Quality vid, and quality soundtrack

Good video G. Pep had a solid left hook and straight right hand. Very elusive with good upper body movement. Great fighter.

WILLIE PEP!!!!!!!!!


Top 5, Dead or Alive

Absolutely and if you want me to be honest, I frankly don't think Willie Pep's style would garner him much praise if he were fighting nowadays and thats truly sad in the era of such (dumb ass) phrases as "tv friendly fighter".

Agreed... Guys like Pep, Mayweather and Whitaker have the science down packed!

Some of those clips from the Saddler fight made it look like Sandy was going for Willie's wallet...

That man was trying to mug him!

Excellent video George. I like how you built the tension and the soundtrack was perfect.

Hey I didn't make that video....I just watched it and was amazed by Willie Pep's defense and skills and had to post it.

And I wouldn't use that soundtrack..lol...I only use HipHop for my soundtracks

Pep top 5 dead or alive

What was Salvador thinking?

You're not a rave kid Big G...EVERYONE on here knows that your ass is GANGSTA!

I like the video. It's hard to enjoy watching guys from that era because the quality of the video is so weak. I like the GANGSTA stuff too, but I also like the music to match the visuals, and the music was old school just like Willie Pep!

Pep would have given Floyd a boxing lesson.

Was that Jonny's Trainer throwing the medicine ball?

This quote sums you up pretty perfectly in my opinion. You don't like fighters who stand and trade so you imply those that do are dumb asses.

You seem like a legitimately unlikeable cat.

Why thank you and I'm flattered to not make your acquaintance,lol Let me ask you a question though. Have you ever boxed at any level??

That is what a real boxer/fight is, was & should be! Nice find BigG!

Also, comprehension is not a strong trait of yours because I said the phrase was "dumb ass" not the fans of that style.

When you talk about fighters "Before there times", Willie Pep is the first name that pops in my head. Even before Sugar Ray Robinson.

There are many 'tv' friendly fighters that have a whole lot of talent.

Like Manny Pacquiao?

Dude,that was him!!

Anyway,Pep is a top 5 best ever..Pep has the best defense of any fighter ever..Also,who ever said Pep wouldn't be TV friendly today,I really disagree..Pep doesn't just become defensive and offensive..His defense created offense and a lot of counters..Mayweather and Whitaker only wish their defense was half as good as Peps..Pep throws a lot of punches and uses defense within his offense..

The soundtrack sucked but I really liked all the footage..Pep is the light!!!

Totally irrelevant question, which only serves to emphasize your arrogance regarding this subject. Your implication being that if one hasn't boxed he isn't capable of fully understanding the subtleties of the sport required to appreciate a master boxer like Willie Pep, and therefore, remains relegated to applauding the crude, caveman stylings of a more 'TV friendly' fighter.



I made a slight leap of faith, I admit. Apologies if I was wrong to do so.

Yep, he is pretty talented. Not like a pure boxer, but still pretty good and 'tv' friendly.

People that are bias towards boxers and say that you are supposed to hit and not get hit are usually extremely bias. They usually use the very best of their example like a Mayweather and then lump the 'fighters' with the worst like a Margarito or Gatti

LMAO... Jonny I just get a kick out of you're Old School Bias.

Pep was certainly one of the greatest defensive fighters of all time but Whitaker wasn't too far behind.

That also wasn't said and I don't believe it was implied.

Totally irrelevant question, which only serves to emphasize your arrogance regarding this subject. Your implication being that if one hasn't boxed he isn't capable of fully understanding the subtleties of the sport required to appreciate a master boxer like Willie Pep, and therefore, remains relegated to applauding the crude, caveman stylings of a more 'TV friendly' fighter.

It's not an irrelevant question and you do sorta of hit the nail on the head but I'll dig deeper.

The fact that term "TV (friendly) fighter" even exist nowadays for lack of a better term is BuLLSCHIT!! First of all what everyone appreciates is different. So while some may only want to see slugfest or as you described, "crude/caveman" stylings (I like your description better,lol). Some may want not want to see what they can see at any nightclub, or street fight. Does that make the latter's desired fighter any less of a "tv friendly" fighter as opposed to the so called absolute definition the term implies??

