Willie Pep and Floyd Mayweather

I think overall Pep excelled as a defensive fighter in a much tougher era, an era where knockouts were more expected and the sport and the judging was often more arbitrary than it is today. In terms of undefeated records, I think that they are an overrated indicator as to a fighter's greatness, and point more towards their promoter than towards the fighter themselves. I will start a topic about this...

someone wouldn't happen to have any Willie Pep fights would they? I've never seen or been able to find any fights of his. youtube took them off, except for one video.

someone wouldn't happen to have any Willie Pep fights would they? I've never seen or been able to find any fights of his.

squealpiggy;2176166]I wouldn't consider Marciano one of the greatest of all time. He was the greatest of his time because he beat everyone around and didn't duck anyone, but of all time? He may not have done so well in the late 60s early 70s or in the 1920s to the 1940s. And I still stick with my assertion that a fighter cannot reach greatness until he has tasted defeat. I don't consider Marciano the "Greatest" either, but his Legacy is tied with his 49-0 record. In my opinion, Marciano would of lost to a number of Heavyweights in history. As for calling themselves the Greatest, Ali was something of an anomoly. He could tell people he was the greatest with a certain charm and intelligence. He also crucially did not butcher holy cows. He said he was the greatest and that noone was better but he didn't say that Dempsey lost to a blown up Middleweight, or that Joe Lewis had nothing on him. And Ali was good but he wouldn't top my list of greatest fighters, even greatest heavyweights. Ali got away with claiming greatness by not actually verbally attacking fighters already considered to be the greatest. For Ali, the man does seem to get the edge as the "Greatest" in the modern history of the sport; considering that most of his big wins, which were huge threats, came after his exile (which resulted some declined ability), that is amazing. His wins outweigh his losses. One can only imagine if he had not gone into exile and never lost that ability. Of course, he most likely would of stuck around longer than he should have anyway, so... Pep fought back, as all the old school fighters did. He beat fighters in their backyard by decisions when nobody beat fighters in their hometowns by decision. He was that good. Floyd could have knocked out Baldomir, and he didn't. He didn;t press the action, he played it safe. Can we knock him for doing so? Not really. But the greatest of all time should have knocked Baldomir out. "Nobody beat fighters in their hometowns", that's a bit overstated. I would think the black fighters of their day would of had a harder time with the judges, which they did, then good old Willie Pep. When was the last time Baldomir "My Skull is the Size of a Heavyweight" Baldomir was knocked out? Pep certainly wouldn't have knocked Baldomir out.

I wouldn't consider Marciano one of the greatest of all time. He was the greatest of his time because he beat everyone around and didn't duck anyone, but of all time? He may not have done so well in the late 60s early 70s or in the 1920s to the 1940s. And I still stick with my assertion that a fighter cannot reach greatness until he has tasted defeat. As for calling themselves the Greatest, Ali was something of an anomoly. He could tell people he was the greatest with a certain charm and intelligence. He also crucially did not butcher holy cows. He said he was the greatest and that noone was better but he didn't say that Dempsey lost to a blown up Middleweight, or that Joe Lewis had nothing on him. And Ali was good but he wouldn't top my list of greatest fighters, even greatest heavyweights. Ali got away with claiming greatness by not actually verbally attacking fighters already considered to be the greatest. And you can't blame Floyd for "cruising to a UD" over Baldomir. What did Pep do? Pep fought back, as all the old school fighters did. He beat fighters in their backyard by decisions when nobody beat fighters in their hometowns by decision. He was that good. Floyd could have knocked out Baldomir, and he didn't. He didn;t press the action, he played it safe. Can we knock him for doing so? Not really. But the greatest of all time should have knocked Baldomir out.

"What I want is to do the best I can, make all the money I can, without getting hurt. To me, it's the art of self-defense." this is what pep said (courtesy of Asian Sensation article), how is it that no one calls or called him a bitch or a girl? :thinking: I presume you're asking this of the ones who consistantly critisize the proponents of the finter points of the sport.

