Willie Pep - would his fans please justify his placement in their top all time lists [Archive]

mr. magoo

07-16-2007, 10:51 AM

[quote=China_hand_Joe]I am confident I will be able to shoot down this myth about Pep being an upper end all time legend once and for all

Just out of curiosity. Are you claiming that Pep was a myth, because you actually SAW some of his fights, or are you just making the assumption that he can't possibly be anywhere as good as some of the modern guys like Calzaghe? Because quite frankly, his resume looks pretty damn good to me.
The guy was undefeated in his first 62 fights. He retired with about 229 wins. He was a multiple time world champion.

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 10:51 AM

Why should he be regarded any higher than say Mikkel Kessler -questionmark-

McGrain

07-16-2007, 10:53 AM

Why should he be regarded any higher than say Mikkel Kessler -questionmark-

Well Maggo and Manassa have already offered up some pretty decent reasons which you haven't really tackled...though i am assuiming that you're only an ok boxer and not a really great one and so were joking. If you really could have taken out Pep's opponents I apologise.

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 10:56 AM

Well Maggo and Manassa have already offered up some pretty decent reasons which you haven't really tackled...though i am assuiming that you're only an ok boxer and not a really great one and so were joking. If you really could have taken out Pep's opponents I apologise.Although I have no doubt I could have outclassed those opponents, for the sake of my argument am going to use known boxer Mikkel Kessler as an example who has fought a similar level of opponent and has barely lost a round

McGrain

07-16-2007, 10:58 AM

Although I have no doubt I could have outclassed those opponents, for the sake of my argument am going to use known boxer Mikkel Kessler as an example who has fought a similar level of opponent and has barely lost a round

Answer Magoo's question about how much Pep you have seen.

Then deal in more detail with Pep's level of competition.

That would be a good start.

sweet_scientist

07-16-2007, 10:58 AM

Why should he be regarded any higher than say Mikkel Kessler -questionmark-

Hmmm, how about because he beat AT LEAST 10 guys better than anyone Mikkel Kessler has beaten?

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 10:59 AM

[quote]

Just out of curiosity. Are you claiming that Pep was a myth, because you actually SAW some of his fights, or are you just making the assumption that he can't possibly be anywhere as good as some of the modern guys like Calzaghe? Because quite frankly, his resume looks pretty damn good to me.
The guy was undefeated in his first 62 fights. He retired with about 229 wins. He was a multiple time world champion.Based on both video (I haven't seen as much as some here obviously, but enough to pass judgement) and also his resume - very few opponents that should belong in the ring with a world class fighter, let alone one of the 'all time best'

mr. magoo

07-16-2007, 11:01 AM

Although I have no doubt I could have outclassed those opponents, for the sake of my argument am going to use known boxer Mikkel Kessler as an example who has fought a similar level of opponent and has barely lost a round

Kessler's a great fighter to, but what does that have to do with Willie Pep not being an all time great himself. That's sort of like saying that just because Lennox Lewis was a great fighter that Muhammad Ali wasn't.

Sorry, but I don't follow your logic

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 11:01 AM

Hmmm, how about because he beat AT LEAST 10 guys better than anyone Mikkel Kessler has beaten?Ok Pep-fans, please list me Willie's 10 finest opponents

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 11:03 AM

Kessler's a great fighter to, but what does that have to do with Willie Pep not being an all time great himself. That's sort of like saying that just because Lennox Lewis was a great fighter that Muhammad Ali wasn't.

Sorry, but I don't follow your logicI am not saying Pep isn't a great fighter, just that this stuff about him being amongst the top ten of all time make little sense, he is closer to the Kessler level than he is to SRR level

mr. magoo

07-16-2007, 11:03 AM

Ok Pep-fans, please list me Willie's 10 finest opponents

I'm not going to list everyone Pep's fought, but do you not consider Sandy Saddler to be a great fighter, because he's on just about every historians top featherweight list

McGrain

07-16-2007, 11:04 AM

[quote=mr. magoo]Based on both video (I haven't seen as much as some here obviously, but enough to pass judgement) and also his resume - very few opponents that should belong in the ring with a world class fighter, let alone one of the 'all time best'

Of the top of my head he beat: Willie Joyce (naturally smaller but a world champ) Sandy Saddler, ex champs De Marco, Wright and Dade. All these guys are better than anyone your man has fought. I'd guess SS is about to roll out the full roll call for you.

Having seen Pep fight on film - you don't think he looks that good?

Sizzle

07-16-2007, 11:04 AM

It's really simple.

1/ Anyone that understands boxing will be able to appreciate his skillset in the ring - His fluidity, his footwork, his crisp combinations on the inside and outside, not to mention his incredible, innovative defense, and his guts which often goes overlooked. But beyond this,

He was the featherweight World Champion in 1942 at AGE 20 - That in its own, is an incredible achievement. One of the youngest linear world champions ever.

Up until 1948, he was the best featherweight in the world, with only ONE SLIPUP in over 100 bouts, and he won back his title before the years end.

THIS IS WHAT WE CALL DOMINANCE. THE MAIN YARDSTICK BY WHICH WE MEASURE GREATNESS. Willie Pep was one of the most dominant featherweights ever.

In 1949 he defeated his kryptonite Sandy Saddler, despite having been in a near-fatal plane crash and never being quite the same - Nevertheless, he still managed to get himself back to the top of the division so the Ring recognized him as the No.1 featherweight.

Up until 1953, he was still considered one of the best featherweights in the world, in this year being ranked the No.1 contender by The Ring.

He retired with 229 wins in 241 bouts. Very respectable.

Before his crash he was 135-1-1.

mr. magoo

07-16-2007, 11:06 AM

I am not saying Pep isn't a great fighter, just that this stuff about him being amongst the top ten of all time make little sense, he is closer to the Kessler level than he is to SRR level

SRR??? Are you referring to Sugar Ray Robinson? Just for the record, he wasn't a featherweight dude.

McGrain

07-16-2007, 11:07 AM

SRR??? Are you referring to Sugar Ray Robinson? Just for the record, he wasn't a featherweight dude.

Didn't he win Golden Gloves at feather? Not at all sure of this by the way.

Nemesis

07-16-2007, 11:08 AM

Didn't he win Golden Gloves at feather? Not at all sure of this by the way.

he happened to beat Willie in the amateurs...

Nemesis

07-16-2007, 11:09 AM

Didn't he win Golden Gloves at feather? Not at all sure of this by the way.

2 or 3 times

mr. magoo

07-16-2007, 11:09 AM

Didn't he win Golden Gloves at feather? Not at all sure of this by the way.

I don't what he did in the amateurs, but as a career pro, he mainly did most of his work at welterweight and middleweight.

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 11:11 AM

he happened to beat Willie in the amateurs...Outclassed him from what I've heard

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 11:12 AM

Can one of the Pep-perts list his top 10 opponents please, it isn't a huge number, but will help me immensely in corralating my arguments

sweet_scientist

07-16-2007, 11:14 AM

Here's 8 fighters better than Beyer and Mundine:

Sandy Saddler
Manuel Ortiz
Chalky Wright
Willie Joyce
Paddy Demarco
Ray Famechon
Sal Bartolo
Jackie Graves

McGrain

07-16-2007, 11:14 AM

Can one of the Pep-perts list his top 10 opponents please, it isn't a huge number, but will help me immensely in corralating my arguments

That's no small task conisdering the number of guys he fought. If you like I could list some of the good fighters tha he fought?

In the meantime, why don't you make a list of the fighters that Pep avoided. Unless your argument does not centre around the fact that Pep failed to completely dominate his era?

Also, i'd love an answer to my question about your view of Pep on film.

EDIT: Won't bother making the list Sweet Scientist has done lovely one. You could maybe still make the list of guys he avoided and tell me what you think of him on film?

Manassa

07-16-2007, 11:15 AM

Outclassed him from what I've heard

Of course - he was much taller and had a stronger frame.

mr. magoo

07-16-2007, 11:15 AM

Outclassed him from what I've heard

Fair enough, but I don't think that was your original point.

You stated that Willie Pep doesn't deserve to be rated on the same level as Sugar Ray Robinson. I in turn, responded by pointing out that the comparrison was irrelevent, given that Pep was an all time great featherweight, while Robinson was an all time great welterweight/middleweight. Ok, so maybe these guys met at featherweight in the amateurs, but that shouldn't have anything to do with how they rate in their own perspective divisions as professionals.

Nemesis

07-16-2007, 11:16 AM

Of course - he was much taller and had a stronger frame.

he didnt actually, according to SRR himself, it was a close scrap

Manassa

07-16-2007, 11:18 AM

he didnt actually, according to SRR himself, it was a close scrap

That speaks better of Pep than it does for Robinson, then.

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 11:20 AM

Here's 8 fighters better than Beyer and Mundine:

Sandy Saddler
Manuel Ortiz
Chalky Wright
Willie Joyce
Paddy Demarco
Ray Famechon
Sal Bartolo
Jackie GravesThankyou

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 11:26 AM

Fair enough, but I don't think that was your original point.

You stated that Willie Pep doesn't deserve to be rated on the same level as Sugar Ray Robinson. I in turn, responded by pointing out that the comparrison was irrelevent, given that Pep was an all time great featherweight, while Robinson was an all time great welterweight/middleweight. Ok, so maybe these guys met at featherweight in the amateurs, but that shouldn't have anything to do with how they rate in their own perspective divisions as professionals.Hypothetically, the greatest featherweight of all time might be inferior to the best 5 welterweights of all time, weight divisons are fairly irrelevant in the context of this thread -fullstop-

Mega Lamps

07-16-2007, 11:33 AM

lol, Pep lost to a larger SRR in the Amateurs; that means nothing when comparing greatness.

Nemesis

07-16-2007, 11:35 AM

That speaks better of Pep than it does for Robinson, then.
How so, he goes and fights Pep in his own backyard and beats him, how does that appear better for Pep. whatever advantages Robinson would have in height and reach would be counteracted by a thicker set Pep, they did fight in the same weight class

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 11:37 AM

Robinson was weight drained -fullstop-

Decebal

07-16-2007, 11:39 AM

Are you a boxer, China Joe?:think

Manassa

07-16-2007, 11:43 AM

How so, he goes and fights Pep in his own backyard and beats him, how does that appear better for Pep. whatever advantages Robinson would have in height and reach would be counteracted by a thicker set Pep, they did fight in the same weight class

Because Robinson was bigger - naturally bigger.

Mega Lamps

07-16-2007, 11:44 AM

China_Hand_Joe is a joke and so is this thread. China_Hand_Joke should be your new name.

