Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Better P4P: Willie Pep or Pernell Whitaker?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    I wanted to see how people would respond to this thread. Whitaker is one of my favorites. Pep was Pep! hard one to call.

    Does the fact that the Pea carried it to higher weights matter? Do the sheer volume of fights matter? Bigger guys hit harder and the sheer amount of volume of punches thrown in over 200 fights is a lot. Very hard to have a basis for comparison.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by Humean View Post
      I think Whitaker was the better fighter. As for resume and all that stuff, here's a comparison:

      Willie Pep
      Overall Record------------------229-11-1
      Non-World Level----------------199--5-1
      Borderline World level--------------5--0-0
      World Level-----------------------25-6-0

      Opponents

      Borderline
      Pedro Hernandez, Bobby Ivy, Harold Dade, Corky Gonzales

      World Level
      Chalky Wright, Allie Stolz, Sammy Angott, Sal Bartolo, Jackie Wilson, Willie Joyce, Manuel Ortiz, Lulu Costantino, Charley Cabey Lewis, Phil Terranova, Jackie Graves, Humberto Sierra, Jock Leslie, Miguel Acevedo, Paddy DeMarco, Sandy Saddler, Eddie Compo, Charley Riley, Ray Famechon, Eddie Chavez, Tommy Collins, Hogan Kid Bassey

      Pernell Whitaker
      Overall Record--------------------41-4-1
      Non-World Level------------------18-1-0
      Borderline World Level--------------5-0-0
      World Level-----------------------18-3-1

      Opponents

      Borderline
      Alfredo Layne, Louie Lomeli, Santos Cardona, Gary Jacobs, Andrey Pestryaev

      World Level
      Roger Mayweather, Jose Luis Ramirez, Greg Haugen, Freddie Pendleton, Azumah Nelson, Juan Nazario, Anthony Jones, Poli Diaz, Jorge Paez, Harold Brazier, Rafael Pineda, Buddy McGirt, Julio Cesar Chavez, Julio Cesar Vasquez, Jake Rodriguez, Wilfredo Rivera, Diosbelys Hurtado, Oscar De La Hoya, Felix Trinidad
      very informative data

      Comment


      • #13
        Very equal in my opinion in terms of skill, although I have Willie Pep as a top 10 of all times, and i don't have Whitaker that high. I feel Pep's resume is better, but that also comes from the fact that he fought in an era where fighters had 100s of fights and Whitaker didn't. not really Whitaker's fault, but nevertheless he doesn't get bonus points for that.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by LacedUp View Post
          Very equal in my opinion in terms of skill, although I have Willie Pep as a top 10 of all times, and i don't have Whitaker that high. I feel Pep's resume is better, but that also comes from the fact that he fought in an era where fighters had 100s of fights and Whitaker didn't. not really Whitaker's fault, but nevertheless he doesn't get bonus points for that.
          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.

          Comment


          • #15
            I'm not going to talk too much about their records, it's ridiculous that people are even trying to call Whitaker's resume "better", that's absurd.

            But these two guys have to be judged mainly on skill, speed, timing and dfeensive genius and in all honesty, Pep trumps Whitaker in all those categories. Go on youtube, watch footage of Pep, you get a wide range, some even from his best days and on days like that, he seemed untouchable. He was far more coordinated that Whitaker, a better puncher and better at finding the right range. The reason Whitaker had so many close calls was because he was adept at frustrating fighters rather than winnings rounds, Pep did both.

            Then, post accident, Pep reinvented himself, realised he wasn't as quick, his reflexes were no longer as sharp and he became a boxer-brawler, who could tough it out on the inside against the best of them. Much like Ali's latter life transformation into more of a "fighter". The sure fire sign of a true great is to be able to overcome adversity and age.

            Whitaker, for various reasons (drugs, alcohol) lost his best years by the time he reached his early 30s, but couldn't make reinvent himself, he still tried to be that slickster but he was too slow now, too dull and he never looked as good anymore.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by soul_survivor View Post
              I'm not going to talk too much about their records, it's ridiculous that people are even trying to call Whitaker's resume "better", that's absurd.

              But these two guys have to be judged mainly on skill, speed, timing and dfeensive genius and in all honesty, Pep trumps Whitaker in all those categories. Go on youtube, watch footage of Pep, you get a wide range, some even from his best days and on days like that, he seemed untouchable. He was far more coordinated that Whitaker, a better puncher and better at finding the right range. The reason Whitaker had so many close calls was because he was adept at frustrating fighters rather than winnings rounds, Pep did both.

              Then, post accident, Pep reinvented himself, realised he wasn't as quick, his reflexes were no longer as sharp and he became a boxer-brawler, who could tough it out on the inside against the best of them. Much like Ali's latter life transformation into more of a "fighter". The sure fire sign of a true great is to be able to overcome adversity and age.

