pep fights lol. I think I got em from UpWithEvil. Or was it SS?

It was me, on the same DVD with Jim Jeffries spitting a loogie :D

Gentleman, with Dempsey1238's kind approval:good, I offer you just a taste of some rare fruit - the great Willie Pep in the ring in 1945 - two years prior to his nearly-fatal airplane crash.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I have about 15 minutes of footage in total and it's an interesting fight. Walton does a good bit of holding and mugging early but Willie starts to get his timing on point in the middle rounds.

The clip is encoded with the Xvid codec and has not been deinterlaced. Enjoy.

[RafaelGonzal]

Willie Pep vs Salvador Sanchez at their prime would be a dream match for me.
Pep one the greatest top ten alltime......

[Robbi]

The Underrated/Overrated thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manassa
Say what you want about Hagler as a fighter overall - but he was one of the hardest, meanest, toughest fighters to have ever lived in the modern era. The man was made of steel.


Robbi - He wasn't made of steel. Bone, flesh, and blood.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbi
He wasn't made of steel. Bone, flesh, and blood.


Manassa -Well fuck me sideways.



That just sums you up. Your so easily wound up with your response, and decided to resort to foul language. Unsavoury words from whom?.

[UpWithEvil]

You know, Willie Pep really does deserve better.

[Sweet Pea]

I don't understand the people who rank Pep the greatest of all time but rate someone like Jones nowhere near the top due to lack of resume. They are mostly rating Pep based on what type of fighter he was and how he fought, rather than who he actually fought. Not underestimating his resume, as I have reviewed it many many times, and yes, overall, it's deeper than Jones's. But the main point is, most rate him on in ring performance and dominance, regardless of opposition in his prime, rather than resume, where he is nowhere near a Charles or Greb.

I for one rank Pep just outside my top 10, at #12, and I realize that I will be one of few to do it, but I see nothing wrong with it at all given what I've outlined above.

[UpWithEvil]

I don't understand the people who rank Pep the greatest of all time but rate someone like Jones nowhere near the top due to lack of resume.

Is it OK to downgrade Jones for being a juiced-up cheater?

[brownpimp88]

I don't understand the people who rank Pep the greatest of all time but rate someone like Jones nowhere near the top due to lack of resume. They are mostly rating Pep based on what type of fighter he was and how he fought, rather than who he actually fought. Not underestimating his resume, as I have reviewed it many many times, and yes, overall, it's deeper than Jones's. But the main point is, most rate him on in ring performance and dominance, regardless of opposition in his prime, rather than resume, where he is nowhere near a Charles or Greb.

I for one rank Pep just outside my top 10, at #12, and I realize that I will be one of few to do it, but I see nothing wrong with it at all given what I've outlined above.
I agree, his resume really isnt that great if you carefully look at it. He is not top 5 based on his resume alone.

[Sweet Pea]

Is it OK to downgrade Jones for being a juiced-up cheater?For once testing over the limit for testosterone quite a while back, while his opponent did as well, and upon retesting he was found clean? Somehow I don't believe it has much to do with it.

Seriously, he took Ripped Fuel. Big fuckin whoop.

[UpWithEvil]

For once testing over the limit for testosterone quite a while back, while his opponent did as well, and upon retesting he was found clean? Somehow I don't believe it has much to do with it.

Seriously, he took Ripped Fuel. Big fuckin whoop.
Seriously, he failed a test for anabolic steroids.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Did Roy decide to go with the "Ripped Fuel" excuse full-time? I remember he was also peddling the "over-the-counter sinus medication" tale for a while. I guess "flaxseed oil" was already played out by 2003.

[Sweet Pea]

He tested positive once in his entire career for being over the limit to a much lesser extent than Hall was. Otherwise, what proof do you have? In any other fights? Or are you to assume that was the only time they tested him?

[Senya13]

He failed a test for some prohibited substance that was never named. It wasn't anabolic steroid, the author of that letter was totally incompetent at such things, as she herself admitted.

[UpWithEvil]

He tested positive once in his entire career for being over the limit to a much lesser extent than Hall was. Otherwise, what proof do you have

"...besides his testing positive for steroids?

In any other fights?

Was he tested for steroids in every fight? You know as well as I do that not only did the sanctioning bodies ignore PED use until recently, but that some state comissions still do not require steroid testing to this very day.

[UpWithEvil]

C'mon, let's not sully Willie's thread with steroid talk. At least check out the clip I posted on the previous page.

[Dempsey1238]

It was me, on the same DVD with Jim Jeffries spitting a loogie :D

Gentleman, with Dempsey1238's kind approval:good, I offer you just a taste of some rare fruit - the great Willie Pep in the ring in 1945 - two years prior to his nearly-fatal airplane crash.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I have about 15 minutes of footage in total and it's an interesting fight. Walton does a good bit of holding and mugging early but Willie starts to get his timing on point in the middle rounds.

The clip is encoded with the Xvid codec and has not been deinterlaced. Enjoy.

Ok, with the chats and all.
Was that Kid McCoy that just got out of prison in that interview?? Does my avatar remind you of something lol.

Well I a bet confuse on which Pep fights I got it from, I got a few from you, one or so from SS I belive, and the Saddler fights 3 and 4 from Silk Degrees from Cyber boxing.

[Jack Dempsey]

Just started reading Peps bio, hope its a good read

[Nemesis]

It was me, on the same DVD with Jim Jeffries spitting a loogie :D

Gentleman, with Dempsey1238's kind approval:good, I offer you just a taste of some rare fruit - the great Willie Pep in the ring in 1945 - two years prior to his nearly-fatal airplane crash.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I have about 15 minutes of footage in total and it's an interesting fight. Walton does a good bit of holding and mugging early but Willie starts to get his timing on point in the middle rounds.

The clip is encoded with the Xvid codec and has not been deinterlaced. Enjoy.cheers UWE and Dempsey :good

[Manassa]

The Underrated/Overrated thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manassa
Say what you want about Hagler as a fighter overall - but he was one of the hardest, meanest, toughest fighters to have ever lived in the modern era. The man was made of steel.


Robbi - He wasn't made of steel. Bone, flesh, and blood.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbi
He wasn't made of steel. Bone, flesh, and blood.


Manassa -Well fuck me sideways.



That just sums you up. Your so easily wound up with your response, and decided to resort to foul language. Unsavoury words from whom?.

'Fuck me sideways' means 'stone me', or in more basic terms, 'could you be any more obvious?' Look back to that thread and you'll see it wasn't just me who thought your comment was pointless and unfunny, much like most of the things you type in jest.

'Sensitive young man', hardly. I'm an even bigger joker than you on this site (and in real life I can take a joke as well as anyone), it's just you. You're a cock :good

Don't expect me to reply to that other long post either (which I read for three seconds).

[Manassa]

Just started reading Peps bio, hope its a good read

Got that, quite good actually.

[Robbi]

So, er, bollocks to you and bollocks to your opinions. I won't be replying.

You fool. :patsch

[Manassa]

... To our main debate.

[Robbi]

'Fuck me sideways' means 'stone me', or in more basic terms, 'could you be any more obvious?' Look back to that thread and you'll see it wasn't just me who thought your comment was pointless and unfunny, much like most of the things you type in jest.

'Sensitive young man', hardly. I'm an even bigger joker than you on this site (and in real life I can take a joke as well as anyone), it's just you. You're a cock :good

Don't expect me to reply to that other long post either (which I read for three seconds).

I wasn't trying to be funny. Just sarcastic and dry with my humour. And to say "fuck me sideways" means "stone me", or in your basic terms "could you be any more obvious". Maybe in your own little world yes. To reply with the words "fuck me side ways" is you being unsavoury with your words and being insulting. However, I have thick skin and can handle you no problem. You on the otherhand are extremely sensitive and fly off the handle easily when I taunt you on points regarding boxing. I don't taunt others as I don't see them as vulnerable as yourself.


In your previous post. You went onto state that I was harassing you on a near daily basis, mis-quoting you, taunting you, insulting you with all kinds of unsavoury words and terms. But prior to that you said "top blokes, decent enough people or total wankers", then following that you said "you are none of these". If I was acccusing someone of making such actions towards me I'd term them "a wanker". So for you to accuse me of what you did, and come to the conclusion I wasn't a wanker..........again, you fool. If roles were reveresed, I'd be calling you a wanker, make no mistake about it. But your one anyway.