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 11:50 AM

Are you a boxer, China Joe?:thinkThe question is whether some of Pep's opponents should be considered boxers

Decebal

07-16-2007, 11:51 AM

The question is whether some of Pep's opponents should be considered boxers

Too clever to be a boxer.:yep

McGrain

07-16-2007, 11:51 AM

The question is whether some of Pep's opponents should be considered boxers

No, the question is "are you right in the head."

I just put on my Pep footage. He's brilliant. If you can't see it you can't be helped. If you don't think he belongs on all time pound for poung lists, that's fine. You won't be correct in most of the fighters you place above him though.

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 11:54 AM

No, the question is "are you right in the head."

I just put on my Pep footage. He's brilliant. If you can't see it you can't be helped. If you don't think he belongs on all time pound for poung lists, that's fine. You won't be correct in most of the fighters you place above him though.Of course he is somewhat brilliant, that is why is was a world champion -fullstop- Since when did being just brilliant justify being top 10 ATG, there are several brilliant fighters around today -fullstop-

McGrain

07-16-2007, 11:55 AM

Of course he is somewhat brilliant, that is why is was a world champion -fullstop- Since when did being just brilliant justify being top 10 ATG, there are several brilliant fighters around today -fullstop-

Very well; he is brilliant enough to justify being on a top 10 ATG list.

UpWithEvil

07-16-2007, 11:55 AM

Are you posting via telegraph?

McGrain

07-16-2007, 11:56 AM

Are you posting via telegraph?

More likely via his arsehole.

Though I really like China, he's just made a series of errors and misjudgements which have resulted in this ludicrous opinion.

sweet_scientist

07-16-2007, 11:57 AM

More likely via his arsehole.

:lol:

mr. magoo

07-16-2007, 11:57 AM

Frankly,

I can't see anyone receiving much credibilty who says that Willie Pep isn't a top ten featherweight. The guy was undefeated through his first 62 fights, and retired with about 220 something wins, with only about 11 losses. What's more he once defeated Sandy Sadler, who some say may quite possibly be THEE greatest feather in history. To say that Pep isn't a top ten guy, is about the same as claiming that Joe Louis isn't a top ten heavyweight, or that Robinson wasn't a top ten middleweight.

It's a rather crappy argument if you ask me.

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 11:58 AM

I am talking top 10 at all weights, even I have him as a top 10 featherweight

McGrain

07-16-2007, 12:03 PM

I am talking top 10 at all weights, even I have him as a top 10 featherweight

China so far you have failed to:

Point out the fights Pep should have taken instead of the one he did.

Point out any flaws in any of his boxing.

Disect his opposition. You've claimed you could have beaten most of the guys he's taken on but that really doesn't consititute any kind of evidence unless i've seen you fight on film (i look forward to that day).

As to why he should be on there you've been told: tremendous record, beaten some good fighters, looks amazing on film, beaten another ATG featherweight in Saddler.

You've failed to refute any of this. You should think about getting on your powerbike and peddaling or getting out the humble pie and eating.

mr. magoo

07-16-2007, 12:08 PM

I am talking top 10 at all weights, even I have him as a top 10 featherweight

Why didn't you specify then that you were doing a pound for pound all time comparison? Personally, I find it very difficult to create such a list, given all the fighters that have existed in every division over the past century or so. That being said, I don't know if Pep is pound for pound a top ten all time great, but rest assured, that his name will always be mentioned the best of them....

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 12:29 PM

Disect his opposition. You've claimed you could have beaten most of the guys he's taken on but that really doesn't consititute any kind of evidence unless i've seen you fight on film (i look forward to that day).

P4P he is roughly on par with a 150 lb Floyd Mayweather (who is fighting above his optimum weight) That is nothing to be ashamed of by any means

Sam Angott was just about first opponent he fought that you could argue was better than Marcus Beyer is, and Pep lost that fight, I could beat at least 100 of Pep's opponents, it is an incredibly padded record

UpWithEvil

07-16-2007, 12:31 PM

I could beat at least 100 of Peps opponents

You couldn't beat 100 Mexican cab drivers.

sweet_scientist

07-16-2007, 12:32 PM

P4P he is roughly on par with a 150 lb Floyd Mayweather (who is fighting above his optimum weight) That is nothing to be ashamed of by any means

Sam Angott was just about first opponent he fought that you could argue was better than Marcus Beyer is, and Pep lost that fight, I could beat at least 100 of Peps opponents

Where in the hell is a prime Saddler calibre opponent on Floyd's resume? So far his claim to fame is a close fight with DLH during the double chin phase of his career.

McGrain

07-16-2007, 12:35 PM

Where in the hell is a prime Saddler calibre opponent on Floyd's resume? So far his claim to fame is a close fight with DLH during the double chin phase of his career.

Sweet, where do you have Saddler on your featherweight list? Or is he on you ATG p4p list?

sweet_scientist

07-16-2007, 12:40 PM

Sweet, where do you have Saddler on your featherweight list? Or is he on you ATG p4p list?

I actually have him # 10 all time p4p. Perhaps a tad high, I can live with that criticism, but the guy was awesome. Not necessarily that great outside the featherweight division, but at 126, with the strength, reach and height advantage he had, he would be HELL for any feather ever born and yet to be born.

I have him # 3 all-time at feather behind Armstrong and Pep, but I wouldn't argue too much with anyone that has him 1 or 2.

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 12:42 PM

Sweet, where do you have Saddler on your featherweight list? Or is he on you ATG p4p list?Saddler would be in the top 30 for me I imagine, not far behind Pep at all

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 12:44 PM

You couldn't beat 100 Mexican cab drivers.In my prime 150-200 at least (Pep victims)

McGrain

07-16-2007, 12:45 PM

I actually have him # 10 all time p4p. Perhaps a tad high, I can live with that criticism, but the guy was awesome. Not necessarily that great outside the featherweight division, but at 126, with the strength, reach and height advantage he had, he would be HELL for any feather ever born and yet to be born.

I have him # 3 all-time at feather behind Armstrong and Pep, but I wouldn't argue too much with anyone that has him 1 or 2.

Yeah, 10 is a little high IMO but nothing silly. There is def a serious case for him being in the top 20. I see him as #3 at feather too (though that's as far as my list goes!).

It's an extraordinary series those guys fought really. Some incredible work in those fights - and some old school trips for sure.

Basiclaly Pep got the better, in a dramatic series, of one of the best fighters who ever lived. Mayweather, on the other hand,is a very, very, very talented fighter.

Any comparison is trite at best.

joe33

07-16-2007, 12:49 PM

McGrain

07-16-2007, 12:51 PM

This guy should be banned,hes full of shit,why dont the mods do us all a favour,he offers nothing but bullshit.
If you really think pep is rubbish,then you should go over to the WWF forums,as that is probaly more your style arsehole.
229 FUCKING WINS YOU DUMB CUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,IN A SHIT HOT ERA TO,GO GET A DAMN LIFE KNOB JOCKEY.

:lol:

AND

:rofl

Although i'd have to say, you'd be out of line if he'd offered up one shred for consideration.

And you can't ban him, they love him elsewhere.

mr. magoo

07-16-2007, 12:51 PM

This guy should be banned,hes full of shit,why dont the mods do us all a favour,he offers nothing but bullshit.
If you really think pep is rubbish,then you should go over to the WWF forums,as that is probaly more your style arsehole.
229 FUCKING WINS YOU DUMB CUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,IN A SHIT HOT ERA TO,GO GET A DAMN LIFE KNOB JOCKEY.

Calm down dude. I agree with you that Pep was one of the best, but it's not worth raging up a storm of profanity like that..

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 12:52 PM

This guy should be banned,hes full of shit,why dont the mods do us all a favour,he offers nothing but bullshit.
If you really think pep is rubbish,then you should go over to the WWF forums,as that is probaly more your style arsehole.
229 FUCKING WINS YOU DUMB CUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,IN A SHIT HOT ERA TO,GO GET A DAMN LIFE KNOB JOCKEY.In what way do you think I consider a top 30 ATG rubbish -questionmark- I am only suggesting he should not be touching the top 10 -fullstop- You don't think I have respect for one of the 30 greatest boxers of all time -questionmark-

joe33

07-16-2007, 12:54 PM

Calm down dude. I agree with you that Pep was one of the best, but it's not worth raging up a storm of profanity like that..

Yes your right i know,but come on guys,how in gods green earth can anyone say hes not a all time great,its silly,insulting and hes obviously here just to get a kick out of guys like me who see red,so he got what he wanted i guess,im sorry for that outburst to everyone (except him) on here.

joe33

07-16-2007, 12:54 PM

In what way do you think I consider a top 30 ATG rubbish -questionmark- I am only suggesting he should not be touching the top 10 -fullstop-

Then you dont know anything about boxing,so please just stop it now.

McGrain

07-16-2007, 12:55 PM

Calm down dude. I agree with you that Pep was one of the best, but it's not worth raging up a storm of profanity like that..

In fairness, i've been shouting similair things at my computer, just not typing them.

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 01:00 PM

Then you dont know anything about boxing,so please just stop it now.Don't make me play the Calzaghe card mate, I said I wouldn't, but I am getting very close now

dmt

07-16-2007, 01:05 PM

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

UpWithEvil

07-16-2007, 01:07 PM

Mexican Cab Drivers > China_hand_Joe

joe33

07-16-2007, 01:08 PM

Don't make me play the Calzaghe card mate, I said I wouldn't, but I am getting very close now

Oh no not the fat welshman card,oh no what shall i do.:lol:

Sonny's jab

07-16-2007, 01:09 PM

I'd probably rate Sandy Saddler ahead of Willie Pep at featherweight.

McGrain

07-16-2007, 01:09 PM

Oh no not the fat welshman card,oh no what shall i do.:lol:

He did beat Lacey.

Street Lethal

07-16-2007, 01:12 PM

Well I suppose you're right. Pep never had much substance, he could only manage a streak of 135-1-1.

Everytime I see that record I am amazed. And he did it against excellent opposition.

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 01:14 PM

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 01:15 PM

He did beat Lacey.You can make a case for Joe being all-time top 10 based on that performance alone -fullstop-

McGrain

07-16-2007, 01:19 PM

Can we agree for a man that holds a victory over Saddler, at least 180 of Peps wins are worth nothing individually -questionmark- Any competent fighter could beat them, Peps record may as well have been 50-11-1

Let's say, for a moment, that you are right and that some of Pep's opponents were as bad as you say. Poor fighters who had just turned pro. Or better if that's what you mean, I don't know. Do you appreciate the mental and physical sharpness required to fight as frequently as he did without dropping losses to these fighters? Who are actually (for the most part ) better than you think?

