BoxRec

Ambling Alp II wrote:I guess that is one thing that is interesting about this Forum, almost everyday you will see something crazy like this. A fighter rolls up a phenomenal record like Robinson and one poster laughs at it and another rips him for not fighting more fighters above his weight class. Unbelievable.

Personally, I think Boxbuzz is to blame for letting all the nutters in.

When Baz was the sheriff, trolls like Elmo and Nancy were quickly shown the door.

The rot started when Buzzy fell for Granberry's O.J. story...

Ambling Alp II wrote:I guess that is one thing that is interesting about this Forum, almost everyday you will see something crazy like this. A fighter rolls up a phenomenal record like Robinson and one poster laughs at it and another rips him for not fighting more fighters above his weight class. Unbelievable.

Don’t try to rationalize with Elmo, once he said in another thread that Eusebio Pedroza mas a more complete and better fighter than Ray Robinson. And don’t mention his Deity, all-mighty Duran. He has more excuses for him losing than there are words in the dictionary. The guy is just delusional.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:There is no need to try and talk to Elmer when he is on one of his rants. Laughing is all I can do at a post like that. Pep is probably overrated from a resume stand point. No way in hell does he approach Robinson or Charles decade with his entire career.

This is more than a comedy. The great Willie Pep OVERRATED from a resume standpoint. If Pep is overrated, then the great Sugar Ray Robinson was overrated, too. .

Pep beat the top men of his division. He beat them all. There was no one left. But for Robinson? I cannot say he beat them all. He gots lots of loopholes. Yeah, we clap for him because he did fought a guy bigger than he in the great Jake LaMotta. Big win. Also big deal. But did not face the great Holman Williams, who was a welterweight contender in Robinson's time. The great Charley Burley was also fighting between welterweight and middleweight. Cocoa Kid was also around doing the same.

Pep won more fights than any other fighter of the 1940s. Beat the very best of his time. Convincingly. A guy that has more than 140 wins in a decade is overrated, beating the very best?...What a joke.

Borinken25 wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:I guess that is one thing that is interesting about this Forum, almost everyday you will see something crazy like this. A fighter rolls up a phenomenal record like Robinson and one poster laughs at it and another rips him for not fighting more fighters above his weight class. Unbelievable.

Don’t try to rationalize with Elmo, once he said in another thread that Eusebio Pedroza mas a more complete and better fighter than Ray Robinson. And don’t mention his Deity, all-mighty Duran. He has more excuses for him losing than there are words in the dictionary. The guy is just delusional.

One thing is that I do not rationalize with you. What is wrong with the great Eusebio Pedroza. Have you seen him fight? Pedroza was probably one of the most complete fighters that I have ever seen. He could fight different styles. Something that I have never seen in the beloved original Sugar Man.

And what the great Roberto Duran has to do in this conversation? You see? You must be liking Duran a lot, lately. It is in your mouth every time you come into the forum.

The great Willie Pep by the end of the 1940s decade had a record of 142-2-1. If this is not greatness, beating the top men of his era, then I don't know what it is.

elmersalsa wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:There is no need to try and talk to Elmer when he is on one of his rants. Laughing is all I can do at a post like that. Pep is probably overrated from a resume stand point. No way in hell does he approach Robinson or Charles decade with his entire career.

This is more than a comedy. The great Willie Pep OVERRATED from a resume standpoint. If Pep is overrated, then the great Sugar Ray Robinson was overrated, too. .

Pep beat the top men of his division. He beat them all. There was no one left. But for Robinson? I cannot say he beat them all. He gots lots of loopholes. Yeah, we clap for him because he did fought a guy bigger than he in the great Jake LaMotta. Big win. Also big deal. But did not face the great Holman Williams, who was a welterweight contender in Robinson's time. The great Charley Burley was also fighting between welterweight and middleweight. Cocoa Kid was also around doing the same.

Pep won more fights than any other fighter of the 1940s. Beat the very best of his time. Convincingly. A guy that has more than 140 wins in a decade is overrated, beating the very best?...What a joke.