Yes, its just me. Correct. You hate, yes hate me disagreeing with your favourite fighters and my taunts like "nuthugger". Your the one who started the trading of insults on this thread, and got personal. Nuff said. I will admit, I certainly was the taunter.

This person shall remain nameless. But I got an IM from someone a couple of months back, a decent and regular poster, who noticed me and you were at loggerheads with each other on a thread. This person seemed to find you a nasty bit business in their previous experiences with you. So I'm not the only one who's had a run in with you.

Young alcholic lad, time for you to spark open another can of beer. Settle the nerves this afternoon.

[Manassa]

You do type some rubbish.

You even think I'm an alcoholic :lol:

It seems you aren't the only jester :good

[Robbi]

You do type some rubbish.

You even think I'm an alcoholic :lol:

It seems you aren't the only jester :good

You are a liar. You openly told me you have a drink problem. We spoke about it regularly on MSN, and the other day you told me you only had four cans of beer. Not the norm for you you said.

If I was getting taunted after admitting I was an alcoholic over the PC, I'd probably just say "I'm not really an alcoholic I was joking". Basic cover-up, but effective.

Why the hell would you give me your MSN, yes you asked me to add you on MSN, not the other way around....chat about music and boxing, and suddenly openly admit to me your an alcholic, then your only jesting now?. Your the strange character.

[Manassa]

I asked you to add me because you didn't believe I was nineteen. That is all.

As I said before, notice it's never me who initiates conversation. You talk to me, I feed you bullshit. If you want to believe I'm an alcoholic, I'm an alcoholic :good

[Robbi]

I asked you to add me because you didn't believe I was nineteen. That is all.

As I said before, notice it's never me who initiates conversation. You talk to me, I feed you bullshit. If you want to believe I'm an alcoholic, I'm an alcoholic :good

Who cares what you wanted to add me for you little fool. You asked me to add you to MSN, end of.........

Initiates conversation. You have messaged me maybe twice on MSN to kick off a conversation, but I'll admit I'm a chatty person and messaged you more often than you did with me. Natural for an outgoing chatty type like myself to initiate conversation.

You feed me bullshit alright. Telling me all about how great your band Suede are, and trying to influence me on them. Next you'll being denying your even into Suede ala your drink problem.

Your the strange one. You openly admit you have a drink problem, then only when your exposed on here in front of all do you deny it.

[Robbi]

You do type some rubbish.

You even think I'm an alcoholic :lol:

It seems you aren't the only jester :good

Got to show you this again, just to rub it in.

In your previous post. You went onto state that I was harassing you on a near daily basis, mis-quoting you, taunting you, insulting you with all kinds of unsavoury words and terms. But prior to that you said "top blokes, decent enough people or total wankers", then following that you said "you are none of these". If I was acccusing someone of making such actions towards me I'd term them "a wanker". So for you to accuse me of what you did, and come to the conclusion I wasn't a wanker..........again, you fool. If roles were reveresed, I'd be calling you a wanker, make no mistake about it. But your one anyway.

[Manassa]

Who's all sensitive now? :D

By the way, your 'I'd call you a wanker' paragraph is just bizarre.

[Robbi]

Who's all sensitive now? :D

By the way, your 'I'd call you a wanker' paragraph is just bizarre.

Sensitive. Not me. You were the first one on here who showed vulnerablity to being sensitive and getting personal. I'm only picking you apart, you won't see it that way though, for obvious reasons.

My paragraph on "I'd call you a wanker" is bizarre?. Yes because it clearly exposes that you accused me of "taunts, insults, harassing you" then you came to the conclusion that I wasn't a wanker. Doesn't add up.

Stupid fool.

[Robbi]

So, er, bollocks to you and bollocks to your opinions. I WON'T be replying.

Four replies since................

Your becoming comical now. I'm keeping it going, god I certainly am that.

[Manassa]

I'm the one keeping it going. Notice the difference in effort between our posts :good

I'm wasting your time, Robbi, while I listen to my Suede collection.

[Minotauro]

Thanks UpWithEvil for uploading Pep vs Walton

[Robbi]

I'm the one keeping it going. Notice the difference in effort between our posts :good

I'm wasting your time, Robbi, while I listen to my Suede collection.

It became entertainment more than anything posts and posts ago. Yeah, I'm putting in a tad more effort, and?. But you have not proven yourself to be a man to hold his word. Thats five replies now.

Hows the Suede Collection sounding, shite?.

Your the one keeping it going. I think its both of us. Thats one thing we can agree on I'm sure.

Go on, make it six.

[Manassa]

I've got to correct you before it drives me mad. I'm very particular when it comes to grammar.

You are is not your. It's you're.

Phew.

[Robbi]

I've got to correct you before it drives me mad. I'm very particular when it comes to grammar.

You are is not your. It's you're.

Phew.

My grammar aint the worst, not up to book writing standards right enough. You got a higher English degree?. Without being sarcastic, cheers man. Thats noted. Your not a bad lad afterall by correcting my grammar.

Now my posts will have a bit more polish on them regarding presenatation.

[mcvey]

I wasn't trying to be funny. Just sarcastic and dry with my humour. And to say "fuck me sideways" means "stone me", or in your basic terms "could you be any more obvious". Maybe in your own little world yes. To reply with the words "fuck me side ways" is you being unsavoury with your words and being insulting. However, I have thick skin and can handle you no problem. You on the otherhand are extremely sensitive and fly off the handle easily when I taunt you on points regarding boxing. I don't taunt others as I don't see them as vulnerable as yourself.


In your previous post. You went onto state that I was harassing you on a near daily basis, mis-quoting you, taunting you, insulting you with all kinds of unsavoury words and terms. But prior to that you said "top blokes, decent enough people or total wankers", then following that you said "you are none of these". If I was acccusing someone of making such actions towards me I'd term them "a wanker". So for you to accuse me of what you did, and come to the conclusion I wasn't a wanker..........again, you fool. If roles were reveresed, I'd be calling you a wanker, make no mistake about it. But your one anyway.


Yes, its just me. Correct. You hate, yes hate me disagreeing with your favourite fighters and my taunts like "nuthugger". Your the one who started the trading of insults on this thread, and got personal. Nuff said. I will admit, I certainly was the taunter.

This person shall remain nameless. But I got an IM from someone a couple of months back, a decent and regular poster, who noticed me and you were at loggerheads with each other on a thread. This person seemed to find you a nasty bit business in their previous experiences with you. So I'm not the only one who's had a run in with you.

Young alcholic lad, time for you to spark open another can of beer. Settle the nerves this afternoon.
Robbi ,Mannassa is a wanker ,Ive footage of him masturbating over an Ike Williams video,while strewn about him are countless empty lager tins,a sad ending for a beardless boy,be gentle with him.No more harrasment, you could drive him over the edge,he might end up watching fights from the 80s!

[mcvey]

John Scully posted this in general forum a couple of months ago and it received only two responses, shows the depth of the posters in there...
No less a scribe than WC Heinz rated Pep the best pure boxer he,d seen ,maybe Driscoll could match him but Pep really was a Will O the Wisp,he must be top 10 probably top 5,imo.

[Stonehands89]

The big knock on Guglielmo Papaleo is that his resume isn't as deep as other greats. I myself have severely criticized Marcel Cerdan for exactly that.

Frankly, there are names on that resume of Pep's -but time has rendered them forgotten like script on the sandy shore. However, the fact that he had 242 career fights separates him from his contemporaries who finish careers with 200 less fights and get all the wee ones jumping up and down. His longevity mitigates arguments there. His comeback from a life-threatening plane crash says something as well. His defeat of Saddler is miraculous -and is up there among the truly great boxing exhibitions in my book. What has Whitaker done that is comparable to that?

Finally, there is the level of skill. His combination of skill and talent is second to none. He had an understanding of how to read opponents, how to time and place shots, get hit rarely, find an effortless rythym, and remain both mobile and efficient, that has never been repeated over such a stretch in an era where fighters were fighters and politicians never put gloves on.

Willie Pep was pugilism's Rembrandt making masterpieces on canvas.

Top 3 all-time, ever.

[Manassa]

Robbi ,Mannassa is a wanker ,Ive footage of him masturbating over an Ike Williams video,while strewn about him are countless empty lager tins,a sad ending for a beardless boy,be gentle with him.No more harrasment, you could drive him over the edge,he might end up watching fights from the 80s!

I've got a hell of a lot of fights from the '80s at it goes.

