Thread: A few Willie Pep videos that I Like.

He lost only 11 fights of 241.

Saddler was 3 of those.

He was stopped 6 times in his 241 fight career.

Saddler was 3 of those.


That actually makes Peps record seem better to me, because half his TKO losses and just under 25% of his total losses were by his bogey man.

Lets not forget they both had some dirty old school tricks. Saddler had a good chin and a good punch on top of a decent skill set. But the fact is he fought about 100 less fights than Pep and lost 5 times more.

Records are for DJs yes, but if Saddler had Peps number in the ring, I'm sure Pep was happy knowing he could figure out guys in 100 more fights than Saddler

Gotta look at quality too, though. Different eras. People go "goo goo" over big numbers in the win columns, but the VAST majority of the guys he fought were complete stiffs. We're talking guys with losing records, guys with under 15 fights, ect.

Just go through his record.

He beat Sandy Saddler for the FW title, and these were the records of his next 4 opponents:

10-13
39-27
45-20
29-13

He defends the FW title a few times, who does he fight?

14-11
68-22
30-26
28-16
28-23

Then he gets beat by Saddler.

16-19
8-18
52-14
51-14
17-5
29-2
9-23

Beats Corky Gonzales and loses again to Saddler

3-0
3-14
18-12
20-7
53-9 (who he's knocked out by)
50-30
27-12
ect ect

The guy fought a lot of bums. He fought some killers but he fought a ton of guys who didn't belong in the ring with him, too.

I'm sure Saddler was real jealous that Pep could figure out guys with near-losing records...

some of his fights came against people who werent great but he would fight multiple of them in a months time. records can also be deceiving because unlike now, fighters were thrown to the wolves early in their careers and got a ton of losses because they fought experienced fighters way too early. and remember that floyd said his toughest fight was against augustus who had a record of 22-16-4 when they fought. so you can imagine that pep fought guys with records which werent visually pleasing but were still very good or at least very awkward fighters.

Bogey Flicker, you are starting to sound like a broken record. It's all very well to accuse people of lacking perspective and going "goo goo" over fighters from generations other than ours, but then you must apply the same strict criteria yourself.

It's seems you are on a mission to elevate FMJ above all others and dismiss any one else. There are plenty of people who rate Floyd and other modern fighters whilst being able to recognise talent from other eras. Pep is not a legend because everybody who rates him has lost all perspective, he is a legend because he earned it. Deal with it.

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Bogey Flicker, you are starting to sound like a broken record. It's all very well to accuse people of lacking perspective and going "goo goo" over fighters from generations other than ours, but then you must apply the same strict criteria yourself.

It's seems you are on a mission to elevate FMJ above all others and dismiss any one else. There are plenty of people who rate Floyd and other modern fighters whilst being able to recognise talent from other eras. Pep is not a legend because everybody who rates him has lost all perspective, he is a legend because he earned it. Deal with it.

I'm the broken record? It's the same thing every time from you.

1) Accuse me of being wrong/prejudiced/on a mission, yet offer no logic whatsoever as to why I am wrong/prejudiced/on a mission.

2) Set up straw man arguments by taking what I said out of context or put words in my mouth and argue those points.

At no point in this thread did I say Pep WAS NOT a legend, wasn't a great fighter, wasn't a great defensive fighter, ect. It's not all or nothing. When I say "I think Pep is overrated", that's not the same as saying "Willie Pep is pure shit and doesn't deserve ANY recognition". I think he was a fantastic fighter and a boxing legend, but his reflexes/speed/defensive ability, while clearly formidable, were not on the level of a Floyd Mayweather or Pernell Whitaker. That's all I'm saying.

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

some of his fights came against people who werent great but he would fight multiple of them in a months time. records can also be deceiving because unlike now, fighters were thrown to the wolves early in their careers and got a ton of losses because they fought experienced fighters way too early. and remember that floyd said his toughest fight was against augustus who had a record of 22-16-4 when they fought. so you can imagine that pep fought guys with records which werent visually pleasing but were still very good or at least very awkward fighters.

I'm not as easily impressed with guys fighting multiple stiffs in a month. If you look at a top guy like Floyd, Pacquiao, ect, they're fighting EVERY DAY with their sparring. I know a legit fight is much different than sparring, but a lot of these guys that Pep fought could offer little but a mediocre sparring session for him.

I'm not sure why guys get so much credit for fighting so much when the quality wasn't there. George Foreman beat fight bums in one night, and everyone ridiculed him and called it a fiasco and a joke. Do people think Floyd or Pacquiao couldn't fight 4 or 5 bums a month and build up a record like that?

