BoxRec

In other words, elmer likes Pep better than Robinson.

elmersalsa wrote:That's your view. My view is that in the 1940s decade, Willie Pep was the world's greatest boxer. His record shows for it.

His record clearly shows he was not.

In the 1940s, Pep was of course great. However, he "only" beat three Hall of Famers.
Robinson beat five Hall of Famers.
On other threads, that is the end all be all for you.

Pep's total record was 6-2 against Hall of Famers.
Robinson's was 12-1.

elmersalsa wrote:

King Carlos wrote:You still said he was the best fighter of his time. His time was the 40s and the 50s, just as Robinson's was. Both were at their very best in the 40s, both were still very good/great but beginning their steady declines throughout the 50s. How then was Pep "the best fighter of his time" when his "time" coincided almost perfectly with Robinson's?

Because his time, was the 1940s. Robinson although was at the same time in the 1940s, became the best fighter IN MY VIEW the following decade, which is the 1950s. Sugar Ray in the 1940s, in my view, was second next to Pep.

You think Robinson was a superior fighter in the 50s, at Middleweight (2 1/2 year hiatus from mid '52 to early '55) compared to what he was in the 40s, at Welterweight?

King Carlos wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

King Carlos wrote:You still said he was the best fighter of his time. His time was the 40s and the 50s, just as Robinson's was. Both were at their very best in the 40s, both were still very good/great but beginning their steady declines throughout the 50s. How then was Pep "the best fighter of his time" when his "time" coincided almost perfectly with Robinson's?

Because his time, was the 1940s. Robinson although was at the same time in the 1940s, became the best fighter IN MY VIEW the following decade, which is the 1950s. Sugar Ray in the 1940s, in my view, was second next to Pep.

You think Robinson was a superior fighter in the 50s, at Middleweight (2 1/2 year hiatus from mid '52 to early '55) compared to what he was in the 40s, at Welterweight?

No, I'm not saying that. I am saying that Sugar Ray was the best of the 1950s decade.

elmersalsa wrote:

King Carlos wrote:

elmersalsa wrote: Because his time, was the 1940s. Robinson although was at the same time in the 1940s, became the best fighter IN MY VIEW the following decade, which is the 1950s. Sugar Ray in the 1940s, in my view, was second next to Pep.

You think Robinson was a superior fighter in the 50s, at Middleweight (2 1/2 year hiatus from mid '52 to early '55) compared to what he was in the 40s, at Welterweight?

No, I'm not saying that. I am saying that Sugar Ray was the best of the 1950s decade.

So you agree that Robinson was at his peak in the 1940s, correct?

Yes, King Carlos. the great Sugar Ray Robinson was an unstoppable machine in the 1940s
But, to me, he was not the best of the decade but the great Willie Pep. Robinson was at his peak in the 1940s. But, it was the 1950s that cemented his glorious career by winning the middleweight crown 5 times. Even though he lost more fights in the 50s, his dramatic wins versus Randy Turpin (fight #2), Bobo Olson, Carmen Basilio (fight#2) and Gene Fullmer (fight #2) made him the Fighter of the Decade.

I think you can argue that Saddler was better. I think the reason most people give the edge toi Pep is because he was so consistent. Saddler occasionally lost to someone else.

We have to weight the big wins against the losses, taking into consideration the timing of the fighters careers.

He was behind Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Ali, Ray Leonard, Sam Langford, Harry Greb, and Ezzard Charles. Take a look at their major wins against their losses. Pep simply doesn't match any of them.

I think you can put Pep as high as #8 all time, which of course is very high.
At featherweight, the only other two worth debating is Saddler and Sanchez.

elmersalsa wrote:Yes, King Carlos. the great Sugar Ray Robinson was an unstoppable machine in the 1940s
But, to me, he was not the best of the decade but the great Willie Pep. Robinson was at his peak in the 1940s. But, it was the 1950s that cemented his glorious career by winning the middleweight crown 5 times. Even though he lost more fights in the 50s, his dramatic wins versus Randy Turpin (fight #2), Bobo Olson, Carmen Basilio (fight#2) and Gene Fullmer (fight #2) made him the Fighter of the Decade.

So it's your contention that Willie Pep, in his prime, was better than Ray Robinson in his Welterweight prime?

King Carlos wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Yes, King Carlos. the great Sugar Ray Robinson was an unstoppable machine in the 1940s
But, to me, he was not the best of the decade but the great Willie Pep. Robinson was at his peak in the 1940s. But, it was the 1950s that cemented his glorious career by winning the middleweight crown 5 times. Even though he lost more fights in the 50s, his dramatic wins versus Randy Turpin (fight #2), Bobo Olson, Carmen Basilio (fight#2) and Gene Fullmer (fight #2) made him the Fighter of the Decade.

So it's your contention that Willie Pep, in his prime, was better than Ray Robinson in his Welterweight prime?

Absolutely.