[mcvey]

I've got a hell of a lot of fights from the '80s at it goes.
And lager cans!

[Manassa]

And lager cans!

Indeed, nearly all of them empty as well. Yet I can still type with grammatical perfection.

Funny, that.

[Robbi]

And lager cans!

Yeah, he sure has. Well, he must have a few empty tinnies.

He was the one who said he was an alcoholic. Manasaa drinks every single day of the week. Now its suddenly changed, he's not an alchy. Wonder why..................................:lol:

[Robbi]

Indeed, nearly all of them empty as well. Yet I can still type with grammatical perfection.

Funny, that.

You don't need to get drunk, thus have scattered senses and be falling around, to be an alcoholic.

[Drew101]

Robinson drew twice before Turpin are you sure, the Hecht fight was ruled no contest (after Ray was originally DQ'ed)

Jose Basora, and Henry Brimm both drew with SRR prior to the Turpin fight.

[Manassa]

He was the one who said he was an alcoholic.

Alright, I'll admit, I'm an alcoholic.

[mcvey]

Yeah, he sure has. Well, he must have a few empty tinnies.

He was the one who said he was an alcoholic. Manasaa drinks every single day of the week. Now its suddenly changed, he's not an alchy. Wonder why..................................:lol:
Robbi I dont allways agree with Manassa ,in fact hardly ever ,I sometimes find him a little too self opionionated,but drunk or sober,he makes more sense than most posters on here,and ,joking aside ,if he told you something in confidence ,perhaps you should have kept that to yourself?

[Manassa]

Robbi I dont allways agree with Manassa ,in fact hardly ever ,I sometimes find him a little too self opionionated,but drunk or sober,he makes more sense than most posters on here,and ,joking aside ,if he told you something in confidence ,perhaps you should have kept that to yourself?

Not a good idea to take the moral high ground when you've already had two stabs at me yourself.

[Drew101]

Just to expand on some of the points that Stonehands raised about resume...

Here is a partial list of some of the contenders that Pep fought and defeated:

Chalky Wright (possible Top 20 featherweight)
Sal Bartolo (NBA titleholder in the 40's)
Phil Terranova (defeated Saddler, former NBA titleholder)
Jackie Wilson (former NBA titleholder)
Willie Joyce (top-flight lightweight contender, went 3-1 against Ike Williams)
Humberto Sierra (top 10 contender who had defeated Sandy Saddler)
Paddy DeMarco (two victories over Saddler, future lightweight champ)
Manuel Ortiz (atg bantamweight, legitimate threat at featherweight)


Now, throw in names like Eddie Compo, Teddy "Red Top" Davis, Johnny Famechon, Charlie Riley, Carlos Chavez, Armand Savoie...to say nothing of his series- fought at a farily advanced age, against Sandy Saddler, and you've actully got a pretty damned impressive resume.

Look at it this way...when Pep turned 30, he was 164-5-1. One of those losses was to a HOF fighter who relied on an infuriating style to win fights (Angott). Three were to Saddler, who, at minimum is a Top 3 lightweight and one of the Top 50 fighters of all time. The other loss (against Tommy Collins) ended via controversial stoppage, and was thought to have been thrown.

Pep was great...one of the very best in history. No questions asked.

[mcvey]

Not a good idea to take the moral high ground when you've already had two stabs at me yourself.
If I stab you it will be fatal,Im not taking any ground I was joking ,Ive no idea what your alcohol consumption is and could care less,but in the unlikely event that you pm,d me with some personal info I would keep it to myself.Ive no interest in you or any other poster really ,we are just titles on a screen and thats fine,by me,Im interested in your opions on boxing and those of a few other posters thats as far as it goes,maybe you are a little sensitive after all?I wasnt trying to offend you,if I was Id have done a better job,rest assured I wont banter with you again.

[TBooze]

Pep's record against Top 10 and Champion fighters according to the Ring at the time:

Wins:

Pedro Hernadez
Bobby 'Poison' Ivy
'Chalky' Wright (four times)
Allie Stolz
Sal Bartolo (three times)
Jackie Wilson (twice)
Willie Joyce
Manuel Ortiz
Lulu Constanitino
Joey Peralta
Cabey Lewis (twice)
Willie Roache
Phil Terranova
Jackie Graves
Jock Leslie
Miguel Acevedo
Paddy DeMarco
Sandy Saddler
Charley Riley
Ray Famechon

Losses:

Sammy Angott
Sandy Saddler (three times)
Tommy Collins
Lulu Perez (Proven fix, that meant Pep was never allowed to fight in New York again)
'Kid' Bassey
'Sonny' Leon

So I make that 27-8; with the last three defeats comming at the end of his career.

[mcvey]

Pep's record against Top 10 and Champion fighters according to the Ring at the time:

Wins:

Pedro Hernadez
Bobby 'Poison' Ivy
'Chalky' Wright (four times)
Allie Stolz
Sal Bartolo (three times)
Jackie Wilson (twice)
Willie Joyce
Manuel Ortiz
Lulu Constanitino
Joey Peralta
Cabey Lewis (twice)
Willie Roache
Phil Terranova
Jackie Graves
Jock Leslie
Miguel Acevedo
Paddy DeMarco
Sandy Saddler
Charley Riley
Ray Famechon

Losses:

Sammy Angott
Sandy Saddler (three times)
Tommy Collins
Lulu Perez (Proven fix, that meant Pep was never allowed to fight in New York again)
'Kid' Bassey
'Sonny' Leon

So I make that 27-8; with the last three defeats comming at the end of his career.
Its a pretty deep resume ,but not as deep as Charles or Moore,s imo ,Pep is a p4p fighter due to his superlative skills,top 10 Id say at least,higher than that is academic really.

[Robbi]

Robbi I dont allways agree with Manassa ,in fact hardly ever ,I sometimes find him a little too self opionionated,but drunk or sober,he makes more sense than most posters on here,and ,joking aside ,if he told you something in confidence ,perhaps you should have kept that to yourself?

Mcvey. When it comes to keeping on the straight and narrow (boxing), I don't mind Manassa. When he responds to my taunts, he should simply taunt back in return, instead of resorting to personal insults and going wide of the mark, aka drifting away from views on boxing. Yes, something I've became guilty of over the last couple of pages. Out of character for me.

If someone taunts me about being a "nuthugger", I'd come back with something similar. I have seen the vurnerability in him for quite a while now, and probably decided to play with it a bit.

One thing he knows he was wrong about, when he said I "insult on a daily basis". Overexaggeration from him to a high degree. And I was hardly insulting him, the word "taunting" would be better served.

[mcvey]

Mcvey. When it comes to keeping on the straight and narrow (boxing), I don't mind Manassa. When he responds to my taunts, he should simply taunt back in return, instead of resorting to personal insults and going wide of the mark, aka drifting away from views on boxing. Yes, something I've became guilty of over the last couple of pages. Out of character for me.

If someone taunts me about being a "nuthugger", I'd come back with something similar. I have seen the vurnerability in him for quite a while now, and probably decided to play with it a bit.

One thing he knows he was wrong about, when he said I "insult on a daily basis". Overexaggeration from him to a high degree. And I was hardly insulting him, the word "taunting" would be better served.
He does resort to personal abuse rather quickly,Ive been guilty of it once or twice myself ,once with him and once with Mendoza/Dr Z.I shouldnt get too involved with a guy 40 years my junior,hes a good poster,one of the best ,but swearing at people isnt polite,constructive or mature,I think Ill keep my contact with him down to general boxing .I had my skirmish with Mendoza,whose also a good poster,at the end of the day its all really "much ado about nothing " isnt it?

[Nemesis]

with all due respect take your bickering elsewhere

[Nemesis]

Just to expand on some of the points that Stonehands raised about resume...

Here is a partial list of some of the contenders that Pep fought and defeated:

Chalky Wright (possible Top 20 featherweight)
Sal Bartolo (NBA titleholder in the 40's)
Phil Terranova (defeated Saddler, former NBA titleholder)
Jackie Wilson (former NBA titleholder)
Willie Joyce (top-flight lightweight contender, went 3-1 against Ike Williams)
Humberto Sierra (top 10 contender who had defeated Sandy Saddler)
Paddy DeMarco (two victories over Saddler, future lightweight champ)
Manuel Ortiz (atg bantamweight, legitimate threat at featherweight)


Now, throw in names like Eddie Compo, Teddy "Red Top" Davis, Johnny Famechon, Charlie Riley, Carlos Chavez, Armand Savoie...to say nothing of his series- fought at a farily advanced age, against Sandy Saddler, and you've actully got a pretty damned impressive resume.