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

some of his fights came against people who werent great but he would fight multiple of them in a months time. records can also be deceiving because unlike now, fighters were thrown to the wolves early in their careers and got a ton of losses because they fought experienced fighters way too early. and remember that floyd said his toughest fight was against augustus who had a record of 22-16-4 when they fought. so you can imagine that pep fought guys with records which werent visually pleasing but were still very good or at least very awkward fighters.

I'm not as easily impressed with guys fighting multiple stiffs in a month. If you look at a top guy like Floyd, Pacquiao, ect, they're fighting EVERY DAY with their sparring. I know a legit fight is much different than sparring, but a lot of these guys that Pep fought could offer little but a mediocre sparring session for him.

I'm not sure why guys get so much credit for fighting so much when the quality wasn't there. George Foreman beat fight bums in one night, and everyone ridiculed him and called it a fiasco and a joke. Do people think Floyd or Pacquiao couldn't fight 4 or 5 bums a month and build up a record like that?

again, i will mention augustus. supposedly floyds toughest fight. an awkward, tough fighter that gave floyd fits. do you not think that there were many of those types of fighters around back in the day? i believe that floyd would have a few losses on his record if he fought as often as old fighters because you just run into problem matchups and bad days. pac is the same way. i think that he could definitely run into fighters that would give him major problems if he fought that frequently.

i just dont think that most of peps fights were against bums. he probably had a few that were against fighters that just werent very good, but i would guess that most of his fights were against solid opponents that gave effort which is tiring after a while.

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

again, i will mention augustus. supposedly floyds toughest fight. an awkward, tough fighter that gave floyd fits. do you not think that there were many of those types of fighters around back in the day? i believe that floyd would have a few losses on his record if he fought as often as old fighters because you just run into problem matchups and bad days. pac is the same way. i think that he could definitely run into fighters that would give him major problems if he fought that frequently.

i just dont think that most of peps fights were against bums. he probably had a few that were against fighters that just werent very good, but i would guess that most of his fights were against solid opponents that gave effort which is tiring after a while.

I think you're reading way too much into Augustus, who Floyd fought injured and took lightly, but I do agree that some of those guys who had shitty records were probably a lot tougher than their record gave them credit for. I'm sure he ran into the odd Freddie Pendleton or Emmanuel Augustus.

But herein lies the double standard: people will praise Pep for quantity and fighting so many people and different styles with no mention of quality. We are willing to give Pep the benefit of the doubt: we assume that he fought a lot of tough guys, even if their records would indicate that they were bums or club fighters at best. Then when we talk about Floyd Mayweather or another modern great, we'll go through his record with a fine toothed comb and accuse him of not fighting anybody.

Floyd has fought nothing but champions and top 10 opposition since 1998, which included just about every style and body type you can think of. Why aren't we willing to give Floyd and his opposition the benefit of the doubt?

Why is a club fighter from the 1940s better than a club fighter from 2014?

i agree with you. i am an advocate to floyd. i understand that he has fought the best fighters over the years. im not at all saying that he hasnt. my main argument is that from all of the pep fights ive seen and all of the floyd fights ive seen, pep is a better defensive fighter.

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

my main argument is that from all of the pep fights ive seen and all of the floyd fights ive seen, pep is a better defensive fighter.

Ok but help me see what you see. I'm totally open to changing my opinion on this. What does Pep do better than Floyd or Pernell? Did he have better head movement? Foot movement? Did he keep better range? Was he a better ring general? Did he fight more effectively on the inside? Was he able to switch from offense to defense quicker and more effectively? Did he counter off a defensive move to greater effect?

I'd love to know why he's better. I'd love for someone to point me to a few particular fights and say "look at this, Floyd or Pernell would never be able to do what he just did there".

Don't get me wrong, I know Pep was fast as a mother fucker, had great movement and reflexes.

To me, he was one of the great outside fighters of all time. He was an escapist. He'd move and move so the guy would have trouble getting set, he'd jump in with his attack and jump back out, he'd retreat when he got charged, and he'd tie guys up if he felt uncomfortable. Great, world class stuff.

My point is that guys like Pernell, Floyd, and Locche did that (Locche wasn't as fast of foot as these guys but I'll include him anyway), but they were also much more adept at working defensively on the inside. Not that Pep was a slouch on the inside, he could duck punches and tie guys up, but that's not where he was comfortable and I've never seen him stand in the pocket or against the ropes and be effective. The big problem he had with Saddler is that he couldn't consistently keep the stronger Saddler off of him and was forced to fight on the inside and against the ropes more often than usual, and he was almost entirely uneffective in both working his offense and nullifying Saddler's defense.