squealpiggy;2176105]I'm not sure what Calzaghe and Hatton have to do with a discussion about Mayweather and Pep. Fact is that Pep was a sfighter, he had an illustrious career, he was supremely skilled defensively but he was still entertaining to watch. His skill left opponents looking silly, but it was his aim to beat them, not to humiliate and belittle them. Floyd Mayweather does himself no favours with his mouth. Pep is regarded as among the greatest of all time but he never said that he was. Floyd on the other hand has taken it upon himself to attack the legacies of some beloved heroes of the sport and then wonders why people don't take it well. Don't kill the holy cow! It's ridiculous, first Leonard, then Robinson... He seems intent on making himself disliked. Floyd does leave fighters looking silly. He also knocks people out, or at least had that ability back in the lower weight divisions. I wonder, have you ever heard of Ali? Ali humiliated people, talked bad about past "Greats", and said he was "The Greatest" Of course this has no bearing on his actual skill. But when he's setting the bar for himself that high he has to fulfill expectations. If he was really that good then other people would say he is better than Ray Leonard. But if he's saying he's better than Sugar Ray Robinson then cruising to a UD against Carlos Baldomir then there's obviously going to be some disappointment there. It is a bit much to say you are the best, but what do you expect him to do? In my opinion, both Sugars, maybe all three (since we can include Shane), would beat Floyd. Floyd never fought someone like Tommy Hearns either. Hearns would of beaten Floyd. And you can't blame Floyd for "cruising to a UD" over Baldomir. What did Pep do? Willie Pep fought everyone. I think that the key difference between the moder era and the one of the glory days is that a boxer who loses now is set back in their career for years. Back then there was no shame in losing and nobody used an undefeated record as their main selling point. Put it this way, if Floyd Mayweather were to lose against De La Hoya then many people will take great pleasure in the result (myself included). Mayweather will be "exposed". He was "never as good as we thought". Same thing as if Hatton were to lose against Castillo. The Cyberfools would have a field day with LMAO PWN. Same thing as if Cotto wins. An undefeated contender who gets beaten by a champion faces an uphill struggle for big fights. In the past almost everyone lost at least once, some people several times, and it did nothing to detract from their greatness. And this is true today. Floyd has his fans, as does Hatton, as does Cotto. But they are just not liked as much as fighters with defeats such as De La Hoya or Lewis, who can be seen to have overcome diversity. My personal opinion? Floyd cannot be considered the greatest of all time until we see how he responds to losing. The greatest of all time doesn't retire undefeated, because we can never judge how they cope with having to come back. Really? Marciano gets by just fine with his 49-0 Oh, Alexander the Great went undefeated, seems most historians agree he was the "Greatest"

LOL, I give you that one. Though we had to give you half a chance, right? :) Look, I am an English soldier :alcoholic LOL. We knew to leave out the bottles and pass on your blankets.

Can you answer me this, who has hand picked their opponents more Floyd or Calzaghe and Hatton combined?? I'm talking about 2 fighters against 1 here. I'm not sure what Calzaghe and Hatton have to do with a discussion about Mayweather and Pep. Fact is that Pep was a sfighter, he had an illustrious career, he was supremely skilled defensively but he was still entertaining to watch. His skill left opponents looking silly, but it was his aim to beat them, not to humiliate and belittle them. Floyd Mayweather does himself no favours with his mouth. Pep is regarded as among the greatest of all time but he never said that he was. Floyd on the other hand has taken it upon himself to attack the legacies of some beloved heroes of the sport and then wonders why people don't take it well. Don't kill the holy cow! It's ridiculous, first Leonard, then Robinson... He seems intent on making himself disliked. Of course this has no bearing on his actual skill. But when he's setting the bar for himself that high he has to fulfill expectations. If he was really that good then other people would say he is better than Ray Leonard. But if he's saying he's better than Sugar Ray Robinson then cruising to a UD against Carlos Baldomir then there's obviously going to be some disappointment there. Willie Pep fought everyone. I think that the key difference between the moder era and the one of the glory days is that a boxer who loses now is set back in their career for years. Back then there was no shame in losing and nobody used an undefeated record as their main selling point. Put it this way, if Floyd Mayweather were to lose against De La Hoya then many people will take great pleasure in the result (myself included). Mayweather will be "exposed". He was "never as good as we thought". Same thing as if Hatton were to lose against Castillo. The Cyberfools would have a field day with LMAO PWN. Same thing as if Cotto wins. An undefeated contender who gets beaten by a champion faces an uphill struggle for big fights. In the past almost everyone lost at least once, some people several times, and it did nothing to detract from their greatness. And this is true today. Floyd has his fans, as does Hatton, as does Cotto. But they are just not liked as much as fighters with defeats such as De La Hoya or Lewis, who can be seen to have overcome diversity. My personal opinion? Floyd cannot be considered the greatest of all time until we see how he responds to losing. The greatest of all time doesn't retire undefeated, because we can never judge how they cope with having to come back.