Look at it this way...when Pep turned 30, he was 164-5-1. One of those losses was to a HOF fighter who relied on an infuriating style to win fights (Angott). Three were to Saddler, who, at minimum is a Top 3 lightweight and one of the Top 50 fighters of all time. The other loss (against Tommy Collins) ended via controversial stoppage, and was thought to have been thrown.

Pep was great...one of the very best in history. No questions asked.the same collins who got knocked down about 45 times against Jimmy Carter?

[Senya13]

One of those losses was to a HOF fighter who relied on an infuriating style to win fights (Angott).
Angott outboxed Pep, he didn't use infuriating style to win it. He counter-punched effectively in the first 5 rounds, making Pep miss most of the time, took a break the next 3 rounds, then won the remaining 2 rounds by doing some in-fighting and wrestling.

[mcvey]

with all due respect take your bickering elsewhere
Actually your'e right ,its got no place here,my apologies.

[joe33]

Cant beleive some here are knocking pep,just seems so wrong to me,the guy was a boxing god,one of the all time greats,i really think people look into these things to much,you do that to long,and fucking hell of course your find faults,thats pretty obvious in any one in any sport or any job.

[Sweet Pea]

The big knock on Guglielmo Papaleo is that his resume isn't as deep as other greats. I myself have severely criticized Marcel Cerdan for exactly that.

Frankly, there are names on that resume of Pep's -but time has rendered them forgotten like script on the sandy shore. However, the fact that he had 242 career fights separates him from his contemporaries who finish careers with 200 less fights and get all the wee ones jumping up and down. His longevity mitigates arguments there. His comeback from a life-threatening plane crash says something as well. His defeat of Saddler is miraculous -and is up there among the truly great boxing exhibitions in my book. What has Whitaker done that is comparable to that?

Finally, there is the level of skill. His combination of skill and talent is second to none. He had an understanding of how to read opponents, how to time and place shots, get hit rarely, find an effortless rythym, and remain both mobile and efficient, that has never been repeated over such a stretch in an era where fighters were fighters and politicians never put gloves on.

Willie Pep was pugilism's Rembrandt making masterpieces on canvas.

Top 3 all-time, ever.Chavez.

[Drew101]

the same collins who got knocked down about 45 times against Jimmy Carter?

yep...he was still top 10, though. Had Saddler in a world of trouble too when they fought.

[Nemesis]

yep...he was still top 10, though. Had Saddler in a world of trouble too when they fought.

yeah, he was a featheweight though going agianst the LW champ. Collins had a history of getting battered early and coming back to knock his opponent out, thats why the ref let the bout go on so long

[Nemesis]

Chavez.

last time I checked it was scored a draw :huh

[Sweet Pea]

last time I checked it was scored a draw :huhI'll respond to that with nothing constructive, hoping that you realize your own mistake.

[mcvey]

yeah, he was a featheweight though going agianst the LW champ. Collins had a history of getting battered early and coming back to knock his opponent out, thats why the ref let the bout go on so long
The referee took a lot of flak for that one as I recall,Ive got the Ring magazine somewhere with an article on it ,with readers posts and the referees rebuttal I think his name was Tommy Rawson ,an ex fighter.Collins actually agreed with the ref,though many in the audience thought it was a massacre.

[Nemesis]

The referee took a lot of flak for that one as I recall,Ive got the Ring magazine somewhere with an article on it ,with readers posts and the referees rebuttal I think his name was Tommy Rawson ,an ex fighter.Collins actually agreed with the ref,though many in the audience thought it was a massacre.

I think it was nationally televised too

[TBooze]

I'll respond to that with nothing constructive, hoping that you realize your own mistake.

Yeah; Chavez should of won on affective agressiveness...:bolt

[Drew101]

I think it was nationally televised too

Indeed. There was a pretty huge outcry about that fight...and judging from the pics that I've seen, it's not too hard to see why. Collins looked like he'd been through the meat-grinder.

[sweet_scientist]

The big knock on Guglielmo Papaleo is that his resume isn't as deep as other greats. I myself have severely criticized Marcel Cerdan for exactly that.

Frankly, there are names on that resume of Pep's -but time has rendered them forgotten like script on the sandy shore. However, the fact that he had 242 career fights separates him from his contemporaries who finish careers with 200 less fights and get all the wee ones jumping up and down. His longevity mitigates arguments there. His comeback from a life-threatening plane crash says something as well. His defeat of Saddler is miraculous -and is up there among the truly great boxing exhibitions in my book. What has Whitaker done that is comparable to that?

Finally, there is the level of skill. His combination of skill and talent is second to none. He had an understanding of how to read opponents, how to time and place shots, get hit rarely, find an effortless rythym, and remain both mobile and efficient, that has never been repeated over such a stretch in an era where fighters were fighters and politicians never put gloves on.

Willie Pep was pugilism's Rembrandt making masterpieces on canvas.

Top 3 all-time, ever.

Nothing imo. Beating a Sandy Saddler level fighter whilst past his prime is an incredible feat.

I think Saddler is better than anyone Whitaker beat and Pep beat him whilst past his prime.

The only thing Whitaker has which is close is an ARGUABLE win whilst past his prime against DLH. At best it's arguable and unlike Pep-Saddler II, no one could mistake that fight for a boxing masterpiece. A close, perhaps intriguing game of cat and mouse, but not a piece of boxing art to hang in the gallery of boxing masterpieces.

[Manassa]

Willie Pep, arguably the best fighter of all time.

McVey & Robbi, arguably the biggest pair of wankers of all time behind Adolf Hitler and Dale Winton.

That should settle things :good

[Robbi]

Willie Pep, arguably the best fighter of all time.

McVey & Robbi, arguably the biggest pair of wankers of all time behind Adolf Hitler and Dale Winton.

That should settle things :good

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Well, it has been approx 5 1/2 hours since I last posted, and to come back onto this thread to view your abusive post doesn't surprise me. You just never know when to let it go.

The truth hurts doesn't it.

You were a great catch, reeled in gently tugging the line. Sensitive bites.

[Manassa]

What's sad is you thinking I'm sitting here with a seething, red face, actually bothered about what you're on about. I'm a homosexual, transsexual, alcoholic dwarf with a wooden leg and a tiny cock - sue me!

I'm just popping in and out between doing whatever I'm doing, taking no more than a minute each time to write these little captions. You seem to be waiting on here for me to reply all the time, and when you do, there's a hell of a lot of effort being put in for someone who's trying to taunt me.

Don't know about you but I'm shagged and going to bed, I've actually been out having f u n. You should try it.

[Robbi]

What's sad is you thinking I'm sitting here with a seething, red face, actually bothered about what you're on about. I'm a homosexual, transsexual, alcoholic dwarf with a wooden leg and a tiny cock - sue me!

I'm just popping in and out between doing whatever I'm doing, taking no more than a minute each time to write these little captions. You seem to be waiting on here for me to reply all the time, and when you do, there's a hell of a lot of effort being put in for someone who's trying to taunt me.

Don't know about you but I'm shagged and going to bed, I've actually been out having f u n. You should try it.

Your pressuming that, and your wrong. To say your not bothered about it couldn't be further from the truth. Your actons support my claims, no three ways about it either. You initiated the personal insults towards me pages ago. You gave me no alternative but to give you some of you're own medicine back in return. Old gym saying "someone hits you low with intent, hit them low right back"

You simply couldn't handle me winding you up, full stop. Someone else on this very thread has even said that you fly off the handle too easily, and resort to abuse. You have previous for it with others, I don't.

I have been away for 5 hours, and came back here to see a terrible foul languaged post yet again, not surprised. As I said, you don't know when to let go.

Touchy + sensitive + abusive = Manassa.

:hi:

[Robbi]

So, er, bollocks to you and bollocks to your opinions. I wont be replying.

Many replies is that now?. Well into double figures for sure.

[Manassa]

'Fly off the handle' :D

No, I'm just a very blunt person, and a hypocrite too.

If you think you're getting one over on me, if it makes you feel good, I'll say no more.

[Robbi]

'Fly off the handle' :D

No, I'm just a very blunt person, and a hypocrite too.

If you think you're getting one over on me, if it makes you feel good, I'll say no more.