              Whitaker, for various reasons (drugs, alcohol) lost his best years by the time he reached his early 30s, but couldn't make reinvent himself, he still tried to be that slickster but he was too slow now, too dull and he never looked as good anymore.
              If it's so ridiculous break down why Pep's resume is so much better.

              Should be easy for you considering it's absurd.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by soul_survivor View Post
                I'm not going to talk too much about their records, it's ridiculous that people are even trying to call Whitaker's resume "better", that's absurd.

                But these two guys have to be judged mainly on skill, speed, timing and dfeensive genius and in all honesty, Pep trumps Whitaker in all those categories. Go on youtube, watch footage of Pep, you get a wide range, some even from his best days and on days like that, he seemed untouchable. He was far more coordinated that Whitaker, a better puncher and better at finding the right range. The reason Whitaker had so many close calls was because he was adept at frustrating fighters rather than winnings rounds, Pep did both.

                Then, post accident, Pep reinvented himself, realised he wasn't as quick, his reflexes were no longer as sharp and he became a boxer-brawler, who could tough it out on the inside against the best of them. Much like Ali's latter life transformation into more of a "fighter". The sure fire sign of a true great is to be able to overcome adversity and age.

                Whitaker, for various reasons (drugs, alcohol) lost his best years by the time he reached his early 30s, but couldn't make reinvent himself, he still tried to be that slickster but he was too slow now, too dull and he never looked as good anymore.
                I have listed in a previous post the 'world level' opponents they both faced, so show how they are superior to Whitaker's opponents.

                Also, at least by simple passage of time they were defeating 'world level' opponents for about the same time, Pep 9 years, Whitaker 10 or 11 years. Willie Pep last defeated a 'world level' opponent in 1951 when he defeated Eddie Chavez or Corky Gonzalez. From 52-66 he was not fighting 'world level contenders' except Tommy Collins (Pep was knocked out, may have taken a dive) and stopped by the featherweight champion Hogan Kid Bassey. The rest of all those fights post Chavez/Gonzalez were of a low quality, Pep being past his best.

                Now if post-prime Pep is supposed to be post plane crash then that means that post prime Pep is from 47-52, Pep had only been fighting professionally for 6 years before the crash. The claim that he was a lesser fighter post crash seems to come a lot from claims on forum posts or internet articles waxing lyrical about how much of a God Pep was, i'd like to see some good evidence that it was true. It seems to me that those claims are simply made to excuse the fact that Saddler kicked his ass on various occasions.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Most observers of the time do seem to agree that Pep wasn't as brilliant after the plane crash as he was before. Which makes sense given that he suffered serious injuries including a fractured back and a fractured leg.

                  In particular it was often mentioned that he had lost some of his blazing speed.
                  Last edited by ShoulderRoll; 01-03-2015, 01:32 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Actually........

                    The problem with argument is, that athelete evolve in every sport. Pep couldn't touch Whitaker. PERIOD. Whitaker would've embarrassed him. Pep was good in his era BUT could he have fought well against a prime Hoya? Trinidad? Chavez? Azuma Nelson? How well would he have done against those fighters? Be smart guys. He was not nearly as gifted as Sweet Pea. Pea had the best legs and balance I've ever seen in a boxing ring. His hand eye coordination was crazy. You could not hit him with one punch to the head or body, consistently. This is why he's the best defensive fighter in boxing history. You could hit Pep. He didn't fight the caliber guys that Pea did, either. You can also hit Floyd. Why do you think his speech is slowing down? Hmmmm. He is easy to hit with jabs and body shots. You see what happens every time he fights an A Level fighter, Right? Hoya. Cotto. He gets HIT! Whitaker would not get touched by Maidana. FACT. Step your boxing IQ up guys.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by GOD-FR33 View Post
                      The problem with argument is, that athelete evolve in every sport. Pep couldn't touch Whitaker. PERIOD. Whitaker would've embarrassed him. Pep was good in his era BUT could he have fought well against a prime Hoya? Trinidad? Chavez? Azuma Nelson? How well would he have done against those fighters? Be smart guys. He was not nearly as gifted as Sweet Pea. Pea had the best legs and balance I've ever seen in a boxing ring. His hand eye coordination was crazy. You could not hit him with one punch to the head or body, consistently. This is why he's the best defensive fighter in boxing history. You could hit Pep. He didn't fight the caliber guys that Pea did, either. You can also hit Floyd. Why do you think his speech is slowing down? Hmmmm. He is easy to hit with jabs and body shots. You see what happens every time he fights an A Level fighter, Right? Hoya. Cotto. He gets HIT! Whitaker would not get touched by Maidana. FACT. Step your boxing IQ up guys.
                      Still not discovered what a paragraph is?

                      You're talking nonsense as usual.

                      Whitaker got hit often by McGirt, Hurtado, Riveria, dropped by Mayweather, and other instances.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP