wille pep could have beaten joe louis

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 18 Sep 2006, 00:53

..there are those who , when making a case for a favorite sometimes say that if fighter A beat fighter B and fighter B beat fighter C, then fighter A could have beaten fighter C.

This strikes me as such obvious logic that i shall now prove wille pep could have beaten joe louis:

wille pep beat paddy demarco.....who beat jimmy carter...who beat ike williams....who beat kid gavilan...who beat carmen basilio...who beat ray robinson...who beat bobo olsen...who beat joey maxim...who beat jersey joe walcott..who beat ezzard charles...who beat joe louis!!!

by beating joe louis, of course then pep could have beaten all those champions louis beat, including primo carnera, who was inept but who outweighed pep by several pounds.

plus...pep's nearest rival for all time featherweight greatness could do the same.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 18 Sep 2006, 01:10

I could somewhat agree with this assesment...only because Joe Louis had such a terrible time with MW turn LHW champion Billy Conn, who, when he fought Louis, was no more than 168 pounds and gave Louis one helluva fight before "getting Irish", later saying "getting stupid", and tried to knock out Louis.

I think that it is true that a great little man can beat a good big man. You could take any fighter really from any weight class and if you match him up right, he could beat a man who out weighs him by 20, 30, 40, 50 pounds or more.

I think Bob Fitzsimmons, Mickey Walker, Jimmy Wilde, and Harry Greb were prime examples, that it could happen...

I do think Pep was quite possibly the most defensive genius of all time...but I don't think he could have beaten Louis, not easily anyways. If Sandy Saddler could tear him to ribbons, I could only imagine what the Brown Bomber could do if he managed to catch Pep with one good shot and then follow it up with those lightning fast combinations.

Now I could forsee maybe Pep taking on Tommy Farr or Billy Conn or a Jimmy Young or Chris Byrd, for those were light hitting men who perferred ring science and dancing over swapping punches...but not with someone as powerful and as in tuned as Louis was.

Aldo Pravisani · Post by **Aldo Pravisani** » 18 Sep 2006, 03:35

Decagon wrote:Someone did the same thing a few years ago, but with Pancho Villa and Muhammad Ali.

And using this logic, I belonged in the same ring as Ali....Help let me out!

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 18 Sep 2006, 06:23

The mighty Univac has just run this same information and confirms your findings!, Jaclem you've done it! This is earth shattering information and proves the point beyond a shadow of a doubt!

Through it all there was but one variable within the otherwise perfect linear logic. In this set of circumstances though Pep could beat Charles, he could not have mustered a win over Moore, whom as in other cases we have discussed, appears to be the exception which ultimately proves the rule.

"Exceptional" appears to be history's chosen Moniker for the old Mongoose.

Imagine the money that could be made based on the odds Vegas would have on Pep-Louis. Poor Joe and his supporters would never know what hit them.

Good Work!

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 18 Sep 2006, 07:19

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:I could somewhat agree with this assesment...only because Joe Louis had such a terrible time with MW turn LHW champion Billy Conn, who, when he fought Louis, was no more than 168 pounds and gave Louis one helluva fight before "getting Irish", later saying "getting stupid", and tried to knock out Louis.

I think that it is true that a great little man can beat a good big man. You could take any fighter really from any weight class and if you match him up right, he could beat a man who out weighs him by 20, 30, 40, 50 pounds or more.

I think Bob Fitzsimmons, Mickey Walker, Jimmy Wilde, and Harry Greb were prime examples, that it could happen...

I do think Pep was quite possibly the most defensive genius of all time...but I don't think he could have beaten Louis, not easily anyways. If Sandy Saddler could tear him to ribbons, I could only imagine what the Brown Bomber could do if he managed to catch Pep with one good shot and then follow it up with those lightning fast combinations.

Now I could forsee maybe Pep taking on Tommy Farr or Billy Conn or a Jimmy Young or Chris Byrd, for those were light hitting men who perferred ring science and dancing over swapping punches...but not with someone as powerful and as in tuned as Louis was.

What a GREAT post!!!

Thanks Irish...

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 18 Sep 2006, 13:14

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:I could somewhat agree with this assesment...only because Joe Louis had such a terrible time with MW turn LHW champion Billy Conn, who, when he fought Louis, was no more than 168 pounds and gave Louis one helluva fight before "getting Irish", later saying "getting stupid", and tried to knock out Louis.

I think that it is true that a great little man can beat a good big man. You could take any fighter really from any weight class and if you match him up right, he could beat a man who out weighs him by 20, 30, 40, 50 pounds or more.

I think Bob Fitzsimmons, Mickey Walker, Jimmy Wilde, and Harry Greb were prime examples, that it could happen...

I do think Pep was quite possibly the most defensive genius of all time...but I don't think he could have beaten Louis, not easily anyways. If Sandy Saddler could tear him to ribbons, I could only imagine what the Brown Bomber could do if he managed to catch Pep with one good shot and then follow it up with those lightning fast combinations.