Your great entertainment. If I could have placed a bet at the bookies that you were going to reply again after saying " I'm shagged and going to bed" I would have put my life savings on it.

Your predictable, very. You have to give me my due, I ain't. Just look at the picture I posted, funny for any neutral. Bet you weren't expecting that.

I'll give you the last word if you happen to still be around.

[sweet_scientist]

Willie Pep's thread deserves better... :D

[JohnThomas1]

with all due respect take your bickering elsewhere

.

[Manassa]

Fucking Jesus man, it's you're!!! Now that's bothering me.

P.S. - I got into The Royle Family.

P.P.S. - to others, I'm the passive one here. Talk to the other tosser :good

[JohnThomas1]

Willie Pep's thread deserves better... :D

Nemesis is gonna have a damn fit!!! A thread about poor
Willie not getting respect and look at it

:lol:

[sweet_scientist]

Nemesis is gonna have a damn fit!!! A thread about poor
Willie not getting respect and look at it

:lol:

:yep

At least it's keeping the thread at the top of the page. Something Nemesis or Manassa can't be too disappointed about.

[JohnThomas1]

:yep

At least it's keeping the thread at the top of the page. Something Nemesis or Manassa can't be too disappointed about.

True that. Nothing wrong with a good old fun spat i always reckon

:yep

:lol:

[sweet_scientist]

True that. Nothing wrong with a good old fun spat i always reckon

:yep

:lol:
Definitely.

It's some of the more originial material we've had in here for a while too.

[Stonehands89]

Chavez.
You're entitled to your own opinion. However, I disagree.
Strenuously.

[Minotauro]

Chavez.

Are you seriously saying that Whitaker "winning" against Chavez makes his resume better then Peps? Please the Saddler win is miles better firstly he came back from a near death accident and was past his prime and still pulled off the win. Chavez was nothing at welterweight (and I'm a huge Chavez fan), Julio was past his prime and at least two weight over his best weight so that "win" means less then Pryor win over Arguello. I know you’re a big Whittaker fan but how can you say Pep's resume is not top ten yet you have Pernell in your top ten when his resume is worse.

[Robbi]

Are you seriously saying that Whitaker "winning" against Chavez makes his resume better then Peps? Please the Saddler win is miles better firstly he came back from a near death accident and was past his prime and still pulled off the win. Chavez was nothing at welterweight (and I'm a huge Chavez fan), Julio was past his prime and at least two weight over his best weight so that "win" means less then Pryor win over Arguello. I know you’re a big Whittaker fan but how can you say Pep's resume is not top ten yet you have Pernell in your top ten when his resume is worse.

You forgot to mention Whitaker was also two weight divisions past his prime. I will agree that Whitaker was more effective and consistent than Chavez at welterweight, who only fought there briefly.

[Sweet Pea]

Are you seriously saying that Whitaker "winning" against Chavez makes his resume better then Peps? Please the Saddler win is miles better firstly he came back from a near death accident and was past his prime and still pulled off the win. Chavez was nothing at welterweight (and I'm a huge Chavez fan), Julio was past his prime and at least two weight over his best weight so that "win" means less then Pryor win over Arguello. I know you’re a big Whittaker fan but how can you say Pep's resume is not top ten yet you have Pernell in your top ten when his resume is worse.

Well, Chavez was fighting at 142 pounds I believe, and was by no means the bigger man than Whitaker. So for one, he was not actually fighting much past 140(which was a very good weight for him) and two, he was fighting a guy who was no bigger than him at all, so it's not like he was facing a big WW who had an advantage over him. He was fighting a guy his own size and came it a comfortable weight for him. Whitaker also came in under the WW limit(145 pounds).

Chavez was a bit past his prime, but still the #1 P4P fighter in the world, and as Robbi said, Whitaker was not at his best weight either at WW, though being at a better stage of his career than Chavez. Either way, to completely dominate the P4P king at the time, an undefeated fighter over 88 fights, the way he did, with no real advantages, in Chavez's hometown, is remarkable.

Also, Pep lost 3 out of 4 to Saddler, the best fighter he ever faced. He was past his prime though, but what makes Saddler a better win than Chavez? The fact that Saddler beat a past his prime Pep 3 times is the primary reason he ranks so highly in the first place(though he does have some good looked over wins). I believe Chavez was a better fighter than Saddler personally. Pep's singular win over Saddler may be slightly better than Pea's win over Chavez, but then comes the fact that Pep also lost the other 3 fights to him.

[Stonehands89]

...
Pep's singular win over Saddler may be slightly better than Pea's win over Chavez, but then comes the fact that Pep also lost the other 3 fights to him.

...but then comes the fact that Pep fought 242 times. Which means that he put himself at risk 196 times more than Whitaker did.

Then comes the fact that Pep was severly outgunned by Saddler and should have been dead in that plane crash like 5 others in there with him. He broke his back. Did you know that? He was in a cast from January to June of 1947 --and by June 17 he went 10 rounds. Did you know that? And then went 10 more times before the year was out. The fact that Pep was in the ring at all should give you pause. The plain fact that he was able to beat Saddler even once after that accident should make you replace that poster you have on your ceiling for a week at least.

Then comes the fact that Whitaker had not only Pep for a precedent, he had Ali, Benitez, and Loi --and let's not forget Nicolino Locche. Have you or Robbi ever seen him? Who did Pep have as a precedent? Not many. Pep was and is far more of a phenomenon. What Whitaker did was seen before... because boxing didn't begin in 1984.

[Sweet Pea]

...but then comes the fact that Pep fought 242 times. Which means that he put himself at risk 196 times more than Whitaker did.

Then comes the fact that Pep was severly outgunned by Saddler and should have been dead in that plane crash like 5 others in there with him. He broke his back. Did you know that? He was in a cast from January to June of 1947 --and by June 17 he went 10 rounds. Did you know that? And then went 10 more times before the year was out. The fact that Pep was in the ring at all should give you pause. The plain fact that he was able to beat Saddler even once after that accident should make you replace that poster you have on your ceiling for a week at least.

Then comes the fact that Whitaker had not only Pep for a precedent, he had Ali, Benitez, and Loi --and let's not forget Nicolino Locche. Have you or Robbi ever seen him? Who did Pep have as a precedent? Not many. Pep was and is far more of a phenomenon. What Whitaker did was seen before... because boxing didn't begin in 1984.Just because someone is a defensive master, doesn't mean they copied their style. You can't practice having great reflexes and timing, according to you at least on the timing part. Whitaker's style was his own. Aside from being a defensive master his style was not much like Pep's.

Yes I have seen Locche. I have seen that he had nowhere near the offense of Whitaker either. I have heard a lot different of Loi as well, that he was more of a bob and weave pressure fighter in fact, so I don't see where the comparison comes in, especially being as there is little to no footage of him.

Pep's being able to compete again shows you he made a full recovery, which is a great story, but it's not like he was so much less able than he used to be. A full recovery is a full recovery, and while he may not have been fully back to his best, he was damn close from what I've seen. Great story, great recovery, good things, but it's not like he was a cripple in there. Did you know that?

[Stonehands89]

Just because someone is a defensive master, doesn't mean they copied their style. You can't practice having great reflexes and timing, according to you at least on the timing part. Whitaker's style was his own. Aside from being a defensive master his style was not much like Pep's.

Yes I have seen Locche. I have seen that he had nowhere near the offense of Whitaker either. I have heard a lot different of Loi as well, that he was more of a bob and weave pressure fighter in fact, so I don't see where the comparison comes in, especially being as there is little to no footage of him.

Pep's being able to compete again shows you he made a full recovery, which is a great story, but it's not like he was so much less able than he used to be. A full recovery is a full recovery, and while he may not have been fully back to his best, he was damn close from what I've seen. Great story, great recovery, good things, but it's not like he was a cripple in there. Did you know that?
To minimize Pep's comeback as you did only erodes your credibility. He was not "damn close" to his best and it is ridiculous to assert that in the face of his contemporaries who attested that he was less -especially after he struggled against Archie Wilmer and Biesca. The fact that he fought on for another 20 years is something that you apparently cannot appreciate without inserting Whitaker or Jones into the equation for some odd reason.

Speaking of...Whitaker's innovative moves are not unique. They have precedent. Locche fought Antonio Ortiz and made him miss 10 shots in rapid succession. He did this with his feet together, standing flush. He would also put his hands behind his back and stand directly in front of guys like Cervantes and Ismael Laguna and they would swing at ghosts look like fools. Sound familiar?