Your hero is a good fighter, but an example of a fighter who would be little more than a footnote (if that) had he fought during this era.

McGrain

07-16-2007, 01:22 PM

You can make a case for Joe being all-time top 10 based on that performance alone -fullstop-

Of course, it's impossible to tell if you are serious or not, but I don't think that that is a claim as ridiculous as some would. I think appraising a fighter on film and then comparing him to guys who have much better scalps is ok.

But if you're judging fighters specifically on how the they look on film (the only way it is possible to judge Calzaghe in serious company his opposition is so poor) Calzaghe is way below Pep. Way below.

Nemesis

07-16-2007, 01:22 PM

I have a question for all the Pep fans out their, do you mark him down for the bouts he quit in (ala liston) or the ones he took a dive in?

Seems to be far too much double standards going on here

McGrain

07-16-2007, 01:28 PM

I have a question for all the Pep fans out their, do you mark him down for the bouts he quit in (ala liston) or the ones he took a dive in?

Seems to be far too much double standards going on here

I just try to ignore them. Like a proper grown up. What can you do, really?

Drew101

07-16-2007, 01:29 PM

Some of the champions that Willie Pep defeated during his 135-1-1 run:

Joey Archibald (former featherweight champion)
Chalky Wright x4
Sal Bartolo x3
Phil Terranova
Paddy Demarco
Manuel Ortiz
Harold Dade
Sandy Saddler
Jackie Wilson

And, a short list of some of the rated contenders that he defeated...

Willie Joyce
Charley Riley
Humberto Sierra
Lefty Lachance
Carlos Chavez
Teddy "Red Top" Davis x3
Ray Famechon
Eddie Compo
Jackie Graves
Jock Leslie
Armand Savoie

Look at it this way...out of his eleven losses, one came to a HOF caliber lightweight (Angott), three came to Saddler (who is most certainly a Top 3 featherweight), two of the losses may well have been dives (Perez and Collins), and the rest occurred when he was well past his prime.

That's why he was an ATG.

Drew101

07-16-2007, 01:31 PM

I have a question for all the Pep fans out their, do you mark him down for the bouts he quit in (ala liston) or the ones he took a dive in?

Seems to be far too much double standards going on here

Absolutely. You have to take all of that into consideration. And, taking that into consideration, he still makes my #1 slot at 126lbs.

Nemesis

07-16-2007, 01:32 PM

I just try to ignore them. Like a proper grown up. What can you do, really?

You've just gone down in my estimation :-(

you even admitted to marking Duran down for what he did in Montreal, yet when Pep does it, it is different???????

Sonny's jab

07-16-2007, 01:34 PM

Let's say, for a moment, that you are right and that some of Pep's opponents were as bad as you say. Poor fighters who had just turned pro. Or better if that's what you mean, I don't know. Do you appreciate the mental and physical sharpness required to fight as frequently as he did without dropping losses to these fighters? Who are actually (for the most part ) better than you think?

I think China Hand Joe actually has a real solid point IF most of the opposition can be assessed as being of very low quality.

Buck Smith was something like 164-6 at one point.
Jerry "Wimpy" Halstead and Eric "Butterbean" Esch boasted some impressive numbers too.
Lamar Clark scored 44 straight KOs.
These guys were clubfighters or tank town sideshow attractions. Smith is good enough to be called a "journeyman" but really not much else.

This reality shows us we must approach plain numerical records with caution, and that they mean very little in themselves.

Of course, Pep was a lot better than those guys whichever way you look at it, but if his going 131-1-1 is being used as a major cornerstone to his greatness then it needs re-examining.

No one really cares too much that Jack Dempsey might have KO'd about 100, 200 (or 300?) additional "opponents" in "meaningless" exhibitions, and if Pep's official record was padded with a load of utter tomato cans I dont see why it should mean so much more.

Nemesis

07-16-2007, 01:34 PM

Absolutely. You have to take all of that into consideration. And, taking that into consideration, he still makes my #1 slot at 126lbs.

Drew, as Ive said H2H and what I've seen on film, he looks and appears to be great, and I too have in my top 3 at Featherweight, but he doesnt crack my top 10 p4p

Manassa

07-16-2007, 01:34 PM

You've just gone down in my estimation :-(

you even admitted to marking Duran down for what he did in Montreal, yet when Pep does it, it is different???????

Duran was Mexican, so he deserves to be put down for quitting. Well, he wasn't Mexican, but close enough to be given harsh criticism.

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 01:34 PM

McGrain

07-16-2007, 01:35 PM

You've just gone down in my estimation :-(

you even admitted to marking Duran down for what he did in Montreal, yet when Pep does it, it is different???????

Taking a dive and actually quitting are a little different in cirumstance, no?

Nemesis

07-16-2007, 01:37 PM

I think China Hand Joe actually has a real solid point IF most of the opposition can be assessed as being of very low quality.

Buck Smith was something like 164-6 at one point.
Jerry "Wimpy" Halstead and Eric "Butterbean" Esch boasted some impressive numbers too.
Lamar Clark scored 44 straight KOs.
These guys were clubfighters or tank town sideshow attractions. Smith is good enough to be called a "journeyman" but really not much else.

This reality shows us we must approach plain numerical records with caution, and that they mean very little in themselves.

Of course, Pep was a lot better than those guys whichever way you look at it, but if his going 131-1-1 is being used as a major cornerstone to his greatness then it needs re-examining.

No one really cares too much that Jack Dempsey might have KO'd about 100, 200 (or 300?) additional "opponents" in "meaningless" exhibitions, and if Pep's official record was padded with a load of utter tomato cans I dont see why it should mean so much more.

:good
Exactly, ive made similar posts/points in the past and only Drew can come up with a solid enough argument to counteract those claims.

some people seem far too content with myth, rather than digging a little deeper

Nemesis

07-16-2007, 01:37 PM

Taking a dive and actually quitting are a little different in cirumstance, no?

he's done both what's your point?

McGrain

07-16-2007, 01:38 PM

he's done both what's your point?

Only that a dive is different to quitting.

Nemesis

07-16-2007, 01:39 PM

Duran was Mexican, so he deserves to be put down for quitting. Well, he wasn't Mexican, but close enough to be given harsh criticism.

So Freitas should not be criticised for what he done against Corrales because he's not Mexican?

joe33

07-16-2007, 01:43 PM

He did beat Lacey.

And thats still got nothing to do with a willie pep thread.:patsch

McGrain

07-16-2007, 01:45 PM

And thats still got nothing to do with a willie pep thread.:patsch

Just having a little fun, Joe.:smooch

Drew101

07-16-2007, 01:45 PM

Drew, as Ive said H2H and what I've seen on film, he looks and appears to be great, and I too have in my top 3 at Featherweight, but he doesnt crack my top 10 p4p

Fair enough...but, from what I've gathered from your arguements, that has less to to with Pep's ability, and more to do with the fact that there have been a lot of sensational fighters in the history of the sport.

Still, one would find it tough to believe that there have been, say, twenty fighters who have been better and more dominant against their contemporaries than Pep was at his best.

Manassa

07-16-2007, 01:46 PM

So Freitas should not be criticised for what he done against Corrales because he's not Mexican?

You got it :good

McGrain

07-16-2007, 01:48 PM

I think China Hand Joe actually has a real solid point IF most of the opposition can be assessed as being of very low quality.

Well, you've seen Drew's excellent list contianing many excellent fighters. This will be the cream. I, for one, am not to bothered about the standard of opposition - unless it can be shown to me that Pep dodged fighters whilst fighting 10, 17 fights a year, whatever it was.

If he was fighting the best around as well as sharing an era with, and beating, some excellent fighters i'm quite happy with his standing inside the top 20 all time p4p.

Nemesis

07-16-2007, 01:53 PM

Fair enough...but, from what I've gathered from your arguements, that has less to to with Pep's ability, and more to do with the fact that there have been a lot of sensational fighters in the history of the sport.

Still, one would find it tough to believe that there have been, say, twenty fighters who have been better and more dominant against their contemporaries than Pep was at his best.

Drew, we have had our disagreements in the past on this subject, but my rankings weigh heavily on who a fighter did beat rather than who a could beat, I said a couple of weeks ago that I rank Pep in the 11-20 range rather than the top ten, solely for the following reasons: -
- there is at least 10 fighters who have better resume's
- he couldnt do anything of note at a higher weight
- it is widely accepted that he was known to have taken a dive
- he quit in a world title fight

Do you mark him down at all for the last two points above?

Nemesis

07-16-2007, 01:56 PM

You got it :good

sorry I couldnt find an emoticon for "thumbs down", so this will have to do...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Manassa

07-16-2007, 01:57 PM

sorry I couldnt find an emoticon for "thumbs down", so this will have to do...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Why should I criticize a caucasian boxer for quitting? :huh

C. M. Clay II

07-16-2007, 02:05 PM

I have Pep number 5 on my list.

1. Ali
2. Robinson
3. Armstrong
4. Gans
5. Pep

:good

McGrain

07-16-2007, 02:54 PM

Nemesis

07-16-2007, 03:05 PM

Well I have read through the thread and Joe literally did not even attempt to come up with any way to discredit Pep. He basically said "His competition sucked" and when someone retalitaed by giving his competition he didn't pay attention and said they were cab-drivers and made ridiculous statements about how he could beat them. Ridiculous thread.

CHJ jokes in a half serious way, where he is making a point but trying to be funny at the same time. some of the points brought up by myself and Sonny's Jab are valid, the whole point of the classic forum is not only reminisce over great fighters of the past but to look a little bit deeper and determine whether commonly held opinions are right.

His resume is good but there are better, alot better.

McGrain

07-16-2007, 03:07 PM

His resume is good but there are better, alot better.

I agree; but i've still to hear about the fighters Pep ducked.

Do you see what I mean?

Nemesis

07-16-2007, 03:12 PM

I agree; but i've still to hear about the fighters Pep ducked.

Do you see what I mean?

I wouldnt say Pep ducked anyone at all, but neither did he show any inclination in taking on the elite lightweights after being 'handled' by the clutch. He wouldnt have stood a chance in hell of beating the likes of Montgomery, Jack and Williams at Lightweight.

ps: BTW Monzon & Hagler also get penalised for lack of fighting opponents in a higher weight classes. It shows how a fighter reacts when he is not in his comfort zone.

mr. magoo

07-16-2007, 03:17 PM

He wouldnt have stood a chance in hell of beating the likes of Montgomery, Jack and Williams at Lightweight.

ps: BTW Monzon & Hagler also get penalised for lack of fighting opponents in a higher weight classes. It shows how a fighter reacts when he is not in his comfort zone.