Yeah, we invented the language, mate. You just took the "u"s out of everything to make it quicker to order doughnuts. LOL What drunk invented the language? Silent letters, words that don't sound like they spell, WTF. Witty bastards trying to play a trick on us. oh well, at least we were smart enough to wear blue, not red, during the war.

IRONY, SATIRE, OMFG I am having brain freeze. Fucking English bastards with your words Cat, Bat, Hat, please stick with those. LOL

The average contender back then was about as good as a title holder these days. In Pep's day, the top 20 in a given division (except for heavyweight) were a tough bunch and could give the champion a run for his money, beat him on an off night. And not like how it is with the heavyweights today with no one caring or showing up in shape. It's just that the level of skill was so high, the fighters so sharp and experienced by the time they got to that level, that this was true. James Toney is hands down the most skilled guy (as in the deepest skillset) in the sport today IMO. Put him in Pep's era and there would be a handful of guys alive who could match him in skill and some (like Pep) who exceeded him. The sport was just plain better, to put it succintly. More participants, better prepared and more skilled fighters, the living was tougher and the food they ate wasn't processed like it is today. Fighting is the one sport that has actually GOTTEN WORSE since the 1980's. Even the 1980's were on the decline compared to the 60's 50's and 40's IMO. This is what I see with my eyes. I see better and stronger athletes, on average, but much, much worse fighters. Mentally those guys just kick the shit out of today's fighters and boxing is 80% mental. I agree with this post, I would add that the post WWII era fighters were made from different "stuff". The times were just different, man was just raised in a harsher enviroment so they were just tough sons of bitches.

I always get a laugh when a fat Yank tries to use the word "ironic" in a sentence. What is it about this word that you fuckers just don't get? I know they don't offer fries and ketchup with irony, but it's really not that hard... LOL, "Irony" and "Satire", the English say we don't understand either.

I always get a laugh when a fat Yank tries to use the word "ironic" in a sentence. What is it about this word that you fuckers just don't get? I know they don't offer fries and ketchup with irony, but it's really not that hard... They get it from the song by that cute but obnoxious singer who made a song called 'ironic' but in which none of the examples were instances of irony.

Dumbasses, Pep is dead and there's no reason for us to do anything but pay tribute to his greatness. Floyd is a current star who has disappointed of late and we expect much more of him. It's a difference kid, noit that we expect YOU to understand much. Floyd is disappointing, why? Floyd has moved up in weight several times; the higher you go, the harder it becomes to dominate. Hatton and Cotto didn't want to fight Floyd, not his fault. Floyd also tried to get a fight with Shane, didn't happen. Oscar would whoop on both Hatton and Cotto so I would say fighting Oscar, even at this stage of his career, is much more dangerous. It has also proven to be great for boxing. The whole point of the thread was to say, Why hate on Floyd for not knocking people out, not going toe to toe, when Willie Pep (known as one of the Greatest fighters of all time) doesn't get the same treatment from the media and fans. Floyd had a good KO% when he was at the lighter weights. He went for knockouts. You also can't blame Floyd either, the guy has hurt his hands so much, he goes into a fight not sure if they will hold up. Boxing is a "Science", right? "Hit and don't get hit is the name of the Game"

It was funny to see some of Floyd's biggest haters posting that Pep, the man who won a round without throwing a single punch, was an all-time great while continuing to spew venom at Floyd. It just seems so ironic... Dumbasses, Pep is dead and there's no reason for us to do anything but pay tribute to his greatness. Floyd is a current star who has disappointed of late and we expect much more of him. It's a difference kid, noit that we expect YOU to understand much.

yes they doing it only for money! :D Never said "only for the money", but that is a large part of why you fight; Ego/Vanity, is an additional reason. Either way, if you fight for Ego, you know that when you get to the top, Money comes to you.

yes they doing it only for money! :D

Pep fought the best and didnt talk about retiring all the time. He made sure he fought the best to get a legacy. I bet his mouth wasnt as dirty as Mayweathers as well. You mistake "Legacy" for money. Fighters needed to fight more because there wasn't as much money as there is today. You needed to fight a popular guy because "that is where the money is at" Robinson, Pep, and the rest, if fighting today, making millions, would have around the same amount of fights the rest of the Elites have today. Floyd is also 30, it's a good time to retire before the body slows down.

willie pep has won 230 fights, yet only 2 of his opponents are in the ring magazine top 80 of the last 80 years. MAYWEATHER HAS NONE IN THE TOP 80 OR THAT WILL EVER BE IN THE OP 80