Locche's performance against Fuji was a demonstration of mastery that rivals anything that Whitaker has done.

But guess what --
it
pales
in
comparison
to
Willie Pep's
win
over
Sandy Saddler.

[Sweet Pea]

To minimize Pep's comeback as you did only erodes your credibility. He was not "damn close" to his best and it is ridiculous to assert that in the face of his contemporaries who attested that he was less -especially after he struggled against Archie Wilmer and Biesca. The fact that he fought on for another 20 years is something that you apparently cannot appreciate without inserting Whitaker or Jones into the equation for some odd reason.

Speaking of...Whitaker's innovative moves are not unique. They have precedent. Locche fought Antonio Ortiz and made him miss 10 shots in rapid succession. He did this with his feet together, standing flush. He would also put his hands behind his back and stand directly in front of guys like Cervantes and Ismael Laguna and they would swing at ghosts look like fools. Sound familiar?

Locche's performance against Fuji was a demonstration of mastery that rivals anything that Whitaker has done.

But guess what --
it
pales
in
comparison
to
Willie Pep's
win
over
Sandy Saddler.So, do you think it was one of those cases I was talking about in our last argument? A fighter showing a glimpse of his prime(or even a full performance) once last time? I don't think so, considering he was nowhere near shot by the time. What do you think it was that allowed him to beat Saddler in one of the most one-sided displays of boxing brilliance ever witnessed(according to you) in one of their fights, but get handled in their other encounters?

[sweet_scientist]

So, do you think it was one of those cases I was talking about in our last argument? A fighter showing a glimpse of his prime(or even a full performance) once last time? I don't think so, considering he was nowhere near shot by the time. What do you think it was that allowed him to beat Saddler in one of the most one-sided displays of boxing brilliance ever witnessed(according to you) in one of their fights, but get handled in their other encounters?
Pep didn't dominate him at all. It was a close but clear win for Pep.

About the stylistic precedence issue, I'd say that Locche, Zapata, Pep, Benitez or Canto were as about stylistically similar to Whitaker as were Young Griffo, Jim Driscoll, Benny Leonard and Tommy Loughran to Willie Pep.

But in both instances, I don't think either man (Pep or Pea) were rolling out footage from past fighters to emulate. They did what came natural for them, they weren't copy cats.

[Manassa]

Pep's face was mashed after he beat Saddler.

[Sweet Pea]

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

[Stonehands89]

So, do you think it was one of those cases I was talking about in our last argument? A fighter showing a glimpse of his prime(or even a full performance) once last time? I don't think so, considering he was nowhere near shot by the time. What do you think it was that allowed him to beat Saddler in one of the most one-sided displays of boxing brilliance ever witnessed(according to you) in one of their fights, but get handled in their other encounters?
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.

[Stonehands89]

Well damn, seems Stonehands was doing a bit of exagerrating.
--especially when you misquote and distort what I wrote.

[Sweet Pea]

Locche's performance against Fuji was a demonstration of mastery that rivals anything that Whitaker has done.

But guess what --
it
pales
in
comparison
to
Willie Pep's
win
over
Sandy Saddler.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.

[Stonehands89]

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.

[Minotauro]

Well, Chavez was fighting at 142 pounds I believe, and was by no means the bigger man than Whitaker. So for one, he was not actually fighting much past 140(which was a very good weight for him) and two, he was fighting a guy who was no bigger than him at all, so it's not like he was facing a big WW who had an advantage over him. He was fighting a guy his own size and came it a comfortable weight for him. Whitaker also came in under the WW limit(145 pounds).

Chavez was a bit past his prime, but still the #1 P4P fighter in the world, and as Robbi said, Whitaker was not at his best weight either at WW, though being at a better stage of his career than Chavez. Either way, to completely dominate the P4P king at the time, an undefeated fighter over 88 fights, the way he did, with no real advantages, in Chavez's hometown, is remarkable.

Also, Pep lost 3 out of 4 to Saddler, the best fighter he ever faced. He was past his prime though, but what makes Saddler a better win than Chavez? The fact that Saddler beat a past his prime Pep 3 times is the primary reason he ranks so highly in the first place(though he does have some good looked over wins). I believe Chavez was a better fighter than Saddler personally. Pep's singular win over Saddler may be slightly better than Pea's win over Chavez, but then comes the fact that Pep also lost the other 3 fights to him.

The reason why the Saddler win is better is firstly Saddler was a lot bigger then Pep and Pep was more past his best by the time they met then when Pernell met Chavez. Pep had 136 fights by that time as well as suffering an accident which would have rendered most men unable to walk let alone box. Also Chavez wouldn't make the top 50 at welterweight while Saddler (who was in his prime when he fought Pep) is a top five featherweight by most people.

Also the fact he still held the "p4p" title doesn't mean he wasn't past his prime the guy had been in countless number of wars and clearly slower and less sharp then he once was. And even 140lbs (despite the fact he reigned there long) was not his best weight just compare the Mayweather performances. And Whittaker was naturally the bigger man and less battle worn then Julio who started his career at around the super bantamweight limit. I still don't understand you criticizing Pep resume and sayings it not good enough for a top ten spot when its better then Whittaker who you place in your top ten. Added to the fact his unbelievable consistency and number of wins.

[Robbi]

The reason why the Saddler win is better is firstly Saddler was a lot bigger then Pep and Pep was more past his best by the time they met then when Pernell met Chavez. Pep had 136 fights by that time as well as suffering an accident which would have rendered most men unable to walk let alone box. Also Chavez wouldn't make the top 50 at welterweight while Saddler (who was in his prime when he fought Pep) is a top five featherweight by most people.


Saddler was a lot bigger than Pep?. Both were natural featherweights. Probably taller in height, I'll grant you that. Pep had 136 fights by the time he stepped into the ring, had previously suffered an accident, and pulled out a superb victory. Credit where its due. Chavez couldn't make the top 50 at WW, your right. But he was incredibly consistent going into the Whitaker fight, 87-0 to be precise. And he was only 2lbs above the division where he had been competing for around 4 years, LWW.



Also the fact he still held the "p4p" title doesn't mean he wasn't past his prime the guy had been in countless number of wars and clearly slower and less sharp then he once was. And even 140lbs (despite the fact he reigned there long) was not his best weight just compare the Mayweather performances. And Whittaker was naturally the bigger man and less battle worn then Julio who started his career at around the super bantamweight limit. I still don't understand you criticizing Pep resume and sayings it not good enough for a top ten spot when its better then Whittaker who you place in your top ten. Added to the fact his unbelievable consistency and number of wins.


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.

[Minotauro]

Saddler was a lot bigger than Pep?. Both were natural featherweights. Probably taller in height, I'll grant you that. Pep had 136 fights by the time he stepped into the ring, had previously suffered an accident, and pulled out a superb victory. Credit where its due. Chavez couldn't make the top 50 at WW, your right. But he was incredibly consistent going into the Whitaker fight, 87-0 to be precise. And he was only 2lbs above the division where he had been competing for around 4 years, LWW.




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.

If you look at Saddlers Frame you can see he is a lot bigger then Pep it like Hopkins was only 1 lb bigger then De La Hoya but you could see he was clearly the bigger man. Also moving up is good but not nearly as common in the 40s/50s like it is today. Oscar has held a world title in 6 different weights does this mean you rank him above someone like Monzon who stayed at one. It depends on the person some people are big for there weight and will eventually move up while others will stay at one weight Calzaghe is a modern example i don't think this should be seen as a disadvantage. Even in non title fights Pep only went over the limit by a few pounds so it wasn't like he outgrew the division.

The point I was making about Chavez (I was not trying to diss his accomplishments in fact I’m a huge fan). But it’s just that Sweet Pea claimed that the win over Julio was the sole reason why Whittaker resume was better then Pep's. However if you look at it closer the win was not as great as many would like us to believe. Pep's win over Saddler for me is one of the greatest in boxing history up there with Frazier over Ali and Duran over Leonard.

[Robbi]

If you look at Saddlers Frame you can see he is a lot bigger then Pep it like Hopkins was only 1 lb bigger then De La Hoya but you could see he was clearly the bigger man. Also moving up is good but not nearly as common in the 40s/50s like it is today. Oscar has held a world title in 6 different weights does this mean you rank him above someone like Monzon who stayed at one. It depends on the person some people are big for there weight and will eventually move up while others will stay at one weight Calzaghe is a modern example i don't think this should be seen as a disadvantage. Even in non title fights Pep only went over the limit by a few pounds so it wasn't like he outgrew the division.