Personally, I don't think that a fighter should have it held against him for not taking fights in other weight classes. For those fighters who did it, they deserve extra credit, but I don't think it should detract from a legacy.

McGrain

07-16-2007, 03:17 PM

I wouldnt say Pep ducked anyone at all, but neither did he show any inclination in taking on the elite lightweights after being 'handled' by the clutch. He wouldnt have stood a chance in hell of beating the likes of Montgomery, Jack and Williams at Lightweight.

See, if a guy fights the best of his era, dominates it that's a great start. If he looks tremendous on film - this guy has #1 footwork and doesn't load any punch that i've seen him throw - that's another great step. If he has an ATG on his resume i'm almost hooked regardless.

ps: BTW Monzon & Hagler also get penalised for lack of fighting opponents in a higher weight classes. It shows how a fighter reacts when he is not in his comfort zone.

This is true. Whilst I don't want to sink any further in your estimation (:hey ) i just think that there are some guys who can do it and some guys who can't. I tend to be more leniant on the guys who didn't do it when there were less weights to hop to, if you see what I mean.

So whilst it was very important to me that Hopkins got of his arse and had a fight at a higher weight, it doesn't bother me too much that Pep didn't dominate a higher weight.

p.s - you ever seen anyone put an emoticon in brackets before?

mr. magoo

07-16-2007, 03:22 PM

This reality shows us we must approach plain numerical records with caution, and that they mean very little in themselves.

I don't care if the guy fought his own sister 62 times consecutively. To start your career off 62-0, is damn impressive if you ask me.

McGrain

07-16-2007, 03:25 PM

I don't care if the guy fought his own sister 62 times consecutively. To start your career off 62-0, is damn impressive if you ask me.

If I fought my sister 62 time on the trot i would expect to pick up 9 wins and a draw.

But the point is well made. 62 consecutive professional bouts. That's mind boggling.

Nemesis

07-16-2007, 03:26 PM

See, if a guy fights the best of his era, dominates it that's a great start. If he looks tremendous on film - this guy has #1 footwork and doesn't load any punch that i've seen him throw - that's another great step. If he has an ATG on his resume i'm almost hooked regardless.

Agreed

This is true. Whilst I don't want to sink any further in your estimation (:hey ) i just think that there are some guys who can do it and some guys who can't. I tend to be more leniant on the guys who didn't do it when there were less weights to hop to, if you see what I mean.

Well thats the thing with the three fighters in question, they all dominated, but refused to take fights at higher weights where they wouldnt be odds on favourites to win

So whilst it was very important to me that Hopkins got of his arse and had a fight at a higher weight, it doesn't bother me too much that Pep didn't dominate a higher weight.

p.s - you ever seen anyone put an emoticon in brackets before?

Nah the emoticons in brackets, dont work (:good)

mr. magoo

07-16-2007, 03:27 PM

If I fought my sister 62 time on the trot i would expect to pick up 9 wins and a draw.

But the point is well made. 62 consecutive professional bouts. That's mind boggling.

Agreed. Pep was a master. There's no if's and's or but's about it.

Duodenum

07-16-2007, 03:31 PM

Hmmmm.....I wonder what Pep's record might have been without that plane crash (or his military service due to WW II).

McGrain

07-16-2007, 03:34 PM

Hmmmm.....I wonder what Pep's record might have been without that plane crash (or his military service due to WW II).

I guess we'll never know. But i'd be prepared to speculate that without these two events the argument would be about whether or not he should be in the top 5 rather than 10. Possible.

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 04:32 PM

mr. magoo

07-16-2007, 04:51 PM

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 04:56 PM

The like of Barrera, Pacman, JMM and Guzman could all give Pep more than fits and that is just from the current crop -fullstop-

mcvey

07-16-2007, 05:04 PM

Drew101

07-16-2007, 05:06 PM

Drew, we have had our disagreements in the past on this subject, but my rankings weigh heavily on who a fighter did beat rather than who a could beat, I said a couple of weeks ago that I rank Pep in the 11-20 range rather than the top ten, solely for the following reasons: -
- there is at least 10 fighters who have better resume's
- he couldnt do anything of note at a higher weight
- it is widely accepted that he was known to have taken a dive
- he quit in a world title fight

Do you mark him down at all for the last two points above?

- Maybe. But, against a top-tier featherweight class in the 40's, Pep was a dominant champion for a lengthy period of time.

- Well, he couldn't do anything against Angott, but he had a difficult syyle. Still, the fact that he defeated a top lightweight contender in Willie Joyce indicates that he might have fared reasonably well against other fighters in the higher weight class. Neither here nor there, really...Pep was always a featherweight, and he generally concentrated upon cleaing out that weight division.

- It probably should be noted that those dives occurred in the twilight of his career, but they have to be taken into consideration. In the vast majority of cases, Pep's fights were on the level...and he won most of them.

- He did, and the fact that he was leading on the cards doesn't help either. Whether Pep threw the fight, or was just getting frustrated with Saddler is a tough call, but, within the context of Pep's entire career, it really serves as a momentary blemish.

Like you, I tend to base my rankings based on what a fighter did at the weight. Pep's resume at featherweight is outstanding...simple as that. If you think ten fighters were better in history, then that's acceptable. But, that says more about the ability of those fighters, and less about Pep's ability.

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 05:09 PM

Maybe the question should be why isnt Sandy Saddler in there?People ranking Sandy so far below Pep is ridiculous, the plane crash and stylistic excuses are hogwash, Sandy was just better than the other fighters Pep faced -fullstop-

Drew101

07-16-2007, 05:11 PM

One excuse 'Pep-perts' blurt out to defend Pep is "Willie was never the same after that plane-crash" - the crash may have effected him very minorly at worst, what really had an effect on Pep was a step up in competition
Even the champions he faced pre-1947 were amongst the worse champions in history - I have no doubt that if I'd lived in that era, you'd be listing me as one of Peps credible pre '47 championship winning opponents -fullstop-

Bullshit.

Pep had his back broken in the plane crash, and it was generally acknowledged that he wasn't the same fighter afterward as he was prior to that point.

Look at it this way...if Jeff Lacy had been a featherweight during that time, then he likely would have had his head handed to him by the likes of Phil Terranova and Chalky Wright...and he would have been lucky to survive an encounter with Sandly Saddler. :D

Drew101

07-16-2007, 05:18 PM

People ranking Sandy so far below Pep is ridiculous, the plane crash and stylistic excuses are hogwash, Sandy was just better than the other fighters Pep faced -fullstop-

Saddler lost to Terranova, to DeMarco (twice), and Humberto Sierra...all of whom were beaten by Pep. Saddler's definately in the top 3 at featherweight, but, at their very best, Pep was still more dominant against the same class of fighter than Saddler.

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 05:19 PM

Fighters like Chalky Wright, they fought a lot, won a lot, but also lost to a lot of limited fighters - not solid champions at all - Saddler just had a very earlier peak and declined luckily for Pep

Nemesis

07-16-2007, 05:19 PM

- Maybe. But, against a top-tier featherweight class in the 40's, Pep was a dominant champion for a lengthy period of time.

- Well, he couldn't do anything against Angott, but he had a difficult syyle. Still, the fact that he defeated a top lightweight contender in Willie Joyce indicates that he might have fared reasonably well against other fighters in the higher weight class. Neither here nor there, really...Pep was always a featherweight, and he generally concentrated upon cleaing out that weight division.

- It probably should be noted that those dives occurred in the twilight of his career, but they have to be taken into consideration. In the vast majority of cases, Pep's fights were on the level...and he won most of them.

- He did, and the fact that he was leading on the cards doesn't help either. Whether Pep threw the fight, or was just getting frustrated with Saddler is a tough call, but, within the context of Pep's entire career, it really serves as a momentary blemish.

Like you, I tend to base my rankings based on what a fighter did at the weight. Pep's resume at featherweight is outstanding...simple as that. If you think ten fighters were better in history, then that's acceptable. But, that says more about the ability of those fighters, and less about Pep's ability.

Thanks for replying, I think we agree on most things regarding Pep, just our final impressions slightly differ, dont get me wrong i dont dislike Willie Pep, i just dont worry about 135-1 of this and 432-3 of that, numbers are just numbers, as I say to reaffirm,
Pep in my estimation is

All time Featherweight rankings
2nd

P4P All time
11-20th

Shall we agree to partially disagree :good

Drew101

07-16-2007, 05:21 PM

Thanks for replying, I think we agree on most things regarding Pep, just our final impressions slightly differ, dont get me wrong i dont dislike Willie Pep, i just dont worry about 135-1 of this and 432-3 of that, numbers are just numbers, as I say to reaffirm,
Pep in my estimation is

All time Featherweight rankings
2nd

P4P All time
11-20th

Shall we agree to partially disagree :good

Acceptable ratings...I suppose. :D

Yeah...we're not that far off on this topic, really. :good

Drew101

07-16-2007, 05:24 PM

Fighters like Chalky Wright, they fought a lot, won a lot, but also lost to a lot of limited fighters - not solid champions at all

Again, in an era without a proliferation of championship belts, and when fighters were considerably more active by necessity than they were today, it speaks well of a fighter to hold a championship for two years. Wright may have lost to the very best, but he defeated just about everyone else.

It's pretty simple...if a fighter fights the best available competition consistantly, it's pretty likely that he'll drop a fight here or there. However, if he wins more than he loses, then it's safe to say that he's worhty fighter.

Fedor Em

07-16-2007, 05:29 PM

One excuse 'Pep-perts' blurt out to defend Pep is "Willie was never the same after that plane-crash" - the crash may have effected him very minorly at worst, what really had an effect on Pep was a step up in competition
Even the champions he faced pre-1947 were amongst the worse champions in history - I have no doubt that if I'd lived in that era, you'd be listing me as one of Peps credible pre '47 championship winning opponents -fullstop-

Ok, instead of knocking Pep about the fighters he did beat, name the best featherweights of his era he did not beat? You can only fight the best at that time. Pep did that, won most of his fights rather easily and that is all he could do.

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 05:33 PM

He beat just about all of them -fullstop- He was in an weak era which was basically full of equally bad FWs with Pep and Saddler the only major standouts -fullstop-

janitor

07-16-2007, 05:35 PM

People ranking Sandy so far below Pep is ridiculous, the plane crash and stylistic excuses are hogwash, Sandy was just better than the other fighters Pep faced -fullstop-

Are you arguing that a fighter can break his spine and it not have a major detrimental efect on his ring performence?

janitor

07-16-2007, 05:37 PM

Fighters like Chalky Wright, they fought a lot, won a lot, but also lost to a lot of limited fighters - not solid champions at all - Saddler just had a very earlier peak and declined luckily for Pep

Pep has broken his spine in a plane crash and not only are you not making any alowence for it but you are making an alowence for Sadler being past his best?