Now I could forsee maybe Pep taking on Tommy Farr or Billy Conn or a Jimmy Young or Chris Byrd, for those were light hitting men who perferred ring science and dancing over swapping punches...but not with someone as powerful and as in tuned as Louis was.

After seeing post like this, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Even light hitting heavweights like Farr, Young, or Byrd hit much, much harder than any featherweight, including Sandy Saddler.
There is no way that Pep (as great as he was) would last very long against them.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 18 Sep 2006, 13:22

It's possible for a featherweight to beat a lightweight (if he is more skilled) and lightweight could beat a welterweight etc.
However,this doesn't mean a featherweight would beat a heavyweight of any ability.

In the NBA, a 6'2 player may be able to guard a 6'4 guy, a 6'4 guy could guard a 6'6 guy, a 6'6 guy could guard a 6'8 guy, a 6'8 player may be able to guard a 6'10 player. However, a 6'2 player isn't going to be able to handle a 6'10 guy. The difference is too great. The 6'10 player would score at will.

It's similar in boxing. It's about matchups. Slight weight disadvantages can be overcome. As the weight differences grow while though, they become harder and harder. At a certain point they can't be overcome regardless how good the small man is. There is a reason there are weight classes.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 18 Sep 2006, 13:59

..buzzy...do you think some of these guys here are putting us on?

decagon.....i wsn't aware of the villa/ali thread. these things can be fun.

the only thing that gets me mad is i can't get past marciano, who was never "beat". fooey

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 18 Sep 2006, 14:41

Jaclem wrote:..buzzy...do you think some of these guys here are putting us on?

Gee, do ya think??

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 18 Sep 2006, 15:20

BoxBuzz wrote:In this set of circumstances though Pep could beat Charles, he could not have mustered a win over Moore, whom as in other cases we have discussed, appears to be the exception which ultimately proves the rule.

By way of a slight aside: most people misunderstand the "exception proves the rule" expression as literally meaning, "the exception proves the rule to be true," which is of course completely nonsensical. What the phrase really means is "proves" in the sense of "proving ground," i.e. replace "proves" with "puts to the test" or simply "tests" and the phrase reads as the more sensible "the exception tests the rule." The ol' Mongoose certainly tested more than his fair share of common sense "rules" about aging and smaller fighters in his day. ;)

Thus endeth today's grammar lesson.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 18 Sep 2006, 16:25

Eric the Viking wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:In this set of circumstances though Pep could beat Charles, he could not have mustered a win over Moore, whom as in other cases we have discussed, appears to be the exception which ultimately proves the rule.
By way of a slight aside: most people misunderstand the "exception proves the rule" expression as literally meaning, "the exception proves the rule to be true," which is of course completely nonsensical. What the phrase really means is "proves" in the sense of "proving ground," i.e. replace "proves" with "puts to the test" or simply "tests" and the phrase reads as the more sensible "the exception tests the rule." The ol' Mongoose certainly tested more than his fair share of common sense "rules" about aging and smaller fighters in his day. ;)

Thus endeth today's grammar lesson.

Precisely as I meant it in this case......showing just how hard it was to find such an exception...one has to go to the Archie Moore/Willie Pep anomaly to find it. Univac showed no other exception in this case.

However thanks are in order for your clarification of what is otherwise an often misunderstood phrase.

The word "disinterested" can often fall into this catagory of misunderstanding. Not to be confused with uninterested. In order to find fair judgement it would be helpful to find a "disinterested" party. Who was in fact very intersted in true justice.

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 18 Sep 2006, 16:32

BoxBuzz wrote:The word "disinterested" can often fall into this catagory of misunderstanding. Not to be confused with uninterested. In order to find fair judgement it would be helpful to find a "disinterested" party. Who was in fact very intersted in true justice.

Most people who come across it will likely find this discussion about words and phrases that are easily misconstrued to be "highly enervating."

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 18 Sep 2006, 18:00

A strawweight could beat a Heavyweight...IF...you could find the right opponent...I ain't saying a world class HW or anything like that, but if you took the best Strawweight and put him in with a guy like...Charles Hess [0-10-1] or some other perpetual loser...I can see it happening.

It's all about beating certain fighters...Jimmy Wilde as a young man was known to take on guys who were twice his size and knock them out in carnivals in his native Wales.

Mickey Walker took on quite a few HW's in his time, including Ed Bearcat Wright who outweighed Walker by 42 pounds, and literally dwarfed him because Wright was over 6'1", and Walker was only 5'7" still decisioned him, and he was no more than a chubby Welterweight.

Sam Langford took on a few giant sized HW's in his time too, fighting everywhere from Welterweight to Heavyweight...division jumping was almost the standard back in the olden times, champions of all kinds of divisions took on whoever they could.