Ok, moving up wasn't as common as in the 40's and 50's as today. Mainly because no Jr divisions were around then. Its easier these to be be a multi division champion in the modern era. Another thing, I'm only trying to balance things out. People bang on about Pep having over 200 fights, with Whitaker having just over 40. It continues to be a force with the people who favour Pep over Whitaker.

Whitaker shouldn't be penalised too heavy for having fewer fights. The quality of many of those fighters must be questioned. Pep beat Wright, Saddler, Angott, and other well rated featherweights, but more quantity than quality. Its debatable if Whitaker could have been as consistent throughout his career by keeping as busy as Pep did.

Why should Pep be applauded with having fought many more times than Whitaker, but Whitaker himself isn't given the same credit for having won titles in four divisions with Pep only one?.

I'm not knocking Pep for not having moved up when soley looking at his career on its own, but when its judged against Whitaker's........yes.

[tedsares]

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

[Sweet Pea]

The point I was making about Chavez (I was not trying to diss his accomplishments in fact I’m a huge fan). But it’s just that Sweet Pea claimed that the win over Julio was the sole reason why Whittaker resume was better then Pep's. However if you look at it closer the win was not as great as many would like us to believe. Pep's win over Saddler for me is one of the greatest in boxing history up there with Frazier over Ali and Duran over Leonard.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.

[Robbi]

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.

[Robbi]

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.

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.

[Stonehands89]

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.
...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.

[Sweet Pea]

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

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.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.

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


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.
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.

[werety]

I get annoyed that thread is called "Willie Pep deserved better" and the first thing robbi does is says "Willie Pep was no Pernell Whitaker" and then goes on to have a retarded bitch fit with Manassa for like four pages of the forum. That just seems disrespectful to a great fighter.

[Robbi]

I get annoyed that thread is called "Willie Pep deserved better" and the first thing robbi does is says "Willie Pep was no Pernell Whitaker" and then goes on to have a retarded bitch fit with Manassa for like four pages of the forum. That just seems disrespectful to a great fighter.


Willie Pep was great, end of story. If I want to say "Willie Pep was no Pernell Whitaker" in terms of overall skill then thats the way it goes. I meant it with a twinkle in the eye, as they clearly are in each others league, the same league to be more precise. Also Pep deserves to be ahead of him "P4P". But you have to mind I'm putting in a case for Whitaker. Just because Pep had more fights, and he recovered from a tragic accident, it automatically puts him ahead of Whitaker?. His longevity at the top was longer, as he had more fights. But Whitaker moved up three divisions out of his comfort zone, Pep did not.

[Robbi]

The Rings top 15 best fighters of the last 80 years.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Joe Lous
5. Roberto Duran
6. Willie Pep
7. Harry Greb
8. Benny Leonard
9. Sugar Ray Leonard
10. Pernell Whitaker
11. Carlos Monzon
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Ezzard Charles
14. Archie Moore
15. Sandy Saddler

* 18. Julio Cesar Chavez.

[Stonehands89]

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.
Many, many, many historians and analysts who have either seen Pep live or studied the films far more extensively than you would call your casual remark about how Whitaker being "more skilled than Pep" as foolishness. If you want to thumb your nose at legions, so be it.

My problem with you and Robbi is that you both are far too casual in your opinions regarding both Whitaker and Jones. We are all painfully aware of how amazed you both are at these two, but I suspect that I am not alone in my suspicions that you are not nearly as studious about the greats of yesteryear. So we call you on it. Then you go on the defensive and write post after post -many of which are riddled with fallacies and faulty argumentation, and that may at times even make cogent points. The problem hereagain, as I have already stated before in another thread, is that you begin with the premise and the assumption that Whitaker is superior to all mortals and then go from there. Neither of you approach the question thoughtfully.

Robbi has mentioned Pep's longevity damn near every post, so let's not try all that.
Robbi has mentioned Pep's longevity begrudgingly -and in order to set up his check/checkmate of Pep before someone else can remind him of the plain fact. I see that Robbi ranks Pep ahead of your hero in terms of greatness ---do you?

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.
I disagree yet again. Longevity, as I see it, is a more basic factor than "success at higher weights"... why? Because we should not unduly reward cherry-pickers over guys that dominate their divisions for a decade. Dominance is a major basic factor for greatness.

There are many who scoff at any fighter being considered an elite who has had less than 50 fights. I tend to agree with them.

Sorry, but you made a remark comparing the two(you, not us) and I made a simple one word post in response.
If you like, you can call that little comment couched in my tribute post bait to prove that you are defensive about Whitaker.

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.
Wrong!! The welterweight Chavez was nowhere near the featherweight Saddler's caliber -and your contortions will never make it so.

[Robbi]

I will freely admit that Pep deserves to be mentioned above Whitaker overall in a "P4P" sense when taking everything into account. However, when it comes to pure boxing skills and what both fighters could do inside the ring, I see Whitaker as a better fighter. As I have stated, Whitaker was as good as anyone, probably better, at boxing effectively going backwards. And from what I have seen, his jab was better than Pep's. Thrown with venom, snappier.

If I happened to be around in the 40's and 50's or Pep happened to be around today with most of his fights being available for viewing, I could well change my tune. You only make the call as you see fit. Some people read about Pep, listen to the high esteem he's held in by old time writers, look at his record, the amount of fights he's had, and say he was better than someone like Whitaker. Its an opinion, not a plain fact. Both fighters were rather awesome the in era's they fought in.

Others from todays era might look at, lets say 8 Pep fights, and don't know much else about his other wins, and look at Whitaker's career and say he was better. Mostly all of Whitaker's fights are available from DVD collectors, and the quality of his opponents are can be better researched, most anyway. Each individual might bring their conclusion together differently, and have one over the other.

[Robbi]

The Rings top 15 best fighters of the last 80 years.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Joe Lous
5. Roberto Duran
6. Willie Pep
7. Harry Greb
8. Benny Leonard
9. Sugar Ray Leonard
10. Pernell Whitaker
11. Carlos Monzon
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Ezzard Charles
14. Archie Moore
15. Sandy Saddler

* 18. Julio Cesar Chavez.

The above list IMO, has been put together and fairly constructively from probably Nigel Collins, The Ring editor. Now, I'm not having a pop at Manassa's list. But I viewed his "P4P" list a few weeks ago. Some damn fine fighters he's got listed as well. The Armstrong's, the Langfords, the Charles'. He's even got Toni Canzoneri just outside his top 10. But I noticed he doesn't have many fighters from the last 50 years within his top 15. If memory serves me correctly, Duran and Ali are the only ones. I probably would have more fighters from the last 50 years inside the top 15 than Manassa. Stonehands might not agree with Whitaker being above Charles, and Manassa might argue why other fighters are not included above.

One thing I can agree on with the list above, its not laughable IMO. Some places I agree with, some I don't. Depending on what criteria people use. Does longevity mean more than fighters moving up divisions and picking up titles?. What about skill, should that be held more strongly over achievements?. Should a fighter be penalised on the list because he only had 40 or 50 fights?.

[Manassa]

The above list IMO, has been put together and fairly constructively from probably Nigel Collins, The Ring editor. Now, I'm not having a pop at Manassa's list. But I viewed his "P4P" list a few weeks ago. Some damn fine fighters he's got listed as well. The Armstrong's, the Langfords, the Charles'. He's even got Toni Canzoneri just outside his top 10. But I noticed he doesn't have many fighters from the last 50 years within his top 15. If memory serves me correctly, Duran and Ali are the only ones. I probably would have more fighters from the last 50 years inside the top 15 than Manassa. Stonehands might not agree with Whitaker being above Charles, and Manassa might argue why other fighters are not included above.

I'm not going to throw in a few moderners just to make up their numbers, spread 'em about a bit. No - the older fighters accomplished greater things - that's a near fact. They fought more. Archie Moore fought at the top level for years and years; of course he's going to achieve more.

... And 'even' Tony Canzoneri? Just because you don't know a lot about him, you don't have to say it like that.

And nobody is penalising anybody for having less fights. As I said - more fights equals more achievements, mostly. That's it. There is no addition of modern fighters just because it seems unfair to leave them off.