I fear that you are being a little inconsistent in your aproach.

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 05:43 PM

Are you arguing that a fighter can break his spine and it not have a major detrimental efect on his ring performence?Yes, his performances against the same opponents matched those before the crash -fullstop-

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 05:45 PM

Pep has broken his spine in a plane crash and not only are you not making any alowence for it but you are making an alowence for Sadler being past his best?

I fear that you are being a little inconsistent in your aproach.Saddler went on a horrid streak of results around the time Pep beat him, plenty of evidence to suggest he was past his best -fullstop- Whereas Peps results before and after the crash were fairly consistant with each other -fullstop- The effects are greatly exaggerated -fullstop-

mr. magoo

07-16-2007, 05:46 PM

Ok, instead of knocking Pep about the fighters he did beat, name the best featherweights of his era he did not beat? You can only fight the best at that time. Pep did that, won most of his fights rather easily and that is all he could do.

Mcgrain already tried that argument with this guy. Nothing seems to sink in with China dude, if it doesn't suit his opinion

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 05:58 PM

My issue is, Pep did nothing that makes me want to rank him above someone like Larry Holmes - who in his prime dominated a divison with relative ease

mr. magoo

07-16-2007, 06:00 PM

Pep has broken his spine in a plane crash and not only are you not making any alowence for it but you are making an alowence for Sadler being past his best?

I fear that you are being a little inconsistent in your aproach.

Agreed,

he only uses certain angles when they prove useful in his argument, but as soon as they no longer suit him, he abandones them, or changes his position.

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 06:01 PM

I have been tricked into the belittling Pep, which I do not want to do - there are plenty of other more worthy fighters for the top ten ever P4P fighters -fullstop-

mr. magoo

07-16-2007, 06:04 PM

My issue is, Pep did nothing that makes me want to rank him above someone like Larry Holmes - who in his prime dominated a divison with relative ease

Larry Holmes is one of my favorite champions to, but in all fairness, he did not dominate his division, and nor did he do much of anything with ease.

1. He was unable to unify the title.

2. He passed up at least two or 3 good fighters who were worthy of a shot at his belt.

3. He gave up the WBC title for failure to face a mandatory

4. He struggled with fighters who were either way too inexperienced, or not very good to begin with, and gave none of them rematches when they nearly upset him.

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 06:07 PM

It is a joke Pep is listed ahead of Roy Jones - that cannot be defended at all

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 06:12 PM

Ricardo Lopez, Lennox Lewis, Joe Calzaghe, Jofre - there are just so many names on par with Pep

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 06:23 PM

Lets be honest guys, as good as he was there are a few dozen you can argue are better - we sometime forget how primitive boxers were in the 40s

Drew101

07-16-2007, 07:03 PM

The more you write, Joe, the deeper that hole gets...:D

mr. magoo

07-16-2007, 07:07 PM

The more you write, Joe, the deeper that hole gets...:D

Funny how no ones even responding to him anymore :lol:

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 07:16 PM

Igoring pages 1-9 my views have been almost solid -fullstop-

mr. magoo

07-16-2007, 07:29 PM

Igoring pages 1-9 my views have been almost solid

-fullstop-

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 07:32 PM

-fullstop-Can we at least agree now Pep most likely isn't top 10 -questionmark-

Decebal

07-16-2007, 07:34 PM

:rofl he doesn't give up, does he!

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 07:36 PM

:rofl he doesn't give up, does he!I'm not even close, I still have the Calzaghe card to play - I was just misled for the first 9 pages into making irrelevant, exaggerated arguments - by comparing him with superior fighters they'll have no choice but agree or risk making a China_hand_Joe of themselves -fullstop-

mr. magoo

07-16-2007, 07:38 PM

I was just misled for the first 9 pages into making irrelevant, exaggerated arguments

So you admit to your bullshit.

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 07:42 PM

So you admit to your bullshit.There may have been some minor exaggerations, but I am still absolutely right about Pep, the strength of the Pep-perts delusions initially knocked me off balance, I'll be back to put the final nails of this myth's coffin tomorrow -fullstop-

mr. magoo

07-16-2007, 07:52 PM

There may have been some minor exaggerations, but I am still absolutely right about Pep, the strength of the Pep-perts delusions initially knocked me off balance, I'll be back to put the final nails of this myth's coffin tomorrow -fullstop-

Funny how you're so adamant about having proven a point, yet I didn't see anyone agreeing with you on much of anything today. In additon, you just admitted that your arguments were off base. Furthermore, you were unable to answer some of the other author's questions such as " have you ever seen Pep fight? ".

To tell ya the truth, Joe, I think you're better off just letting this one go.....

john garfield

07-16-2007, 07:53 PM

Decebal

07-16-2007, 08:01 PM

china hand joe sticks to character now, but i've seen him slip up before.

He once made a thread in the training forum about beating his son until his son became a southpaw like joe calzaghe.

China Joe said he had a son??:shock:

China_hand_Joe

07-16-2007, 08:06 PM

yeah, this was a long. time ago, the china hand joe account didn't even have 200 posts yet.I'm such a shot poster now -fullstop-

Decebal

07-16-2007, 08:06 PM

yeah, this was a long. time ago, the china hand joe account didn't even have 200 posts yet.

Couldn't have been earlier than September 2006...that's when his account started.

Decebal

07-16-2007, 08:08 PM

You have a son, China Joe? You BEAT your son?

joe33

07-16-2007, 09:04 PM

You have a son, China Joe? You BEAT your son?

He beats his own son?????????,oh well that about sums him up

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 05:25 AM

Can one of you unfortunate nostaligics justify putting Pep above Jones -questionmark- Jones look infinitely better on film, equal quality resume, no loses whatsoever in his prime (nothing even close to one), multi-weight champion -fullstop- Just admit it, none of you have any credibility whatsoever listing Pep at 3, 4, 5 etc -fullstop- -fullstop -fullstop when you are listing fighters like Roy Jones and Joe Calzaghe below him, not even in your top 10!

janitor

07-17-2007, 05:36 AM

janitor

07-17-2007, 05:38 AM

Just admit it, none of you have any credibility whatsoever listing Pep at 3, 4, 5 etc -fullstop- -fullstop -fullstop

If we all do this then presumably we have credibility with each other.

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 05:52 AM

So who exactly did Jones ever beat?

Since you do not rate Pep's oposition perhaps you would care to coment on Jonses.Hopkins and Toney who you guys will love in 20 years time - and plenty of other titlists

If we look at the numbers behind Jones' opponents they generally appear better and they appear better on film -fullstop-

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 05:53 AM

If we all do this then presumably we have credibility with each other.There is a reason you left at the part about Jones and Calzaghe, placing Pep above them is mystifying -fullstop-

janitor

07-17-2007, 06:00 AM

There is a reason you left at the part about Jones and Calzaghe, placing Pep above them is mystifying -fullstop-

Forgive my impertinence but I don't find it particularly mystifying at all.

Indeed I find your position positively baffling.

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 06:00 AM

Calzaghe is quite literally not top 100.I genuinely hope you don't believe that - why should Pep be above Whitaker though -questionmark- Lets see whether you are keen to put down your hero or whether you might actually become objective -fullstop- You agree a case can be made to place Whitaker higher on a P4P list right -questionmark-

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 06:02 AM

Forgive my impertinence but I don't find it particularly mystifying at all.

Indeed I find your position positively baffling.Justify placing Pep above Jones - disregard Jones' competition against Pep's - it cannot be done without turning into Bert Sugar - any person being logical, objective not wearing black and white tainted glasses can see Jones is above Pep

janitor

07-17-2007, 06:02 AM

Hopkins and Toney who you guys will love in 20 years time - and plenty of other titlists

I aplied your logic I would say that Hopkin's was green Toney was unmotivated and never much good anyway.

Furthermore I would point out that Jones lost to the two best light heavies he ever faced in Tarver and Johnson.

The excuse that he was past his prime dose not wash. He was simply stepping up in competition.

janitor

07-17-2007, 06:03 AM

Justify placing Pep above Jones - disregard Jones' competition against Pep's - it cannot be done without turning into Bert Sugar

Pep did mot build his reputation by fighting sanitation workers.

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 06:10 AM

I aplied your logic I would say that Hopkin's was green Toney was unmotivated and never much good anyway.

Furthermore I would point out that Jones lost to the two best light heavies he ever faced in Tarver and Johnson.

The excuse that he was past his prime dose not wash. He was simply stepping up in competition.Now you are doing the exact same things I had earlier and have taken back -fullstop- Admit you are wrong and start over -fullstop- You are trying to turn this into a personal battle, something I may have been dragged into earlier-fullstop- Lets stick to Pep vs Jones for a moment please -fullstop- Can we name two of Pep's opponents better than Hopkins -question mark- Probably not -fullstop-

janitor

07-17-2007, 06:16 AM

Can we name two of Pep's opponents better than Hopkins -question mark- Probably not -fullstop-

I could name a dozen who were better than that Hopkins.

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 06:19 AM

I absolutely agree on that. I just don't want to piss anyone on here off. I have seen both on film and believe Whitaker is superior, and believe as far as competition in ratio to your fights Whitaker faced the better comp. Pep did have way more fights though and dominated longer. Close call between the two, both crack my top 10.My whole theory on Pep not being in the top 10 is based on great fighters like Whitaker who appear superior to Pep, but don't get placed higher than him due to historical bias -fullstop-

sweet_scientist

07-17-2007, 06:19 AM

I absolutely agree on that. I just don't want to piss anyone on here off. I have seen both on film and believe Whitaker is superior, and believe as far as competition in ratio to your fights Whitaker faced the better comp. Pep did have way more fights though and dominated longer. Close call between the two, both crack my top 10.

Which fights have you seen of prime Pep though?

From what is available, the equivalent would be watching Whitaker from say 1995 onwards and deciding who was better on film.

sweet_scientist

07-17-2007, 06:21 AM

My whole theory on Pep not being in the top 10 is based on great fighters like Whitaker who appear superior to Pep, but don't get placed higher than him due to historical bias -fullstop-

It's not a historical bias that Pep beat a fighter better than anyone Whitaker ever faced, and did so PAST his prime.

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 06:25 AM

I could name a dozen who were better than that Hopkins.No, you seriously couldn't or you would have named two straight away -fullstop- There was little wrong with that Hopkins -although not prime he was a fine fighter with decent speed and movement back then -fullstop- He was likely better than everyone of Pep's opponents (with the possible exception of Saddler -questionmark-) -fullstop-

McGrain

07-17-2007, 06:26 AM

My whole theory on Pep not being in the top 10 is based on great fighters like Whitaker who appear superior to Pep, but don't get placed higher than him due to historical bias -fullstop-

Do you mean look better on film?

