BoxRec

Sugar has got Pep at 3 Saddler at 39. Saddler edged him in there series. Why the lower ranking for Saddler. Pep is usally mentioned higher on all time P.F.P. lists.

Decagon wrote:If Sandy Saddler'd been white and Willie Pep'd been black, it'd been the other way around.

You may be right, but that Im aware of Pep was already past his prime when he fought Saddler.

>>>If Sandy Saddler'd been white and Willie Pep'd been black, it'd been the other way around!<<<

For someone who tries to correct grammar on these message boards, you have got a lot to learn. I think the proper grammar would have been, "If Sandy Saddler would have been white," or "If Sandy Saddler had been white." What happened, forget to use your word processor this time?


>>>He could easily be one of the top 10 fighters of all time, pound-for-pound.<<<

Duh!

I think if you look at their overall careers Pep was the better boxer... he had a phenominal career and was past his best when he lost to Saddler.... don't think it has much to do with Saddler colour to be honest...

Easy answer, Pep was better. Even if the Pep was in prime condition when he lost his fight series to Saddler, judging them by their entire career would still put Pep on top. I dont believe race had anything to do with it in this issue.

Pep was past his best when Saddler beat him.

Why doesn't James Douglas ever get ranked above Mike Tyson, even though he knocked out a peak 23 yr old Tyson?

That's a strange one to ponder.

People always say Pep was past it against Saddler yet look at his record untill he got older,also although Pep was severley hurt in that plane crash he did fight only six months after it.Also I always got the impression that Pep was a very popular,colorfull champ while Saddler was not,kind of the Charles after Louis,Holmes after Ali syndrome.Saddler also regularly fought at 130 and 135,losing some that give him a less impressive record than the wonder that is Pep's record.In the book In This Corner Saddler seems bitter that Pep is always rated higher and I can't say I blame him.

pete wrote:People always say Pep was past it against Saddler yet look at his record untill he got older,also although Pep was severley hurt in that plane crash he did fight only six months after it.Also I always got the impression that Pep was a very popular,colorfull champ while Saddler was not,kind of the Charles after Louis,Holmes after Ali syndrome.Saddler also regularly fought at 130 and 135,losing some that give him a less impressive record than the wonder that is Pep's record.In the book In This Corner Saddler seems bitter that Pep is always rated higher and I can't say I blame him.

Well its probably the Ali/Frazier syndrom... Saddler resented perhaps being always linked and compared to Pep but the truth is that Pep was slowing down when he met Saddler, plus the plane crash he was in certainly did him no favours. In their 2nd fight Pep outboxed Saddler with a masterful exhibition... but in their 3rd and 4th fights Saddler was just too strong for Pep who was nearing 30 and certainly slowing down.
If you look at his record theres very few boxers comparable to Pep... he was one of the few boxers who really was close to invincible for a long while... Saddler was a great in his own right, but he ranks lower because of their overall records.
I think they actually got on quite well years later...

Why don't you two bury the hatchet and go out for some beers together!... you know you want to...

The Pep and Saddler debate goes far deeper than the posters on this forum. It will forever be an arguement that has turned both names into mythical legends. And they both deserve the attention.

I won't weigh in here except to say that I'm not quite as sure as barry that race assumptions are applicable on average. Most fight fans that I have discussed this with are assessing abilities only. And the exceptions to that rule I just sort of consider the source and ignore.

that does not mean I don't know that bullshit assumptions like that exist, just not in relevant circles which is all that matters to my way of thinking.

I definately agree with the original poster of this thread that if Pep is at 3 all time pound for pound then Saddler shouldn't be at 33... but these things happen in boxing, how about Fighting Harada, often ignored by all and sundry in all time ratings while Eder Jofre is often mentioned and rated highly, yet Harada beat Jofre 2 times and this while Jofre was at his peak... is it because Harada is Japanease??.... I'm sure if Harada was Mexican or American he would be much higher in peoples ratings imo...

You know when I think about it we may well "pull" for our nationalistic preferences in purely a competitive way. In other words Harada may be more appreciated for his skills across the Pacific than here. But the heart of my point was that that I choose to discount "ill intended assessments" however I recognize sometimes we see the good in our local talent better than we can recognize the same in talent from other shores and with no malice or racisim intended.

And sometimes that aint the case, I think I recognize the difference. Most of us do.

Could one of the things that catapults Pep so high is that he accomplished so much on pure speed and grace sans power? Maybe not fair but the "handicap" that gets factored in may give him that unrealistic seperation in ratings between him and Saddler that I see so often.