I shouldn't bother indulging you on one of your favorite trolling topics. He didn't beat guys as great as Charles and Robinson did. Not even in the same ballpark.

elmersalsa wrote:The great Willie Pep by the end of the 1940s decade had a record of 142-2-1. If this is not greatness, beating the top men of his era, then I don't know what it is.

Of course he was great, when you talk about accomplishments some others were clearly greater.

elmersalsa wrote:The problem I got with the great Sugar Ray Robinson is that he really did not fight the top tough men of his era, which were black figthters like Holman Williams, Charley Burley, Ezzard Charles, Cocoa Kid, Eddie Booker, Archie Moore, Tony Zale and others. I would not say that he would not win those fights, but he did not face them. At least, the great Jake LaMotta fought Williams.

In the other hand, the great Willie Pep FOUGHT THE VERY BEST of his time and division. By the end of the 1940s decade, he had aobut 140 wins!

During the middle 1940s, Ezzard Charles was far too big for Sugar Ray Robinson, who weighed about thirty pounds less at the time. Holman Williams, Charley Burley and Archie Moore also had a big weight advantage over Ray AND hadn't proven to be too drawing cards by the middle 1940s. While weighing far more than Ray, Jake LaMotta was a good drawing card.

In regards to Tony Zale who was probably past his prime, I think that he wanted to fight Rocky Graziano rather than Ray. For one thing, Graziano was the best non-heavyweight drawing card by a huge margin during the middle 1940s. Also keep in mind that Graziano was small for a middleweight and was not considered as formidable as a number of other boxers who had been fighting in the middleweight division at the time. In short, boxing is a business.

- Chuck Johnston

Sugar Ray Robinson for me.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:There is no need to try and talk to Elmer when he is on one of his rants. Laughing is all I can do at a post like that. Pep is probably overrated from a resume stand point. No way in hell does he approach Robinson or Charles decade with his entire career.

This is more than a comedy. The great Willie Pep OVERRATED from a resume standpoint. If Pep is overrated, then the great Sugar Ray Robinson was overrated, too. .

Pep beat the top men of his division. He beat them all. There was no one left. But for Robinson? I cannot say he beat them all. He gots lots of loopholes. Yeah, we clap for him because he did fought a guy bigger than he in the great Jake LaMotta. Big win. Also big deal. But did not face the great Holman Williams, who was a welterweight contender in Robinson's time. The great Charley Burley was also fighting between welterweight and middleweight. Cocoa Kid was also around doing the same.

Pep won more fights than any other fighter of the 1940s. Beat the very best of his time. Convincingly. A guy that has more than 140 wins in a decade is overrated, beating the very best?...What a joke.

I shouldn't bother indulging you on one of your favorite trolling topics. He didn't beat guys as great as Charles and Robinson did. Not even in the same ballpark.

Then, what fighters did Charles or Robinson beat that were better than the great Sandy Saddler?

You calling it trolling because in reality, there is no more to say about Robinson or Charles. Charles beat lots of great fighters in the 40s, but lost to many of those guys, too. Charles had better quality of opposition than Robinson in the 40s, but Robinson had better record.

But in the case of Pep, division dominance, quality of opposition and the winning streaks he produced, fighting the very best of his time, should be enough to qualify him as the best of the decade. Not to mention his incredible record.

So you're saying that Charles should be the best because he beat better opposition than Robinson and Pep? Pep beat Saddler. What fighter that Charles beat was better than Saddler?

Archire Moore was better than Saddler. If you take all of their best wins and compile a top 20, Ezzard would have at least 15 of them. It isn't even debatable.

I don't have any issue with Robinson over Ezzard, they are the only two answers for me.

I'd take SRR close over Charles.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Archire Moore was better than Saddler. If you take all of their best wins and compile a top 20, Ezzard would have at least 15 of them. It isn't even debatable.

I don't have any issue with Robinson over Ezzard, they are the only two answers for me.

No sir. I respect your opinion, and I knew you was gonna say the great Archie Moore. Moore to me, was not better than Sandy Saddler. Although, both of them were true all time greats. No debate in that.

We cannot say that Charles was the best of the 40s just because he beat a ton of good quality fighters. What about his losses? What about his unbeaten streaks? His accomplishments?

We don't give the lower weight fighters much respect. But in Pep, we found a helluva great, and his accomplishments could hang with anybody's.