Which fights have you seen Pep in? Maybe you've just been unlucky.

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 06:34 AM

Haven't seen that much Pep to tell the truth, but to me it just seemed he was more of the stick and move type that just slipped around you. Impressive, but he didn't seem as complete a boxer as Whitaker. Then again, as you said, not much exists of him. Then once again, it's not like he has an extensive resume of great fighters like Greb, so perhaps he shouldn't be rated as highly as guys like that.You would expect there to be some Pep fans who do rate him highly, but not 90% of boxing fans to list Pep in their top 10 -fullstop- It just seems as though people are conforming to the popular opinion -fullstop- The staggeringly low number of people who would put legends like Jones and Whitaker (amongst a few others) above Pep seems unhealthy to me -fullstop-

McGrain

07-17-2007, 06:39 AM

You would expect there to be some Pep fans who do rate him highly, but not 90% of boxing fans to list Pep in their top 10 -fullstop- It just seems as though people are conforming to the popular opinion -fullstop- The staggeringly low number of people who would put legends like Jones and Whitaker (amongst a few others) above Pep seems unhealthy to me -fullstop-

Well, Jones only has two serious names on his resume and suspicion hangs over both of those wins for some reason. To me, at his best, Jones actually looks better on film than Pep. However, once it's understood that he is protecting a vulnerable chin with all that speed, it is hard, when combined with his resume problems, to place him above Pep on any list.

But some still do.

Whitaker also looks incredible on film and has less resume problems. He looks less complete to me. But I basically have no problems with anyone who wants to place Whitaker in Pep's neighbourhood in terms of rankings. I see Pep as superior personally.

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 06:46 AM

Well, Jones only has two serious names on his resume and suspicion hangs over both of those wins for some reason. To me, at his best, Jones actually looks better on film than Pep. However, once it's understood that he is protecting a vulnerable chin with all that speed, it is hard, when combined with his resume problems, to place him above Pep on any list.
I personally think Jones looks superior by a decent margin - he humiliated James Toney (who I consider a great fighter not an all time great) if you can point me in the direction of film of Pep actually looking that good against that calibre of opponent then there is perhaps a chance I'd change my view -fullstop- I seriously doubt that any footage exists to put him above Jones though -fullstop- I am also interested to know whether there much footage of any Pep opponents looking too impressive, it would be foolish to judge them as being as limted as they all looked up against Pep -fullstop-

McGrain

07-17-2007, 07:05 AM

I personally think Jones looks superior by a decent margin - he humiliated James Toney (who I consider a great fighter not an all time great) if you can point me in the direction of film of Pep actually looking that good against that calibre of opponent then there is perhaps a chance I'd change my view -fullstop- I seriously doubt that any footage exists to put him above Jones though -fullstop- I am also interested to know whether there much footage of any Pep opponents looking too impressive, it would be foolish to judge them as being as limted as they all looked up against Pep -fullstop-

I think you've kind of spun this argument on its head; you're aggressivley persuing people to prove to you what Pep is all about without having done any real research for yourself. I've asked you a few times which Pep fights you've seen and you've never answered; i'm going to guess that you've only seen clips of him and that what you're attacking here is a sacred cow which irritates you. But it is not my job to make sure you have seen sufficient footage of Pep to support your freakish argument, it's yours.

YouTube is a fine place to start. There's plenty of him on there. What you will see is a fighter with maybe the best footwork of any, ever, who can do everything well. Honest. What I like best is how he never seems to wind up a punch.

As to your judging Pep's opponents by just watching him v Pep; fair enough. You have three choices. Get to work, track down film of the guys he took on and run serious comparisons. If you don't want to do that you can either STFU or turn to paper.

What you will find if you turn to paper is a trail that seems to show Pep fighting every fighter of the era in his weight class. If you want to get into running down an entire era to support your pet theory, that's where you and I have to part ways. If you accept that he fought everyone around including one p4p atg fighter, then the argument about Pep's competition is over.

Jones looks amazing v Toney. Of course, famously, Toney is horribley weight drained and Jones later refused to reamtch him, hurting his legacy. That is neither here nor there. We agree that Jones looks great. I hope we also agree that he has a weak chin and a weak resume.

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 07:18 AM

I have seen the highlights videos, a Saddler fight he lost and a Saddler fight won and one full fights a few years back against an opponents who's name I didn't care to remember -fullstop-

No footage exists at all where a Pep opponent look particulary impressive against another competent fighter, he had hundreds of opponents yet you would not be able to find a single example of one of these fighters looking impressive -fullstop- Instead you would be left wondering what would a modern fighter like Pacman do to these people -fullstop-

Hundreds of opponenents, no footage of those opponents looking like great fighters by modern standards -fullstop-

UpWithEvil

07-17-2007, 08:01 AM

I personally think Jones looks superior by a decent margin

And without the steroids, him and Pep would be in the same weight class, too.

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 08:11 AM

If you can accept steroids help, then you can accept a modern diet helps and that modern fighters are superior as a result -fullstop-

Sonny's jab

07-17-2007, 08:49 AM

Well, you've seen Drew's excellent list contianing many excellent fighters. This will be the cream. I, for one, am not to bothered about the standard of opposition - unless it can be shown to me that Pep dodged fighters whilst fighting 10, 17 fights a year, whatever it was.

If he was fighting the best around as well as sharing an era with, and beating, some excellent fighters i'm quite happy with his standing inside the top 20 all time p4p.

Well, I rate Willie Pep very highly because I believe he did beat a considerable amount of world class fighters. And his skills do look impressive on film against good fighters.

But I'm not resting much on his 229 pro career wins or his intial 62 fight winning streak, or his going 131-1-1 or whatever it was.

There's undoubtedly some padding there, the question is what's left without it (a hell of a lot, IMO) and my point about the Buck Smiths and Lamar Clarks does stand up.

I disagree with Mr Magoo's claim that 62 straight victories over his sister would be impressive.

I'd possibly rate Pep inside the top 10 pound-for-pound, and the top 3 featherweights of all-time BUT his winning streaks are not automatically impressive without any attention paid to the quality of opposition.

mr. magoo

07-17-2007, 09:02 AM

I disagree with Mr Magoo's claim that 62 straight victories over his sister would be impressive.

Obviously I was exagerating, but hopfully you agree that a 62-0 streak was still a rather notable feat. Especially considering that he comprised that record in just under three years or something. I will, however agree with you that the real substance to be examined here was the quality of some of the fighters he beat, which as you pointed out, were substantialy talented boxers.

jyuza

07-17-2007, 09:03 AM

And Scientist, I don't think everyone would agree with you that Saddler was better than Chavez.

It is questionable.
I do think Sandy was a better fighter than Chavez. He was simply that good.
Like Chavez he was a pressure-fighter type, but he had probably a little more power than Chavez did and I think he is just the better boxer as well.

To catch Willie many times in their fights, he had to be that strong.

UpWithEvil

07-17-2007, 09:15 AM

If you can accept steroids help, then you can accept a modern diet helps and that modern fighters are superior as a result -fullstop-

Is that what passes for "lojik" these days? :patsch

Stonehands89

07-17-2007, 09:30 AM

Here's 8 fighters better than Beyer and Mundine:

Sandy Saddler
Manuel Ortiz
Chalky Wright
Willie Joyce
Paddy Demarco
Ray Famechon
Sal Bartolo
Jackie Graves

Other fighters of note who Pep beat were

Jackie Wilson
Phil Terranova (former world champ who outpointed Saddler in '49)
Jimmy McAllister
Harold Dade

... And the legend is true. He did in fact win the third round against Jackie Graves (a top ten fighter at the time and a southpaw with a record of 24-2) -without throwing a punch and on all three cards.

One of the major qualities of greatness is skill/ring generalship. Pep's level of skill was unheard of before or since. In terms of fluidity, defense, efficient mobility, angles, feinting, and keeping his man off balance, there was simply no one better. Unlike Ali or Leonard, who's defense relied on mobility outside of the perimeter, Pep would make you miss a 4 punch combination -each shot by an inch while he was directly in front of you ...and he'd be laughing the whole time.

A winning streak like Pep's cannot be discounted. Sure, Pep didn't have the most formidable resume, but it is better than most. Also, I suspect that his detractors are too young or uninformed to really recognize who Samuel Engotti was or Albert Wright, or Paddy DeMarco. Any argument that catapults a record with 40 bouts over one that has 242 fails -unless that record is Ray Leonard's.

Pep's ring artistry alone, and it was nothing short of that- demands serious consideration, which is the major reason why many have him top 3.

mr. magoo

07-17-2007, 09:46 AM

Other fighters of note who Pep beat were

Jackie Wilson
Phil Terranova (former world champ who outpointed Saddler in '49)
Jimmy McAllister
Harold Dade

... And the legend is true. He did in fact win the third round against Jackie Graves (a top ten fighter at the time and a southpaw with a record of 24-2) -without throwing a punch and on all three cards.

One of the major qualities of greatness is skill/ring generalship. Pep's level of skill was unheard of before or since. In terms of fluidity, defense, efficient mobility, angles, feinting, and keeping his man off balance, there was simply no one better. Unlike Ali or Leonard, who's defense relied on mobility outside of the perimeter, Pep would make you miss a 4 punch combination -each shot by an inch while he was directly in front of you ...and he'd be laughing the whole time.

A winning streak like Pep's cannot be discounted. Sure, Pep didn't have the most formidable resume, but it is better than most. Also, I suspect that his detractors are too young or uninformed to really recognize who Samuel Engotti was or Albert Wright, or Paddy DeMarco. Any argument that catapults a record with 40 bouts over one that has 242 fails -unless that record is Ray Leonard's.

Pep's ring artistry alone, and it was nothing short of that- demands serious consideration, which is the major reason why many have him top 3.

Excellent post.

I agree with it entirely. :good

sweet_scientist

07-17-2007, 09:46 AM

Haven't seen that much Pep to tell the truth, but to me it just seemed he was more of the stick and move type that just slipped around you. Impressive, but he didn't seem as complete a boxer as Whitaker. Then again, as you said, not much exists of him. Then once again, it's not like he has an extensive resume of great fighters like Greb, so perhaps he shouldn't be rated as highly as guys like that.
Pep was no doubt more of a mover, but at the same time he was a better combination puncher - probably the best the sport has ever seen (I don't count Ray Leonard type flurries as combinations). Personally, I find it more impressive that Whitaker could be more stationary and make his man miss, but that doesn't mean Whitaker was more effective than Pep, or more complete.

