Better P4P: Willie Pep or Pernell Whitaker?

[Humean]

It's not that they were fighting killers every fight (although I would argue that with so many gyms/ licensed boxers/trainers back then the quality of the average pug was higher than it is today) it's that they were constantly fighting, staying sharp, and honing their craft.

Like anything else in life the more you practice the better you are going to be. To me they absolutely should get extra credit for it.

According to boxrec's data there were about the same number of fights during Pep's best years (partly due to the war) as there are now. It is likely there were actually less fighters during the 40s than in the past decade, perhaps more fighters in the US compared to now but less overall.

The high point in terms of number of fighters was probably the late 20s and early 30s but there probably weren't that much more than the current number.

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.ph...01907&start=25

Fighters stay sharp today in just the same way as they did then: by training in the gym. They just don't fight a string of no hopers for little money every couple of weeks. Those fights didn't improve their skills anymore than the early fights that fighters have today.

[LacedUp]

How would you say Pep's resume is better?

Not saying you're wrong, your view is the popular opinion
.

But I don't see it. Pep's resume is very overrated IMO.

Pep's resume is excellent in my opinion. He's got great wins in abundance.

I also think I rate him higher because he fought the best multiple times like Saddler, Chalky Wright, Bartolo etc. He also beat Manuel Ortiz, one of the greatest bantamweights of all time.

Paddy Demarco is an underrated win imo - he went on to beat some great fighters incl. Saddler, after Willie beat him.

I guess Pep has a few outstanding wins, and that's why I'd rate him that little bit higher - I think Saddler is the best guy on either resume. Would you agree?

Whitaker has a shout for top 25 ATG, he was amazing and really schooled fighters that he shouldn't have. Haugen, Nelson, Mayweather, even though he'd already been schooled in a couple of rounds by a relatively unknown Mexican by the name of Julio Cesar Chavez. I guess Whitaker had been robbed against JCC too, but I'll count that as a draw either way.

Both great, but Pep has wins over the best ever fighters in their weightclasses. Can Whitaker say the same?

[IronDanHamza]

Pep's resume is excellent in my opinion. He's got great wins in abundance.

I also think I rate him higher because he fought the best multiple times like Saddler, Chalky Wright, Bartolo etc. He also beat Manuel Ortiz, one of the greatest bantamweights of all time.

Paddy Demarco is an underrated win imo - he went on to beat some great fighters incl. Saddler, after Willie beat him.

I guess Pep has a few outstanding wins, and that's why I'd rate him that little bit higher - I think Saddler is the best guy on either resume. Would you agree?

Whitaker has a shout for top 25 ATG, he was amazing and really schooled fighters that he shouldn't have. Haugen, Nelson, Mayweather, even though he'd already been schooled in a couple of rounds by a relatively unknown Mexican by the name of Julio Cesar Chavez. I guess Whitaker had been robbed against JCC too, but I'll count that as a draw either way.

Both great, but Pep has wins over the best ever fighters in their weightclasses. Can Whitaker say the same?

You can say the same, Chavez IMO is the best at 140.

I wouldn't say Manuel Ortiz is the best Bantamweight. Top 10, maybe top 5, definitely not the best. And Ortiz did little at Featherweight.

Beat Saddler, obviously his best win, lost the other 3.

Chalky Wright an exceptional win? How? I wouldn't consider beating Chalkey Wright better than beating Jose Luis Ramirez or Buddy McGirt.

Don't see these great wins in abundance. Only great win I see on his resume is Saddler.

Demarco, Bartolo, Wright, they're not great wins.

None of those are better than beating Nelson. And obviously not Chavez.

[NChristo]

You can say the same, Chavez IMO is the best at 140.

I wouldn't say Manuel Ortiz is the best Bantamweight. Top 10, maybe top 5, definitely not the best. And Ortiz did little at Featherweight.

Beat Saddler, obviously his best win, lost the other 3.

Chalky Wright an exceptional win? How? I wouldn't consider beating Chalkey Wright better than beating Jose Luis Ramirez or Buddy McGirt.

Don't see these great wins in abundance. Only great win I see on his resume is Saddler.

Demarco, Bartolo, Wright, they're not great wins.

None of those are better than beating Nelson. And obviously not Chavez.

Willie Joyce is a good win, Pep beat him coming off Joyce's second win over Armstrong, he went on too beat Ike Williams three times, Chalky Wright once and had another win over Armstrong later after losing too Pep.

[IronDanHamza]

Willie Joyce is a good win, Pep beat him coming off Joyce's second win over Armstrong, he went on too beat Ike Williams three times, Chalky Wright once and had another win over Armstrong later after losing too Pep.

Definitely.

Who do you think has the better resume?

[SlySlickSmooth]

Fighters stay sharp today in just the same way as they did then: by training in the gym. They just don't fight a string of no hopers for little money every couple of weeks. Those fights didn't improve their skills anymore than the early fights that fighters have today.

I think actual prizefight experience is difficult than your gym war. The psychology in a real prizefight and being able to reflect on an official bout is likely a much different experience because of how a fighter will be.. surrounded by the crowd, fighting a man he doesn't even know, for the money, for the fame, and to push for a title fight.

Danny Garcia could probably take 4 Rod Salkas every year and still fit in two-three quality title defenses. Young fighters want the fame that they feel from their monetary gains without realizing how niche a sport boxing is.