Look at Floyd: even when he's pushed up against the ropes (ala Maidana), when do you really see him get hit with anything substantial? Guys like Floyd and Pernell had another dimension to their game where they were comfortable wherever the fight took place, and therefore I find it a little short sighted that Pep would get the defensive nod over either of them.

pep is better defensively than floyd with his head movement, upper body movement, distance, and quick feet. pep and sweet pea have similar defensive styles and floyd and locche have similar defensive styles. floyd is better in the pocket at defense. thats more where he thrives on defense. he has solid outside defense but his pocket defense is where he gets his credit. he isnt as good as locche though because that guy could avoid any and all punches somehow.

floyd actually has trouble when he gets to the ropes. if you watch the fighters over the years that have pushed him to the ropes (castillo, sosa, cotto, and maidana all come to mind), it makes floyd uncomfortable and he gets hit cleanly. he wants to be in the middle of the ring where he can spin out of a bad situation if he gets in trouble. pep also has this same problem which is what saddler exploited. mayweather just never fought a saddler type fighter (paul williams has the same body type so it could have been an alright comparison had they fought).

i feel like they have separate types of defenses but that pep is altogether better.

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

floyd actually has trouble when he gets to the ropes. if you watch the fighters over the years that have pushed him to the ropes (castillo, sosa, cotto, and maidana all come to mind), it makes floyd uncomfortable and he gets hit cleanly. he wants to be in the middle of the ring where he can spin out of a bad situation if he gets in trouble. pep also has this same problem which is what saddler exploited. mayweather just never fought a saddler type fighter (paul williams has the same body type so it could have been an alright comparison had they fought).

I don't think it's fair to say Floyd is uncomfortable and gets hit clean on the ropes. Maidana had him there for 12 rounds and never landed anything of real substance that hurt Floyd. We're talking about a guy who's never been dropped and we can count the number of times he's been hit with a punch that hurt him on one hand.

I don't know if I agree about Floyd never fighting a Saddler-type fighter. What about Diego Corrales? Corrales was a tall power puncher (33-0 with 27 KOs at the time). Willie Pep was 5'5'' and Saddler was 5'8'' - a 3 inch advantage. Floyd was 5'8'' and Diego was 5'11'' - again, a 3 inch advantage. I think Corrales was very comparable to Saddler in terms of size, style, power, and the height advantage held over Floyd as opposed to the height advantage Saddler had on Pep.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpKHFZ6ixKs

Look at that. Pep is fast but gets absolutely mauled by body shots and dropped in the corner in the first round. Pep is the classic slickster, he's great at avoiding those bad areas but when he got in them he had no idea what to do.

You contrast that with what Floyd did to Corrales, and I think anyone should be able to see the difference. Corrales got Floyd up against the ropes and corner and landed nothing clean.

Lol anyway,

Pep beat Chalky Wright, Sal Bartolo, Phil Terranova, Willie Roach, Jackie Wilson, Jock Leslie, Eddie Compo, Charley Riley, Ray Famechon, Spider Armstrong, Joey Peralta, and world champions Sandy Saddler, Manuel Ortiz and Paddy DeMarco. w/l records don't tell the whole story. Not sure what part of that fact confuses people? Some guys fought once a week. If they fought once a year they may have an 0 some some of today's tomato cans.

But speaking of win/loss Peps peak record was 135-1-1. The only guy close to that is Robinson at 128-1-2.

Glad Willie fought when he did. If he was fighting today, he wouldn't get a fight.

Originally Posted by IamInuit

w/l records don't tell the whole story. Not sure what part of that fact confuses people?

Nobody is confused. If you have a losing record, you don't belong in the ring with a world champion. If you have under 15 fights, you don't belong in there with a world champ that has over 100. That's as true now as it was in 1930.

It's the same issue I've brought up time and time again without answer: the double standard between judging old timers and modern fighters. When it's old timers, we give a 80/20 split in focus/importance to quantity. When it's modern fighters, we give the 80/20 split in focus/importance to quality. Well, which one is it? Is it impressive to fight more often against lesser opposition or less often against greater opposition? I've been asking this for years and nobody has given me an answer. It also exposes and underlying problem in boxing fans: very few people actually watch fights and form original opinions any more. It betrays lazy thinking and often no thinking at all. Why is Willie Pep the greatest? Oh, because I read he was. All this stuff just becomes accepted as part of boxing law and nobody questions it.