And Scientist, I don't think everyone would agree with you that Saddler was better than Chavez.
Outside of the Chavez nuthuggers you might find the odd person who thinks Chavez was better. I think a fair majority would think Saddler was the better of the two though.

sweet_scientist

07-17-2007, 09:50 AM

It is questionable.
I do think Sandy was a better fighter than Chavez. He was simply that good.
Like Chavez he was a pressure-fighter type, but he had probably a little more power than Chavez did and I think he is just the better boxer as well.

To catch Willie many times in their fights, he had to be that strong.

Saddler had more animal in him. Chavez was probably a little more accurate and fluid than Saddler, but Saddler had an almost unrivaled intensity.

Nemesis

07-17-2007, 09:59 AM

I have seen the highlights videos, a Saddler fight he lost and a Saddler fight won -

No you havent :good

sweet_scientist

07-17-2007, 10:01 AM

No you havent :good

:lol:

Nemesis

07-17-2007, 10:02 AM

... And the legend is true. He did in fact win the third round against Jackie Graves (a top ten fighter at the time and a southpaw with a record of 24-2) -without throwing a punch and on all three cards.

.

Do you have any proof?

This should not affect his all time status anyway, look at some of the stuff Emmanuel Augustus has pulled in the ring, it doesnt make him any better a fighter

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 10:12 AM

Willie Pep couldn't win a round without throwing a punch against me, yet you persons claim he did it to someone you have previously named a worldclass boxer -fullstop-

Stonehands89

07-17-2007, 10:59 AM

Do you have any proof?

This should not affect his all time status anyway, look at some of the stuff Emmanuel Augustus has pulled in the ring, it doesnt make him any better a fighter

I think that the anecdote is irrelevant, but fun.

I believe that it happened, but am not so sure it was against Graves. Pep claimed that it is true and that he did it with head and shoulder feints. Graves doesn't remember. Sportswriter Don Riley claims to have been there and witnessed it. An sportswriter who covered it for the St. Paul Pioneer Press talks about how the fight was a back-and-forth battle and that in the third round you couldn't count the number of punches thrown by both fighters "with a clicker." It also says that "Pep punched Graves into the ropes [in round 3] as the most even round of the evening ended."

Decebal

07-17-2007, 11:07 AM

The anecdote about the round won without throwing a punch:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

minute 2:06 onwards.

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 12:46 PM

sweet_scientist

07-17-2007, 01:05 PM

The thing about all of Pep's opponents are, you watch them in a video and they all look absolutely dire -fullstop- If ou saw prospects fighting like them today you would take little interest in them -fullstop- It is time we just used our eyes -fullstop-
Who are "all" of Pep's opponents that you have seen on film?

We know you've seen Saddler in a Pep fight we won and in the Pep fight he lost (LMFAO@that), but who else have you seen of Pep's opponents?

Sizzle

07-17-2007, 01:09 PM

The thing about all of Pep's opponents are, you watch them in a video and they all look absolutely dire -fullstop- If ou saw prospects fighting like them today you would take little interest in them -fullstop- It is time we just used our eyes -fullstop-

Describing Lacy as "dire" in the Calzaghe fight would be too complimentary to his performance.

Your judgement is clouded by the fact you're watching fights in black and white.

You describe the fighting style as "primitive" but you have absolutely no idea why - There hasn't been a single featherweight since Pep with his level of natural ability.

The only thing "primitive" is the cameras used to flim it.

You're just too narrow minded, ignorant and idiotic to see the obvious. Sorry to be rude, but that's simply the case, had to come out and say it. Your opinion is based solely on you not knowing anything about Pep or his career, but knowing all about Calzaghes.

A vast number of experts, and Peps peers, rate him as a top10 P4P'er. Noone will ever rate Calzaghe ahead of him except for pinhead nuthuggers like yourself.

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 01:14 PM

Pep's handspeed isn't even blurry in 1940s recordings with an incredibly slow frame rate -fullstop-

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 01:16 PM

A vast number of experts, and Peps peers, rate him as a top10 P4P'er. Noone will ever rate Calzaghe ahead of him except for pinhead nuthuggers like yourself.I am aware of that, Bert Sugar has brainwashed you all and is making a living out of the niche of fans you are all part of -fullstop-

mr. magoo

07-17-2007, 01:19 PM

I am aware of that, Bert Sugar has brainwashed you all and is making a living out of the niche of fans you are all part of -fullstop-

Actually,

Having a working understanding of boxing history, and the ability to be subjective and unbiased can go a long way in a debate. Therefore, I really don't require the testmonies of Burt Sugar, Nat Fleischer or anyone else to convince me that a guy who won 229 fights over a near 30 year period was great. His career speaks for itself.

-Full stop-

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 01:24 PM

Manassa

07-17-2007, 01:25 PM

The world population in the 1940s was something like 4 million people

:smooch

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 01:29 PM

There were some abysmal boxers back then, but only the highlights have been saved -fullstop- All the Maussa - Harris like footage was burnt years ago -fullstop- Thank god Larry inveted the jab -fullstop-

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 01:33 PM

Americans are a fat race, they do not make good featherweights, the fact that American somewhat dominated the featherweight divison back then tells you how weak it really was -fullstop-

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 01:36 PM

All the 'great' American featherweights were fighting 50+ years ago [Only registered and activated users can see links] not a fucking coincidence -fullstop-

mr. magoo

07-17-2007, 01:39 PM

The world population in the 1940s was something like 4 million people, there was a smaller talent pool back then, it makes perfect sense Sugar Ray Robinson was the only decent fighter -fullstop- Knowing boxing history can make you liable to buy into fairytales -fullstop

The World population between 1945 and 1950, was around 2.5 billion. Christ, over 6 million Jews died in the war alone!!!

Dude seriously, find some other chat forum..

mr. magoo

07-17-2007, 01:43 PM

Americans are a fat race, they do not make good featherweights, the fact that American somewhat dominated the featherweight divison back then tells you how weak it really was -fullstop-

Obesity, is a WORLD epidemic, and one that wasn't typically a problem 60 years ago, due to the abscence of fast food establishements and mass produced levels of junk food. This whole theory of yours about Americans being a fat race, and how it reflects that boxing in the 40's was weak in the lighter divisions, has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 01:49 PM

Where were all the great South Americans and Asians, forget all about your claim a division with only American talents for the most part can compare with todays global talent base -fullstop-

McGrain

07-17-2007, 01:51 PM

No you havent :good

This whole thing has got a bit embarassing now, hasn't it?

Decebal

07-17-2007, 01:52 PM

I don't think this conversation is going anywhere

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 01:56 PM

I don't think this conversation is going anywhereThe Asians and south Americans are the main players in the lower divisons and will be for years to come, they are smaller people - yet were nowhere back then, globalisation has made the lower weights infitely strong, it is time to admit that 1940s were a dark time for boxing at such weights -fullstop-

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 01:57 PM

This isn't even subjectective, the superior featherweight races were even involved, how the hell can you disagree -questionmark-

Nemesis

07-17-2007, 02:03 PM

This whole thing has got a bit embarassing now, hasn't it?

Why are people continuing to argue with him? he's obviously taking the piss.

mr. magoo

07-17-2007, 02:03 PM

Where were all the great South Americans and Asians, fuck off with your ridiculous claim a division with only American talents for the most part can compare with todays global talent base -fullstop-

When did I make the claim that an era with only American talent can compare with today's?? I'm not even certain where you've managed to take this half-assed debate of yours. The simple fact of the matter is this: You started this thread, to question people as to why they felt Pep was a p4p all time great. After having received numerous legitimate answers from multiple authors, you have continued to disagree, yet used no real substance to refute other's claims. You can't even site something as simple as looking up world population, by doing a mere google search. Furthermore, you steadfastly profess that Pep's skills were inferior to fighters of latter eras, as if you followed his entire career up close. Yet when asked if you've seen any footage of him, you simply state " I've seen a few clips. " Given your inability to provide evidence of anything in a discussion, one might question what you know about Calzaghe, Roy Jones, or any of the others that you insist on comparing Pep to.

Tell you what Joe, why don't you just stick to talking about the fighters who you do know something about ( whoever they may be, ) and forget about discussing boxing as it pertains to other eras. You may know somethings about boxing history, but you clearly don't know it in depth-full-stop-

Stonehands89

07-17-2007, 02:04 PM

I think it may be time to leave China Hand Joe and his thread alone.

Nemesis

07-17-2007, 02:06 PM

I think it may be time to leave China Hand Joe and his thread alone.It passed that stage 14 pages ago

McGrain

07-17-2007, 02:07 PM

Why are people continuing to argue with him? he's obviously taking the piss.

The frustrating thing is, the original topic had potential to be funny and enlightening and it's just got ugly and stupid.

Like girls from Dundee.

mr. magoo

07-17-2007, 02:09 PM

The frustrating thing is, the original topic had potential to be funny and enlightening and it's just got ugly and stupid.

Like girls from Dundee.

Are girls from Dundee easy to score with?

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 02:12 PM

Explain how the 1940s American talent pool can possibly compare -fullstop-

Decebal

07-17-2007, 02:12 PM

I lived in Dundee for 5 years. Some girls were very nice!

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 02:41 PM

Don't duck me now -fullstop- I may have been somewhat erratic up to this point, but the point about the lack of South Americans and Asians holds genuine weight -fullstop-

mr. magoo

07-17-2007, 02:46 PM

Don't duck me now -fullstop- I may have been somewhat erratic up to this point, but the point about the lack of South Americans and Asians holds genuine weight -fullstop-

Why do you constantly spell out your punctuation? Rather than typing the word fullstop at the end of each sentence, simply place a period mark.

It looks like this

.

Drew101

07-17-2007, 02:48 PM

Don't duck me now -fullstop- I may have been somewhat erratic up to this point, but the point about the lack of South Americans and Asians holds genuine weight -fullstop-

The were present, but, at that point, the top tier of the featherweight division was dominated by Americans, Mexicans, and Cubans. These things tend to go in cycle, and, during that era, those were the dominat nationalities in that particular weight class.

janitor

07-17-2007, 02:48 PM

Explain how the 1940s American talent pool can possibly compare -fullstop-

Simple. There were many times more men boxing profesionaly. There were far more boxing clubs operating and far more boxing shows more often.

