Pep, Whitaker or Locche?

I think this just about explains it's self. Only proviso - not who was the greatest or most accomplished or the best fighter, just who was the greatest defensive wizard.

 

The PEA...



REED

 

Pep.

Benitez was better than either Whitaker or Locche as well, IMO.

 

Pep was KO'ed More than Whittaker...

Whittaker's Only "KO" Loss was Against Borjorquez...Whittaker LANDED a Punch & Effectively "KO'ed" Himself...



REED

 

Pep had about 3 million fights, for chrissake. :: He did everything more than Pernel.

 

WHITAKEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRR..............

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yjTHLPmfBCQ&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yjTHLPmfBCQ&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

 

Pea

 

in terms of what? from a statiscal standpoint, yea he had more fights, but whitaker won titles at 4 different weight classes.

plus, had they met at lightweight, whitaker would've whupped his ass. whitaker also whups benitez and locche.

 

Pavlik

 

Im just saying it's rather disengenuious to bring up the fact that Pep was KO'd a couple times and Pea wasn't without acknowledging that Pep had 250 odd fights, most of which were after a debilitating plane crash. And as I said in the thread this is just about defensive ability not who was greatest or best overall.

 

::

 

Pernell, and he could very well be the greatest fighter p4p whoever lived, he had a fuckload of screwjobs, I have him undefeated before the glass dick got the better of him, and he entered the Trinidad fight halucinating.

 

I agree..

I actually think the TITO fight is the only time he has ever really Lost.. and that was like you said.. due to the Glass

 

Benny Leonard or Marlon Starling

 

Whitaker definitely beats Locche, but I'm not sure about Benitez. At 140 I'd call it a pick em, but at 147 I'd definitely pick Benitez over Pernell.

 

dsimon writes:

I am going with Sweet Pea. He is one of my favorites and while Pep was also fantastic I think Sweet Pea stands out even more.

My feeling is that The will o wisp was gifted and was fantastic defensively but Sweet Pea could make anyone look bad. I think Sweet Pea would have embarrassed Floyd for example.

 

It's a hard call across all three; frankly.

But I find it hard to pick against Pep in terms of defensive wizardy.

One thing folks may not be taking into account is the amount of OFFENSE Pep generated while being as evasive as he was.

Pep was much more offensively minded than either Whitaker or Locche and was a very busy fighter, throwing left hooks, uppercuts, straight rights and right hooks while he was showing outstanding head movement, torso movement and footwork.

He was continuously using offense both leading and countering.

Whitaker and Locche were both more sparse in their offensive output and relied alot on the jab/counter-jab. Pep relied primarily on power punches.

He was also always continuously on the move with his feet, in, out and around the opponent even when punching.

Only two of his KO losses seem to be legit and close to prime; and only 11 losses out of 241 fights over 26 years in a boxing ring.

Close call among all guys (especially Pernell and Pep) but Pep gets my vote.

Peace.

 

Prime for prime, Whitaker easily. Compared to their timers, Pep

 

whitaker

 

What nonsense. :nono:

 

Sorry, let me change it suitable for you. Prime for prime, Pep easily. But if you consider how good Whitaker is for a color-TV guy, he deserves a mention

 

Even more nonsensical, misguided, slanderous, ridiculous spewage. :nono:

 

You are impossibe to please I guess:nono: Or is it that I actually take a stance here?


::

 

Even further obnoxious, ignorant....






















Nah, I just wanted to see the fireworks, but I'll stop. ::

Truly, though, the "prime for prime" thing is ridiculous....pick a guy, period. :tease:

 

whitaker is a much better fighter than willie pep

 

Ignorance at its finest ...

 

dsimon writes:



Argument redux ad absurdum.... lets not compare talented fighters because back in those days guys were not nearly as developed as the broth of fighters that define the modern fighter.

You can't really discount either guy in the comp department. Come to think of it its hard to imagine when the division wasn't full of talent but both guys fought great comp any way you look at it.

 

Ad absurdum, indeed. ::

To your second point - agreed; and as I stated, it is close among the three, especially in terms of defensive wizardry, which is what we are talking about (would behoove folks to remember that).

Still, I pick Pep. He was just as slick and bedeviling while using more active footwork and more importantly MUCH more offense. That simply cannot be discounted.

It's one thing to be primarily a counterpuncher and wait for holes and rely primarily on your counter jab and straight/cross.....it's another to be just as defensive while generating a higher workrate with a full repertoire.

That, to me, clinches the deal.

Peace.

 

::

 

BTW....RACIST. :nono: