- Joined
- Oct 22, 2016
- Messages
- 11,116
- Reaction score
- 3,337
Fail what? Pep was a can crusher.
He has 30+ wins over guys who were rated top 10 at the time by Ring Magazine at either FW or LW. Was everyone in his era at those weights a can?
Fail what? Pep was a can crusher.
Only Leonard and Duran seem to be ranked above Floyd with any regularity out of the Fab 4. Pep can definitely be argued ahead of Floyd, though. People forget that he amassed a very impressive resume fighting at LW (despite never fighting for the belt there) on top of his dominant run at FW (and Pep was a small FW who was genuinely outsized at LW). His resume would have been a fair bit more impressive had he not been in the plane crash, as well.
I agree with all that, good point at LW too, he took his first loss against Angott and went on to get quality scalps, though I think Hearns usually gets mentioned above as well. Hagler is the one that Floyd can sneak past.
So Sandy Saddler was a can?
He has 30+ wins over guys who were rated top 10 at the time by Ring Magazine at either FW or LW. Was everyone in his era at those weights a can?
I've seen it done, but it seems that more and more people rate Floyd over Hearns, mostly due to difference in consistency.
Nostalgia for the "golden age." No one could name more than 3 of them without boxreccing.
I've been a boxing fan for over 30 years. I couldn't name 10 guys Pep beat who were considered great without looking it up. Historians tend to draw a line in history and thats just when people stop being great. Everyone Pep beat has been surpassed a dozen times over since then.The ignorance of forum posters isn't really a strong argument for historical recognition. It's the true boxing nerds, journalists, and historians who carry on knowledge and lay out the most detailed arguments for all time ranking.
The public imagination is a separate discussion. But I guess the thread is asking specifically about everyone here.
Nostalgia for the "golden age." No one could name more than 3 of them without boxreccing.
Not really what I said. I said Floyd has beaten better quality opposition. And he has.Oh. So a fighter with that kind of resume against top competition over 2 weight classes (it would be 3 classes in this era) wouldn't get any recognition. That's ridiculous.
Not really what I said. I said Floyd has beaten better quality opposition. And he has.
Pep was definitely a can crusher. He's the sort of fighter the term was created for.You can argue that Mayweather has a better resume than Pep. That doesn't justify the can-crusher comment, though. Very few fighters in history have beaten the amount of top rated fighters that Pep did (Mayweather included).
Pep was definitely a can crusher. He's the sort of fighter the term was created for.
No, but the other 200 or so opponents were. Pep fought a shitload of cans.So all the top rated fighters from his era were cans? Because he beat all of them.
No, but the other 200 or so opponents were. Pep fought a shitload of cans.
If he had a great chin Tommy might have been the GOAT.I've seen it done, but it seems that more and more people rate Floyd over Hearns, mostly due to difference in consistency.
It was a different era when guys had to fight even multiple times a month to pay the bills.Saddler, Manuel Ortiz, Chalky Wright, Archibald, DeMarco, Wilson, on and on. The filler shouldn't detract from his quality wins.
Just because you don't recognize the names doesn't mean they were cans. You did the same trying to disparage SRR because he had a draw against someone nobody ever heard of.Nostalgia for the "golden age." No one could name more than 3 of them without boxreccing.
I've been a boxing fan for over 30 years. I couldn't name 10 guys Pep beat who were considered great without looking it up. Historians tend to draw a line in history and thats just when people stop being great. Everyone Pep beat has been surpassed a dozen times over since then.