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 02:52 PM

The world was a bigger place back then - it was harder for Asians and South Americans to go to America to get the fights - that is why the Americans dominated it so badly and the reverse is true now due to the genetic make-up in those countries being far more apt in the context of feathweight boxing -fullstop-

mr. magoo

07-17-2007, 02:53 PM

The world was a bigger place back then - it was harder for Asians and South Americans to go to America to get the fights - that is why the Americans dominated it so badly and the reverse is true now due to the genetic make-up in those countries being far superior in the context of feathweight boxers -fullstop-

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 02:55 PM

I'm serious and I am 99% sure it is sufficiently accurate -fullstop-

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 02:58 PM

Simple. There were many times more men boxing profesionaly. There were far more boxing clubs operating and far more boxing shows more often.With the system back then being able to support more American boxers, the standards required to become a professional became lower, this is evident from how easily one can pad their record -fullstop- Whilst these no talent Americans were boxing pro, a poor mexican works away on a farm, unable to afford a trip to America -fullstop-

mr. magoo

07-17-2007, 03:00 PM

I'm serious and I am 99% sure it is sufficiently accurate -fullstop-

Agreed,

Your views are to be taken with the utmost of seriousness.

:tong :silly :bananamaniac :piss :finger :banana :mj :tdh :partya :smh :ass :lama :fart :asskiss :arran :nutcase :finger5

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 03:07 PM

That really doesn't explain how a featherweight division without the extensive talent in South America and Asia can match up to what we have today -fullstop-

Sonny's jab

07-17-2007, 03:14 PM

That really doesn't explain how a featherweight division without the extensive talent in South America and Asia can match up to what we have today -fullstop-

Interesting.

Do you consider any American featherweights today as good as Pep or Saddler ?

mr. magoo

07-17-2007, 03:16 PM

Interesting.

Do you consider any American featherweights today as good as Pep or Saddler ?

Oh God Sonny,

You're only breathing new life into him.

George W Hedge

07-17-2007, 03:17 PM

I am confident I will be able to shoot down this myth about Pep being an upper end all time legend once and for all, I don't even need to resort to comparing him to Joe Calzaghe that is too easy -fullstop- -newparagraph- So lets hear it Pep admirers, why should this one weight champion be regarded nearly as highly as the likes of Robinson -questionmark-

Here is a few reasons....

Most people regard him as the best ever 126 lb boxer.
Most (or at least A LOT) call pep the best defensive boxer ever.
His won/loss record is better than 99% of boxers who ever lived.
Robinson says pep was the best p4p.
Gil clancy has pep no1 p4p with robinson at no2.
Most of his losses came well past his prime.
Pep never had a lot of losses.

:good

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 03:30 PM

Interesting.

Do you consider any American featherweights today as good as Pep or Saddler ?Probably not, the American scene has most probably declined (being supressed by other nationalities and there lower numbers)

Even with the argument about the sport evolving I don't see any of the American as being better today, although a few decent American featherweights will inevitably pop up every now and again

I'd consider the 1940 a golden era for American featherweight boxing, but the divison today to be far stronger - In the last 5 years you have the likes of Pacman, JMM, Guzman, Hamed, Barrera, Morales and perhaps even a few names like Larios who would at the very least would cause problems to Pep

mr. magoo

07-17-2007, 03:34 PM

In the last 5 years you have the likes of Pacman, JMM, Guzman, Hamed, Barrera, Morales and perhaps even a few names like Larios who would at the very least would cause problems to Pep

How these guys would do head to head against pep is immaterial. For one thing, you can't possibly make predicitions on the outcome of fights between men who fought 50 years apart, and had no common opponents. Additionally, even if Pacman, Guzman and Morrales were in theory able to beat Pep, it shouldn't take away from the legacy that he established in his day.

OLD FOGEY

07-17-2007, 03:42 PM

That really doesn't explain how a featherweight division without the extensive talent in South America and Asia can match up to what we have today -fullstop-

You raise good points, but don't forget that the talent from north of the Rio Grande was a mile better back in the forties. Boxing was a hugely popular national sport in the United States. It is a fringe sport today and with better nutrition, Americans largely grew out of the smaller division. Nat Fleischer and others lamented the lack of good Americans in the smaller divisions as far back as the sixties.

I have the 1951 extended Ring rankings. Of the 23 men ranked (not including class A to class C fighters) 7 were Americans, including Saddler, Pep, Bassett, etc, 7 were from Western Europe (Famechon, Fermenti, Clayton, etc), 5 were from Latin America (Diaz, Valero, Padilla of Mexico, Morasen of Cuba, Plummer of Panama) one from Africa (#3 contender Roy Ankarah of the African Gold Coast) and two were Mexican-Americans (Salas, Chavez) probably born in Mexico. Among the class A fighters were Hideo Goto of Japan and Gwat Tan Tek of Indonesia.

It is obviously not entirely true that all the top fighters were Americans
and boxing had a certain foothold in the Philippines for certain, as well as Japan and parts of East Asia, such as Singapore, that were then part of the British Empire, as far back as the twenties and thirties.

OLD FOGEY

07-17-2007, 04:01 PM

Americans are a fat race, they do not make good featherweights, the fact that American somewhat dominated the featherweight divison back then tells you how weak it really was -fullstop-

Americans were a great deal shorter and lighter on the average back then. Check the heights and weights for inductees into the armed forces. Americans, on the average, are two inches tallers and about fifty pounds heavier than they were back in the fifties.

OLD FOGEY

07-17-2007, 04:07 PM

The were present, but, at that point, the top tier of the featherweight division was dominated by Americans, Mexicans, and Cubans. These things tend to go in cycle, and, during that era, those were the dominat nationalities in that particular weight class.

There were also plenty of Western Europeans.

OLD FOGEY

07-17-2007, 04:19 PM

With the system back then being able to support more American boxers, the standards required to become a professional became lower, this is evident from how easily one can pad their record -fullstop- Whilst these no talent Americans were boxing pro, a poor mexican works away on a farm, unable to afford a trip to America -fullstop-

Prove that the standards were lower. The fact is that only a few fighters in the forties or fifties were able to go on long winning streaks. Pep is one, but even Pep had five losses by his thirtieth birthday. Only Louis and Robinson were champions in the forties without suffering a whole slew of defeats. Why did Henry Armstrong lose so often? Why did Ike Williams? Why did Kid Gavilan? All had twenty or more losses. So did Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore. If the standards were so low and the average fighter so bad, why did the average champion lose so often?
I would like the critics of the "old days" to once give an answer to this. I pointed out in one of the lost threads that in other sports that we could compare boxing to, such as gridiron football, or baseball, or basketball, in the United States, the number of teams able to run up great records declines as the level of competition rises. There have been numerous unbeaten college gridiron football teams. There has been only one unbeaten NFL team. Wouldn't the fact that champions suffered so many defeats indicate that competition was superior?

Manassa

07-17-2007, 04:26 PM

Reading this thread, I began to doubt my own beliefs that Pep was one of the best - perhaps the best - of all time. So I went and watched some footage, and I'm confident again now that he was.

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 04:33 PM

Prove that the standards were lower. The fact is that only a few fighters in the forties or fifties were able to go on long winning streaks. Pep is one, but even Pep had five losses by his thirtieth birthday. Only Louis and Robinson were champions in the forties without suffering a whole slew of defeats. Why did Henry Armstrong lose so often? Why did Ike Williams? Why did Kid Gavilan? All had twenty or more losses. So did Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore. If the standards were so low and the average fighter so bad, why did the average champion lose so often?
I would like the critics of the "old days" to once give an answer to this. I pointed out in one of the lost threads that in other sports that we could compare boxing to, such as gridiron football, or baseball, or basketball, in the United States, the number of teams able to run up great records declines as the level of competition rises. There have been numerous unbeaten college gridiron football teams. There has been only one unbeaten NFL team. Wouldn't the fact that champions suffered so many defeats indicate that competition was superior?Do you think there is the possiblity someone could argue they simply look inferior to the human eye so probably are, a little slower, a little messier

mr. magoo

07-17-2007, 04:38 PM

Do you think there is the possiblity someone could argue they simply look inferior to the human eye so probably are, a little slower, a little messier

I've never heard anyone refer to Willie Pep as being slower or inferior to the human eye than many of today's fighters. In fact, he still commonly reguarded as being one of the fastest and most finesse fighters of all time. Frankly, I think that every young amateur fighter should be required to sit down and watch films of Pep before having their first fight.

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 04:45 PM

I'm talking about the none standout fighters in that era nor am I refering to the ugly but immensly effective Saddler

Manassa

07-17-2007, 04:49 PM

I don't think boxers of the '40s and '50s looked worse than today's contenders at all. If anything, they look better. Fighters like Enrique Bolanos and George Araujo were far more dynamic than most of today's bunch.

OLD FOGEY

07-17-2007, 04:51 PM

Do you think there is the possiblity someone could argue they simply look inferior to the human eye so probably are, a little slower, a little messier

You do realize that film clips are often transferred at the wrong speed,
etc, so a film, at least on speed, should be watched cautiously.

And that does not explain why champion fighters lost so often back in the forties. Gridiron football champions didn't. Baseball champions didn't. Basketball champions didn't. They basically follow the same pattern as modern champions.
In boxing it is quite different. Champions in the old days lost a great deal. Only a few stand out, such as Louis, Robinson, Marciano, and Pep, as not suffering all kinds of losses. I posted the records of top heavyweights of the 1930-1955 era a while back and pointed out that anyone could select the two best fighters off the records, Louis and Marciano. I also posted the top heavyweights of the last 25 years and pointed out that without knowing who they were, there is no way to tell who were the top men. Brian Nielsen or Riddick Bowe, or Lennox Lewis, etc, all look about the same in winning or knockout percentage.

By the way, modern fighters don't necessarily look better to all eyes.
A while back I watched a doubleheader of Gavilan-Bratton and De La Hoya-Hernandez. The old fighters looked better to me, although they had 52 career losses between them, much more than the modern fighters will ever have.

Duodenum

07-17-2007, 05:31 PM

Why is this ridiculously absurd discussion even taking place? Willie Pep was an insanely tough and durable ironman, who boxed for 29 years, nearly 20 of them after he broke his back in a plane crash, had over 340 fights, and a record of 6-0 over the 15 round distance while wearing six ounce gloves.

I come to ESB Classic for thoughtful and knowledgeable discourse to try elevating my pathetically meager intellect, and I stumble across this thread started by somebody named China_head_Joe. (Damn it, I come here to try getting away from my own kind, but there doesn't seem to be any escape!)

McGrain

07-17-2007, 05:32 PM

Are girls from Dundee easy to score with?

In relative terms, yes.

Though that wasn't my point...

mr. magoo

07-17-2007, 05:37 PM

In relative terms, yes.

Though that wasn't my point...

I'm well aware of the point you were trying to make. I in turn thought that I'd make an attempt at adding a little humor, given that the seriousness of this thread diminished about 15 pages ago.

China_hand_Joe

07-17-2007, 05:43 PM