Also we can't judge a lot of them as no hopers. As someone else said the average skill of the pugilist back then was likely greater than it was now. If there were more good fighters, and coming off the depression or war.. you needed to make that money. Given the era that they lived in.. winning 100+ fights or even having 100+ fights was necessary to live securely as a prizefighter. Hell maybe even half prizefighter half crate-lifter.

[LacedUp]

You can say the same, Chavez IMO is the best at 140.

I wouldn't say Manuel Ortiz is the best Bantamweight. Top 10, maybe top 5, definitely not the best. And Ortiz did little at Featherweight.

Beat Saddler, obviously his best win, lost the other 3.

Chalky Wright an exceptional win? How? I wouldn't consider beating Chalkey Wright better than beating Jose Luis Ramirez or Buddy McGirt.

Don't see these great wins in abundance. Only great win I see on his resume is Saddler.

Demarco, Bartolo, Wright, they're not great wins.

None of those are better than beating Nelson. And obviously not Chavez.

That's why I said Ortiz was one of the best bantamweights, not the best. Just like Chavez is one of the best at 140. Even though Whitaker only has a draw against him, right or wrong.

Both didn't do much at feather or welterweight respectively, so I think it's pretty equal. Nelson didn't do much at lightweight either which is where he fought Whitaker, so I guess that's sort of in the same boat as Ortiz and JCC.

I didn't say they were exceptional. I said they were good wins and he fought them multiple times. Exceptional wins are wins over ATGs , like Ortiz or Saddler - or JCC for example. I would say Nelson is also one of the best junior lightweights ever. Chalky Wright is a hall of famer though and was the champion when Pep fought him the first time.

As I said, very equal but I just think Pep fought the best of his division multiple times + he has the best win. What counts in Whitaker's favour are his championships in multiple titles I suppose.

[IronDanHamza]

That's why I said Ortiz was one of the best bantamweights, not the best. Just like Chavez is one of the best at 140. Even though Whitaker only has a draw against him, right or wrong.

Both didn't do much at feather or welterweight respectively, so I think it's pretty equal. Nelson didn't do much at lightweight either which is where he fought Whitaker, so I guess that's sort of in the same boat as Ortiz and JCC.

I didn't say they were exceptional. I said they were good wins and he fought them multiple times. Exceptional wins are wins over ATGs , like Ortiz or Saddler - or JCC for example. I would say Nelson is also one of the best junior lightweights ever. Chalky Wright is a hall of famer though and was the champion when Pep fought him the first time.

As I said, very equal but I just think Pep fought the best of his division multiple times + he has the best win. What counts in Whitaker's favour are his championships in multiple titles I suppose.

I don't think it's right to pretend Whitaker wasn't robbed against Chavez.

Chavez and Nelson were fighting 1 weight class north, Ortiz two (today's standards)

I thought you said Pep fought the best ever at certain weight classes.

Pep beat the best multiple times, as did Whitaker, in more weight classes than Pep did.

Chalkey Wright has to be one of the absolute weakest HOF'ers ever. I still struggle to see why he's even in there. Whitaker has numerous wins better than him.

Saddler is probably the best win, I would say that's still arguable.

It's arguable I'm not disputing that but I think Whitaker's resume is better.

[LacedUp]

I don't think it's right to pretend Whitaker wasn't robbed against Chavez.

Chavez and Nelson were fighting 1 weight class north, Ortiz two (today's standards)

I thought you said Pep fought the best ever at certain weight classes.

Pep beat the best multiple times, as did Whitaker, in more weight classes than Pep did.

Chalkey Wright has to be one of the absolute weakest HOF'ers ever. I still struggle to see why he's even in there. Whitaker has numerous wins better than him.

Saddler is probably the best win, I would say that's still arguable.

It's arguable I'm not disputing that but I think Whitaker's resume is better.

That's fair enough, he did clearly win imo, but that just opens up a can of worms that'll make it more difficult to assess other fights too. Do you think JCC was at his best against Whitaker?

OK, but you can't play that two weightclass card because it wasn't like that back then. It's only 1 weightclass.

I meant Pep fought one guy multiple times like Saddler for example. Whitaker only rematched Buddy Mcgirt. I don't know if it would add anything else, but I do think it means something.

I wasn't trying to say Wright was an exceptional win, just that he was a good win and a former world champion.

Who other than Saddler would be the best win? Nelson?

[IronDanHamza]

That's fair enough, he did clearly win imo, but that just opens up a can of worms that'll make it more difficult to assess other fights too. Do you think JCC was at his best against Whitaker?

OK, but you can't play that two weightclass card because it wasn't like that back then. It's only 1 weightclass.

I meant Pep fought one guy multiple times like Saddler for example. Whitaker only rematched Buddy Mcgirt. I don't know if it would add anything else, but I do think it means something.

I wasn't trying to say Wright was an exceptional win, just that he was a good win and a former world champion.

Who other than Saddler would be the best win? Nelson?

Maybe slightly passed peak. Basically peak.

I don't think so, it's common knowledge. I won't pretend like he didn't win the fight because it says draw on paper.

Well yeah I agree Wright wins are solid. But I think Whitaker has many better.

I just think Whitaker has the better quality, Pep has Saddler which is probably the best win, arguable to Chavez, 3 Loss's to the same fighter but still the one win is good.

Outside of that I think he lacks quality, he has some solid good wins of course but I just don't think it's better than Whitaker's.

Most people wouldn't agree with me because the common view is Pep is a Top 10 ATG. I don't agree with that at all.