Charles and Robinson beat famous fighters. Pep had to fight what he had in front of him. And he succeeded 98% of the time. What a fighter. WE just can go just about who this person beat. We gotta see the whole picture.

Elmer, you just have no objectivity in your game. Now you want to talk about losses? And you're hung up on Pep/Saddler? I'm not going to waste my time. Charles competition was vastly superior to Willie's throughout their careers. If you're rating strictly on talent, Pep was amazing even after he was compromised by the plane crash. Going on accomplishments(and that is how I rate fighters) there is no scenario where Willie rates over Ezzard.

Charles beat Moore 3-0 & Saddler beat Pep 3-1. Your argument fails big time right there.

We just cannot go by just wins over quality of opposition. To put it at best, Charles quality of opposition was waaaay better than the Sugar Man and Pep put together.

But as champions, division dominance, accomplishments, winning streaks, both Pep and SRL overwhelm Charles'.

Every one has their own opinion.

elmersalsa wrote:We just cannot go by just wins over quality of opposition. To put it at best, Charles quality of opposition was waaaay better than the Sugar Man and Pep put together.

But as champions, division dominance, accomplishments, winning streaks, both Pep and SRL overwhelm Charles'.

Every one has their own opinion.

Wow, this couldn't be more ignorant. I guess Sam Langford is lacking as a champion? Your bias makes such a fool of you when there is knowledge in there. Greater opposition will limit winning streaks. His division dominance is off the charts, he's the greatest Light Heavy of all time, period. You like to use your opinions too much on who could beat whom in Elmer land. Pep's resume pales in comparison to the great Ezzard Charles. That's simply a fact.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:We just cannot go by just wins over quality of opposition. To put it at best, Charles quality of opposition was waaaay better than the Sugar Man and Pep put together.

But as champions, division dominance, accomplishments, winning streaks, both Pep and SRL overwhelm Charles'.

Every one has their own opinion.

Wow, this couldn't be more ignorant. I guess Sam Langford is lacking as a champion? Your bias makes such a fool of you when there is knowledge in there. Greater opposition will limit winning streaks. His division dominance is off the charts, he's the greatest Light Heavy of all time, period. You like to use your opinions too much on who could beat whom in Elmer land. Pep's resume pales in comparison to the great Ezzard Charles. That's simply a fact.

I thought that Charles opposition was waay better than Pep's, but when I looked at their records, there is not much difference. I was mistaken about that.
Why is it called ignorant, Saad? You are telling me that Pep did fight weaklinks in his streaks? He fought formidable opposition during the second winning streak of 73 bouts. What are you talking about? You make it seem like if Charles opposition was waaay better than Pep's. I thought it was, but like I said, when I looked it up, it was not.

I believe that Charles opposition was better than Pep's, but not by much. Charles opposition to me is like a A+, while Pep's is like a B+ or B-. Pep is the greatest featherweight ever. Charles the greatest light-heavyweight. But at that weight class of 175lbs, Charles lost to Lloyd Marshall, Jimmy Bivins and others. While Pep, in his own weight, lost to only Saddler.

Sam Langford is out of the subject. He could only do what he could in his time. We could not fault him for not being a champion in a time of racism in America that was very high. I rate Langford over Pep because he beat better fighters than Pep and had more longevity. Each of them were the top fighters of their time. Langford in the 1900s and to me, Pep in the 40s.

Charles won 62 fights in the decade. Pep won 142 fights in that same decade. Well, you can say that Charles had to do military service in '44 and '45. Maybe he would have won more fights. Maybe not. Maybe he would have been a triple champ if given the opportunity. Maybe not.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

You got to grow up Saad.

you got to grow up, for real, man. Grow up.

I like to come in here sometimes, because I figure you guys know your stuff, and that it's a view on a different era. Then I see someone basically say: "Yeah Sugar Ray beat Lamotta, so what? He didn't fight Ezzard Charles."

The more things change...

You guys? Bobby meet Elmer, he's nuts.

Well I meant in that most of you guys seem to know a fair bit about boxing and the history and whatnot.

I've seen some of his posts before, he certainly has some strange views imo.