BoxBuzz wrote:You know when I think about it we may well "pull" for our nationalistic preferences in purely a competitive way. In other words Harada may be more appreciated for his skills across the Pacific than here. But the heart of my point was that that I choose to discount "ill intended assessments" however I recognize sometimes we see the good in our local talent better than we can recognize the same in talent from other shores and with no malice or racisim intended.

And sometimes that aint the case, I think I recognize the difference. Most of us do.

Could one of the things that catapults Pep so high is that he accomplished so much on pure speed and grace sans power? Maybe not fair but the "handicap" that gets factored in may give him that unrealistic seperation in ratings between him and Saddler that I see so often.

The thing with Pep is that he was at the top for so long and was seemingly invincible at his peak... he certainly deserves to be rated in the top 3 or 5 all time fighters list... probably the only thing that goes against him is that he didn't win world titles at different weights like say Armstrong or Robinson... but Pep vs Armstrong at feather would have been a tough match to call.....

Pep was a special fighter, and he did beat better competition in comparison to Sadler. While Pep was past his best when he meet Saddler. This is true. It is also true that Pep was anything but a puncher. Sadder's superior firepower and in your face type of style would likely give him the nod in a prime vs prime match up. This is not to say that Saddler was better than Pep, but in a match between the two at their best, I'd side with Saddler. He had the right style to win.

It really gets amazingly complex to attempt to rate some fighters when you find these odd type of "style based" anomolies.

Charles/Moore/Johnson equation had driven me pretty mad for decades.
Finally it was revealed to me by God almighty that in fact Archie topped the list. I was certainly surprise but I had to defer to his superior knowledge on the subject. I noticed that Bert Sugar got the message as well perhaps the same source? I can't say for sure.

Although it did make it far easier than having to think it all through.

Decagon wrote:

barry wrote:>>>If Sandy Saddler'd been white and Willie Pep'd been black, it'd been the other way around!<<<

For someone who tries to correct grammar on these message boards, you have got a lot to learn. I think the proper grammar would have been, "If Sandy Saddler would have been white," or "If Sandy Saddler had been white." What happened, forget to use your word processor this time?


>>>He could easily be one of the top 10 fighters of all time, pound-for-pound.<<<

Duh!

Um, the contraction 'd can stand for "would" or "had," brainiac. Here are some examples. Perhaps you can improve your poor English skills:

He'd already eaten dinner = He had already eaten dinner.
She'd gone to the store before I came home = She had gone to the store before I came home.

It's VERY sad that you only know the following usage:

He'd have been 100 years old if he were still alive = He would have been 100 years old if he were still alive.
She'd have come home earlier if she knew you were coming = She would have come home earlier if she knew you were coming.

You are so dumb that it actually hurts my brain reading your posts. I've seen mentally retarded elm trees with more intelligence than you. See? This is the reason you'll always be a boxing researcher, and never a boxing writer.

I thought you could only contract Pronouns and not all nouns in general.

Decagon wrote:It depends on the situation. Shakespeare used contractions with nouns all the time. If anything, I would change the final "been" to "be."

I think you chalk that up to poetic license and olde english...Americanized english I don't think you can contract anything but pronouns. I may be wrong, so don't take my word for it.

Decagon wrote:What about "o'clock"? That's a contraction of the phrase "of the clock."

Yes, with olde english roots...o'clock was used WAAAAAYYY before America was even a twinkle in GW's eye.

Either that, or Irish roots...get it "O'Clock"...bah dum cha...I'll be here all zee week.

Decagon wrote:It depends on the situation. Shakespeare used contractions with nouns all the time. If anything, I would change the final "been" to "be."

Shakespeare!!!???? He was a caveman compared to contemporary authors. Clearly he lacked the skills available that can be learned from modern, scientific training.

i rate pep greatest feather of all time



but let me say i dont buy into that willie past his prime crap just because of the plane crash. willie was only 26 years old and in great shape. after the plane incident, other than those saddler losses pep did not lose any fights or so signs of aging. in the first 2 or 3 saddler-pep fights, pep was certainly close to his prime. in that 2nd saddler fight, that was the peak of willie peps career. pep was on his way to another victory again in the 3rd fight until he quit on his stool. I dont think pep was the same fighter by the time the 4th fight came around.



i think saying pep was "past his prime" vs saddler is too strong a word. because in those first 3 saddler-pep fights, pep was an all time great fighter and its unfair to take away from saddlers victory like that.


i have film of pep pre plane crash and post plane crash and i dont see much of a difference. pep was as good as ever in the late 40s.

you guys are making my brain hurt! I only like to read words like poop, fart, Pee pee, and caka. I also appreciate sentences used by the majority that actually mean the opposite of what they want it to... "I aint got no money." Which means you got money. See what you guys have done? Im insane..............................................................boxing is good.