Better P4P: Willie Pep or Pernell Whitaker?

[Humean]

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.

How much of a real fight is a fight against a 'bum' or low level journeymen? Not much (if you are a really talented fighter), they were and still are essentially exhibitions, they are in a sense 'fixed' fights. Those fights do give a young fighter valuable experience but only in getting used to preparing for a fights, used to travelling, fighting in front of crowds etc, they don't really improve the fighters skills.

A guy like Rod Salka is slightly different, he is more a domestic level fighter. He has the capacity to give a world class fighter a proper fight should the world class fighter not be fully fit and motivated. There were a number of Rod Salka's in Willie Pep's record but even so those fights still shouldn't count for much. I personally think credit should be given to the fights against the 'world level' fighters, they are the fights that give you the evidence for how great a fighter was/is, not these stay busy fights to earn extra cash.

[NChristo]

Definitely.

Who do you think has the better resume?

For quality of names probably Whitaker although overall Pep's longevity and accomplishments make it razor close (Along with his quality obviously), would help if we had more footage of Pep's opponents as, with pretty much every top boxer from back then, I'm sure there's a lot more quality in the names we see then what we're assuming, skill wise there's nothing in it, to close too for sure put one ahead of the other in that department.

Both are top 20 for me, Pep isn't a top 10 lock for me as I don't put too much stock into boxers that are considered great just because of their numbers (Wilde) but he still has a lot of above average tier opponents although Pea has the better top 10 wins from what we can tell.

Pea probably edges it for me but it's close, ask me in 10 minutes and I would probably say Pep.

[Humean]

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.

Manuel Ortiz lost quite a few fights, how many of the wins over him should be considered 'great'? For example Carlos Chavez defeated Ortiz at featherweight two years after Pep defeated him, does that mean that Carlos Chavez has a 'great' win over a great fighter too? If so what does that say about Carlos Chavez?

I'm sure i'll get pilloried for saying this but I think quite a few of Whitaker's opponents (not just Chavez, Nelson, Trinidad and De La Hoya) were better than Sandy Saddler and Saddler was unequivocally the best fighter Willie Pep ever faced and defeated.

[ShoulderRoll]

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.

Pep fought 10 times in 1940.
22 times in 1941.
24 times in 1942.
12 times in 1943.
16 times in 1944.
8 times in 1945.

That's a heck of a lot of fights in which to learn and try out new things especially under the eyes of a master trainer like Bill Gore.

No fighter right now keeps up such a torrid pace, even his low number of 8 fights per year would seem like a lot in the modern era.

[greeh]

Am I the only one who doesn't rate Chavez particularly high at 140? Still a good fighter, but I have always felt he had lost a notch - both physically and technically - and regressed compared to his 130/135 days.

[Humean]

Pep fought 10 times in 1940.
22 times in 1941.
24 times in 1942.
12 times in 1943.
16 times in 1944.
8 times in 1945.

That's a heck of a lot of fights in which to learn and try out new things especially under the eyes of a master trainer like Bill Gore.

No fighter right now keeps up such a torrid pace, even his low number of 8 fights per year would seem like a lot in the modern era.

I meant there were the same number of fights in all of boxing now as there were in Pep's era.

In regards to improving skills how many fights against low level opponents do you think is equivalent to good sparring with a world class fighter in the gym?

Not every top fighter in the 20s, 30s and 40s fought more than 100 times. For instance Jimmy McLarnin fought 69 times whereas his foe Tony Canzoneri fought 171 times, was McLarnin a lesser fighter than Canzoneri because he fought less low quality opposition than him?

There are also fighters today that fight as much or more than fighters from that time, they just have more of their fights in the amateurs now.

[ShoulderRoll]

It is commendable to have a lot of amateur fights and that certainly helps a fighter's development. But you can't really compare 3 round amateur bouts (with headgear until recent changes kicked in) to the pros.

[Humean]

It is commendable to have a lot of amateur fights and that certainly helps a daughter's development. But you can't really compare 3 round amateur bouts (with headgear until recent changes kicked in) to the pros.

That is true, amateur fights in international tournaments against the best amateur boxers in the world are of more value than fighting no hopers in the pro ranks.

[GOD-FR33]

I don't buy it.....

I bet you Pep couldn't fight that many times a year, in Whitaker's era. Or even today. The competition and time it would take to recover between fights, wouldn't allow a fighter to fight like every other week. How good were Pep's opponent's?

[IronDanHamza]

I bet you Pep couldn't fight that many times a year, in Whitaker's era. Or even today. The competition and time it would take to recover between fights, wouldn't allow a fighter to fight like every other week. How good were Pep's opponent's?

Is this idiot still in here?

I thought you and your idiocy had left.