There aren't 20+ guys in boxing history with a greater résumé than Pep. The only source that thinks so, other than TS, is BoxRec which is largely a joke when it comes to their all-time rankings. Pep is considered by many to be the greatest Featherweight of all time. So yeah, 20 other guys shouldn't be ahead of him.
Boxrecs rankings are weird, I agree.
Which time? He beat Wright four times. Sure, he came up short, but Saddler was the bigger man and a nightmare for him stylistically. Most feel that Pac came up short to JMM and JMM knocked him senseless to close out their rivalry which was the most convincing win of the series. Saddler also lost to mutual opponents in Jock Leslie, Phil Terranova, and to Paddy DeMarco twice. These are just the Hall of Famers that Pep beat.
It should also be pointed out that the version of Pep that Saddler beat was the post-plane crash comeback version. Pep broke his back, his leg, and suffered severe chest trauma the year prior to starting his rivalry with Saddler. His own doctors thought he'd never walk again much less continue boxing. Pep lost both speed and maneuverability that he previously had in spades before those serious injuries occurred.
There are 17 divisions today multiplied by we'll say 5 world titles (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO + lineal recognition) = 85 titles. Let's throw in the WBA "Regular" title as Canelo & his team count that so make it 6 world titles per division. That brings us up to a total of 102 titles. And that's not even counting any interim titles, the IBO title (minor world title), Ring Magazine title (just a cheap version of the lineal title), and all the other secondary titles floating around.
I don't disagree. Thats why Pep came up short against him.
Even though there's more titles, more often than not, there is consensus on who the top dog is. Sandy Saddler was a junior lightweight champ at one point too, so the weight classes were played with back then too. People are selective recalling things like that.
I don't agree with making up results. All fighters have questionable decisions on their resume. You still have to count them.
The only thing i would say about floyd is he probably wouldn’t be undefeated
There's usually consensus, that's true, but casuals often see the guy with the most belts in a division and immediately crown him the true champion of the division. Hardcores tend to know the difference. For instance, I had a guy on here just days ago tell me that Fury only had 1 title (WBC) and Joshua had 3, therefore, Joshua was really the #1 heavyweight purely by having more titles. Saddler did become champ at Super Featherweight but it's his Featherweight reign that he's known for not so much being a two-division champion.
Ali did hold the NYSAC title for a few years until he was stripped. Still, he fought in the two-belt era and was known for becoming a 3× undisputed champ as he held the WBA & WBC titles simultaneously on three separate occasions. He fought in the two-belt era, we're currently in the four-belt era, so it's twice as confusing today than it was back then even to many hardcore fans.
I've said the same thing about contemporary fighters like Floyd. In his 50 fight pro career he never fought an Eastern Bloc fighter (Cubans included). What stopped him from fighting threats like Tszyu before his 2005 Hatton loss and subsequent retirement? I definitely find it strange that he never fought a single one of them in his professional career especially given the ridiculous amount of opportunity he had to fight anybody he wanted for so long. Lots of fans wanted to see him in with Lara as well. So, using your own logic, how do we know that Floyd was really that great?
I believe he was in talks with both Tszyu and Hatton when they chose to fight each other. I can't really think of any other euros that were making waves around the weight at the time.
I feel awful for how Sonny Liston was treated during his lifetime
You have Archie over the Ezzard Charles? I like Archie better but there isn’t any way that I could argue him being better.