[Sweet Pea]

Many, many, many historians and analysts who have either seen Pep live or studied the films far more extensively than you would call your casual remark about how Whitaker being "more skilled than Pep" as foolishness. If you want to thumb your nose at legions, so be it.Many historians think someone like Bob Fitzsimmons would dominate today's era. You don't think there's a hint of bias for old timers in that?

My problem with you and Robbi is that you both are far too casual in your opinions regarding both Whitaker and Jones. We are all painfully aware of how amazed you both are at these two, but I suspect that I am not alone in my suspicions that you are not nearly as studious about the greats of yesteryear. So we call you on it.Well you're wrong, at least as far as I go. I study the greats of the past very throughly. I rank most of them at the top, but I just think Pep in general is a bit overrated when you consider him the best ever with a resume not nearly as good as a Robinson, Greb, Charles, etc. In terms of boxing skill, I think he is equaled by quite a few(though perhaps not at his own style), some with better resumes, which is why I don't rank him quite as high as most do.

Then you go on the defensive and write post after post -many of which are riddled with fallacies and faulty argumentation, and that may at times even make cogent points. The problem hereagain, as I have already stated before in another thread, is that you begin with the premise and the assumption that Whitaker is superior to all mortals and then go from there. Neither of you approach the question thoughtfully.That's bullshit.

Robbi has mentioned Pep's longevity begrudgingly -and in order to set up his check/checkmate of Pep before someone else can remind him of the plain fact. I see that Robbi ranks Pep ahead of your hero in terms of greatness ---do you?No, as I have said time and time again, why do we always get into these arguments? You should know I rank Whitaker slightly ahead. Both arguably top 10. No real problems with someone ranking Pep ahead, but I feel I obviously have to defend by position of why I personally have Whitaker ahead.

I disagree yet again. Longevity, as I see it, is a more basic factor than "success at higher weights"... why? Because we should not unduly reward cherry-pickers over guys that dominate their divisions for a decade. Dominance is a major basic factor for greatness.Well, still, many many fighters beat better opposition than Pep. You can dominate a shit era and be called a dominant fighter, look at Mosley at LW. Not saying that about Pep, just saying in general. Again, dominance is a major factor, Whitaker dominated from 135 to 147. Pep dominated longer at one weight.

There are many who scoff at any fighter being considered an elite who has had less than 50 fights. I tend to agree with them.Leonard's not elite? Why? I'm the opposite. I think someone's ranking has to do with the competiton they face, rather than how many fights they have against lesser comp just to boost their record. Is Chavez greater than Whitaker?

If you like, you can call that little comment couched in my tribute post bait to prove that you are defensive about Whitaker.I am. He is my favorite fighter, and I have my opinions and thoughts of him, If someone says he has no chance against Tommy Hearns, I will agree. If someone says he has no chance against Duran, I will call BS. I have my opinions of him and many other fighters, and will defend them.


Wrong!! The welterweight Chavez was nowhere near the featherweight Saddler's caliber -and your contortions will never make it so.
Why do you guys make such a big deal out of Chavez fighting at WW? He was pretty much just as good as the Chavez who fought at 140, which I have explained.

[Robbi]

I'm not going to throw in a few moderners just to make up their numbers, spread 'em about a bit. No - the older fighters accomplished greater things - that's a near fact. They fought more. Archie Moore fought at the top level for years and years; of course he's going to achieve more.

... And 'even' Tony Canzoneri? Just because you don't know a lot about him, you don't have to say it like that.

No hard feelings. When I said "even" it was wasn't as if I was surprised you placed him there, not by any means. I do know about Canzonneri. He won the lightweight title twice, and at LWW he won the title. He battled Ambers and Berg, and was Italian-American. You will no doubt no more about him than myself, no question. One thing I do know about him, he fought often, was consistent, and was one the finest fighters from the 30's.

[Stonehands89]

I will freely admit that Pep deserves to be mentioned above Whitaker overall in a "P4P" sense when taking everything into account. However, when it comes to pure boxing skills and what both fighters could do inside the ring, I see Whitaker as a better fighter. As I have stated, Whitaker was as good as anyone, probably better, at boxing effectively going backwards. And from what I have seen, his jab was better than Pep's. Thrown with venom, snappier.

If I happened to be around in the 40's and 50's or Pep happened to be around today with most of his fights being available for viewing, I could well change my tune. You only make the call as you see fit. Some people read about Pep, listen to the high esteem he's held in by old time writers, look at his record, the amount of fights he's had, and say he was better than someone like Whitaker. Its an opinion, not a plain fact. Both fighters were rather awesome the in era's they fought in.

Others from todays era might look at, lets say 8 Pep fights, and don't know much else about his other wins, and look at Whitaker's career and say he was better. Mostly all of Whitaker's fights are available from DVD collectors, and the quality of his opponents are can be better researched, most anyway. Each individual might bring their conclusion together differently, and have one over the other.
..fair enough. I shall try to let go of my grudge against you for the Whitaker gives Saddler a clinic comments.

[Stonehands89]

Many historians think someone like Bob Fitzsimmons would dominate today's era. You don't think there's a hint of bias for old timers in that?
I think that they often suffer from the same disorder as you. Additionally, I have gone to war with them several times over such assertions.

Well you're wrong, at least as far as I go. I study the greats of the past very throughly. I rank most of them at the top, but I just think Pep in general is a bit overrated when you consider him the best ever with a resume not nearly as good as a Robinson, Greb, Charles, etc. In terms of boxing skill, I think he is equaled by quite a few(though perhaps not at his own style), some with better resumes, which is why I don't rank him quite as high as most do.
Actually I think I'm more wrong about Robbi in that part of the post than you. However, I see that you are at least attempting to think through what you write about Pep -which is appreciated.

That's bullshit.
Well, I threw some haymakers at you ---and never expected you to smile about it. And it was a sincere shot. Perhaps it will have the result of you examining your bias and striving for more objectivity. Perhaps not. Time will tell.

No, as I have said time and time again, why do we always get into these arguments? You should know I rank Whitaker slightly ahead. Both arguably top 10. No real problems with someone ranking Pep ahead, but I feel I obviously have to defend by position of why I personally have Whitaker ahead.
I didn't feel that there was any compelling need to tear Pep down on this thread of all threads in order to boost Whitaker. It annoyed the hell out of me -and others.

Leonard's not elite? Why? I'm the opposite. I think someone's ranking has to do with the competiton they face, rather than how many fights they have against lesser comp just to boost their record. Is Chavez greater than Whitaker?
I question anyone's claim to greatness who hasn't had more than 50 fights. Leonard would be my first exception. However, 'elite' for me is top 5. Leonard doesn't make the top 10. Part of the reason was his lack of activity.

I am. He is my favorite fighter, and I have my opinions and thoughts of him, If someone says he has no chance against Tommy Hearns, I will agree. If someone says he has no chance against Duran, I will call BS. I have my opinions of him and many other fighters, and will defend them.
I don't remember you sayding that he has no chance against Hearns. Anyway, you should let go of your defensiveness and consider such questions with an open mind. You don't at this point. Your posts are good now, but you wouldn't invite counters because objectivity is gold around here -as it is in any debate or discussion.

Why do you guys make such a big deal out of Chavez fighting at WW? He was pretty much just as good as the Chavez who fought at 140, which I have explained.
Again, compared to a Sandy Saddler at featherweight, Chavez was a non-threat. You are just going to have to accept that. Whitaker would not be blasphemed if you did!

[Minotauro]

Chavez.

This was your response to a question "What has Whitaker done that is comparable to that?" While I'll agree that you were not the one to bring up Whittaker and its unfortunate that this has turned into a Pernell vs Pep discussion. But I still feel you are underestimating how big the Saddler win was, the win over Chavez is barley even comparable. Beating Julio at welterweight is not nearly as good as beating a prime Saddler at his best weight. Just because Chavez is a great fighter does not mean beating him at a weight were he achieved little to nothing is as good as beating a top five in there prime at there best weight.

If Whittaker had beaten Chavez at 135lbs (what I feel his best weight) or even 140lbs (where he reign longest) it would be a different story. It had been five years since Chavez best performance (the Rosario fight). While it had only been a few months from Saddler best performance the first Pep fight. Saddler and Chavez are defiantly comparable as overall fighters and a case can be made for either of them to be ranked higher then the other. I would probably have both in my top 20 p4p most likely Chavez a spot or two higher. But beating the man at 147lbs is no way near as good at beating him in his prime and at his best weight