Like...Roy Jones for example matched himself perfectly against John Ruiz, a titlist [if that really means anything these days] but clearly a top five HW who was limited in skill. Jones was next going to go after shop-worn Evander Holyfield, another safe choice for a man who was once a Middleweight.

It's all about the match-making. I could see Pep take on a HW, but certainly not any top man or ATG...he'd get splattered.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 18 Sep 2006, 20:54

Maybe not...but we are talking about a man who won rounds without throwing a single punch...that's how defensively great Pep was...if he could stay on the defensive the majority of the rounds, I think he could might possibly stand a chance to go into the later rounds.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 18 Sep 2006, 21:17

THE RING 80 GREATEST FIGHTERS OF THE LAST 80 YEARS states that Pep won rounds without throwing a single punch...didn't pick it up from Bert Sugar. I have seen alot of Pep's fights, and I can almost say that the 'story' is probably true...the man was virtually light years ahead of everyone else on defense in his prime, so it wouldn't surprise me if ONE round in ONE fight in his entire career was won without throwing a single punch.

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 18 Sep 2006, 21:25

My feeling is that in order for the smaller fighter ,featherweights , bantams etc. to beat a heavy , it would take a huge punching lighter weight fighter to make the heavyweight respect them enough to not walk right through them.
Just slick boxing from the little guy wouldnt be enough.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 18 Sep 2006, 22:28

I do agree that there have been many false stories in boxing...and I don't always agree with Bert Sugar, to me all Sugar really ever was was an observer and has biased opinions and just smokes cigars and wears ugly hats...but I do think some things he says are right.

But even if the account isn't true...I can't really name that many fighters, featherweights or heavyweights who were as gifted as a prime Willie Pep was...I think, as I said before, if matched carefully, a fighter at any weight could beat another fighter whose much bigger.

I like the Mickey Walker example I gave a few posts ago...here is "The Toy Bulldog" no more than a blowed up Welterweight, going up against Ed "Bearcat" Wright...who stands 6'1" and weighs in at 210 pounds. Outweighed by 42 pounds, and there's nearly a foot in heigh difference...and manages to win a unaminous 10 round decision over the much larger Wright.

Mind you, this is the same Mickey Walker who beat the technically sound Jack Sharkey out-right but didn't get the decision, just a draw. The same Mickey Walker who beat King Levinsky, Paolino Uzcudon, and tore into Max Schemling for all he was worth for seven rounds before being stopped in the 8th.

For a man who was once a Welterweight, facing off against MW, LHW, HW greats...is something no short of amazing.

If you have the talent, it can be done.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 19 Sep 2006, 00:45

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:THE RING 80 GREATEST FIGHTERS OF THE LAST 80 YEARS states that Pep won rounds without throwing a single punch...didn't pick it up from Bert Sugar. I have seen alot of Pep's fights, and I can almost say that the 'story' is probably true...the man was virtually light years ahead of everyone else on defense in his prime, so it wouldn't surprise me if ONE round in ONE fight in his entire career was won without throwing a single punch.

Drag your carcass over to CBZ and in the old-timers section you will find that ridiculous myth has been debunked by real boxing historians

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 19 Sep 2006, 02:03

... i am ..astonished is the only word i can think of at the brilliance of so many of these responses....

Cojimar 1945 · Post by **Cojimar 1945** » 19 Sep 2006, 03:53

Do people think that some guys might be able to beat a tiger or a bear with their bare hands? These cases of little guys defeating much bigger guys are really impressive and have got me wondering more about potential matchups between people and other animals.

Lenny · Post by **Lenny** » 19 Sep 2006, 04:00

A bear would be way too slow for someone like Pep. Willie would make the bear look silly missing with shots and would probably become quite disheartened allowing Pep to pick the bear off with shots the longer it goes possibly til the bear says no mas.

Obviously an average featherweight would be destroyed by the bear though

Lenny · Post by **Lenny** » 19 Sep 2006, 04:01

But could a skilled koala bear bear a light hitting heavyweight?

Aldo Pravisani · Post by **Aldo Pravisani** » 19 Sep 2006, 04:10

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Do people think that some guys might be able to beat a tiger or a bear with their bare hands? These cases of little guys defeating much bigger guys are really impressive and have got me wondering more about potential matchups between people and other animals.

Could Max Baer bare to kill a bear with his bare hands? How far can a dog run into the woods? Is the pope a catholic? Are the Kennedys gun shy?

barry · Post by **barry** » 19 Sep 2006, 04:15

>>>Drag your carcass over to CBZ and in the old-timers section you will find that ridiculous myth has been debunked by real boxing historians<<<

Yeah!!!!

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 19 Sep 2006, 08:00

Jaclem wrote:... i am ..astonished is the only word i can think of at the brilliance of so many of these responses....

I feel a migraine coming on!.... :x :x :x :x :x :x :x

wille pep could have beaten joe louis

wille pep could have beaten joe louis

man vs tiger

Re: man vs tiger

re