Alrighty.

No shame in that, King Carlos. I rate SRR over Pep because of his whole body of work after 1950. Pep in the 50s was through.

littleton wrote:Behind Sandy Saddler who knocked him out three fights out of four.

Pep won their second big fight. The series came against SS after Willie was in that bad plane CRASH. REMEMBER. Four people died. Willie broke his back & the doctors said he WOULD NEVER FIGHT AGAIN!

^ ^ I was at WILLIE PEP'S FUNERAL!

Imagine on the 23rd of September, 1925 Alexander Saddler went off to the pub, strolled in late and fell asleep on the couch and didn't get none.

Now re-ask the question in the OP

ImranSarwar wrote:^ ^ I was at WILLIE PEP'S FUNERAL!

Good for you, what do you want, a fornicating lolly pop?

Don't rule out Loche in this review......he's very deserving as well.

Ambling Alp II wrote:I think you can argue that Saddler was better. I think the reason most people give the edge toi Pep is because he was so consistent. Saddler occasionally lost to someone else.

We have to weight the big wins against the losses, taking into consideration the timing of the fighters careers.

He was behind Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Ali, Ray Leonard, Sam Langford, Harry Greb, and Ezzard Charles. Take a look at their major wins against their losses. Pep simply doesn't match any of them.

I think you can put Pep as high as #8 all time, which of course is very high.
At featherweight, the only other two worth debating is Saddler and Sanchez.

Ali and Leonard are out of place.

Tomasino wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:I think you can argue that Saddler was better. I think the reason most people give the edge toi Pep is because he was so consistent. Saddler occasionally lost to someone else.

We have to weight the big wins against the losses, taking into consideration the timing of the fighters careers.

He was behind Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Ali, Ray Leonard, Sam Langford, Harry Greb, and Ezzard Charles. Take a look at their major wins against their losses. Pep simply doesn't match any of them.

I think you can put Pep as high as #8 all time, which of course is very high.
At featherweight, the only other two worth debating is Saddler and Sanchez.

Ali and Leonard are out of place.

davie wrote:

ImranSarwar wrote:^ ^ I was at WILLIE PEP'S FUNERAL!

Good for you, what do you want, a effing lolly pop?

You TROLLING putting USELESS & demeaning remarks like that out. [me think you on BEER]

littleton wrote:

ImranSarwar wrote: Pep won their second big fight.

Pep was knocked by Sandy Saddler

in their first big fight,

in their third big fight,

and in their fourth big fight.

He was 136-1-1 going into Saddle I. Had already gone thru it the AIR PLANE FALLING FROM THE SKY. SMALL PLANE FOUR DEAD. PEP BROKEN BACK. DOCTORS SAID HE WAS THRU!

ImranSarwar wrote:

littleton wrote:

ImranSarwar wrote: Pep won their second big fight.

Pep was knocked by Sandy Saddler

in their first big fight,

in their third big fight,

and in their fourth big fight.

He was 136-1-1 going into Saddle I. Had already gone thru it the AIR PLANE FALLING FROM THE SKY. SMALL PLANE FOUR DEAD. PEP BROKEN BACK. DOCTORS SAID HE WAS THRU!

Man, 136-1-1 going to the first Saddler fight. Amazing and incredible feat. This guy gotta be top 5 pound per pound of all time. And some people question that he was not the best of the 1940s?

Who cares what the doctors said? He clearly recovered just fine. Might not have been quite the fighter he was prior, based on what some would have us believe, but he was still a top notch technician and still physically sharp as a tack, and it would be years before he started to really decline.

Ambling Alp II wrote: against Hall of Famers.
Robinson was 12-1.

An astonishing stat. Not the first time I have seen it mentioned but it still blows me away.

ImranSarwar wrote:

davie wrote:

ImranSarwar wrote:^ ^ I was at WILLIE PEP'S FUNERAL!

Good for you, what do you want, a effing lolly pop?

You TROLLING putting USELESS & demeaning remarks like that out. [me think you on BEER]

I'm stone cold sober mate, I just fail to see what you bring to this discussion by shouting "I was at WILLIE PEP'S FUNERAL!"
Then again, I fail to see what you bring to any discussion on these boards with your unique brand of utterly incoherent gibberish.

As long as we are questioning peoples sobriety on this board, can I ask you do you freebase crack or take acid tabs through your eyeballs before you come on here, because I can string a sentence together better after 20 pints of premium strength lager than you often do.

Ps, yes, I was trolling you, because I can't actually take you or anything you say on here even remotely seriously

Number 7 for me

1. Langford
2. Greb
3. Robinson
4. Charles
5. Duran
6. Armstrong
7. Pep
8. Gans
9. Wilde
10. Whitaker
11. Ali
12. Louis
13. Tunney
14. Moore
15. Walker
16. Monzon
17. B. Leonard
18. Fitzsimmons
19. Cerdan
20. Saddler