Lets look at one example you stated about me not liking "flat footed fighters". One of the biggest things I read here and other message boards is the notion that any fighter that moves, is a RUNNER. Which implies, you're just supposed to sit and trade and club each other right? The sport is referred to as the "SWEET SCIENCE" for a variety of reasons, but primarily is that there are so many things involved within the sport. Unfortunately as I said, the laymen and casual fan (who my comment was directed towards) doesn't even care to want to know all thats involved. They just want to see someone get KTFO.

It's like watching a basketball game and only wanting to see dunks but not understanding and/or appreciating the offensive play that creates the opening for the dunk. Or how you can stop a player by cutting off their driving lanes which prevents them from 'dunking" and taking perhaps a lower percentage shot.

That analysis of detail which used to said in fight broadcast way back is now lost. So IMO, you have a dumb downed audience generally speaking.

I stand by what I said that nowadays, Pep would not be considered a TV Figher which is sad because back in the days, he sure was... Was that reply "arrogant" enough for you??

Once again you are incorrect and lumping all 'tv friendly fighters' with the skill level of Gatti, Ward or Margarito. Guys like Cotto, Mosley, Morales, Barrera, Marquez, Vazquez, DLH, Vargas, Trinidad, Holyfield are all tv friendly fighters, but yeah I suppose you think they are crude/cavemen fighters as well.
That's what I mean about you using 'boxings' best example and using 'fightings' worst example. No different if I was to use the best 'fighters' like I said, and used them as an example of why they are better than pure boxers and then use people like Spinks or a Byrd as an example why boxing sucks.
Yes you do lump all tv friendly fighters as crude fighters like Gatti or Margarito when in fact there are a whole bunch who are tv friendly and have skill.

but yeah I suppose you think they are crude/cavemen fighters as well.

I see what I wrote completely went over your head and frankly I'm not surprised. My main point is whats considered a TV friendly fighter is not the same for everyone.

I swear you're one of the dudes who just disgrees for the sake of disagreeing.

There is a difference between sticking & moving especially using lateral movement & angles to exploit a fighters weaknesses & outright backing away at top speed throwing jabs & clinching whenever in close. See movement is more than just using your feet. A fighter with great movement may have decent footspeed but excellent lateral movement & upper body movement using that 1/4 of a step to create angles. You are right there is a difference between a runner & using the sweet science.

I know you know this already but a fleet footed fighter can be extremely exciting to watch provided it is not just backwards movement with the occasional offensive push forwards.

I'm really surprised you don't like Toney more for the abovementioned reasons.

I think Whitakers defense is every bit as good as Peps. They are both masters.

Good post. IMO, above you described Joe Calazaghe. I know he isn't a favorite here and I frankly HATE how he punches but one thing that canNOT be argued about him is his incredible footwork and ability to give the angles you described. I'll add to what you said in that when you offer that angle, you're still in punching range but the opponent has to pick up his feet to get back in punching range.

My general point is that an appreciation of the "scienece" is often diminished when you label figther "A" with a "TV friendly" style as if to say it's only about OFFENSE. Plenty of fighters back in the day were considered entertaining that were well rounded boxers but lets be honest. This term as it's USED today refers to a guy who is more active than not. PERIOD. Lets not fool ourselves in thinking it means anything different. That said, promoting these styles as such definitely taints someone who may not be familiar with the sport.

Additionally on the development side, you'd never hear a trainer telling his charge, "you gotta do something to be more tv friendly" if it means sacrificing their fundamentals. Lets use an example. Chris Byrd was an undersized heavyweight who definitely was NOT a hard hitter. But he (admittingly ) kept hearing in the background that he needed to be more action filled. If you look at his latter loses, there was much less head movement and more him trying to trade.

Why would he give up what was working the bulk of his career and suddenly become something he wasn't?

I like Toney's skills I just don't like the way he carries himself. He talks a big game but has not had a good win in nearly a decade that was not tainted.



I agree 100%. Horrific punching style but knew how to work angles well. A somewhat exciting fighter to watch & would have been more exciting had he punched better.

Lets face it sluggers are exciting to watch especially when you have two of them in there together. That said fights like Morales vs Barerra or Corrales vs Castillo are high quality mixes of skill, technique & brutal action.

Don't get me wrong,Whitaker is a master himself but in my opinion I think Pep is the best defensive fighter ever..I do tend to over exaggerate my point,no doubt..Pep > Whitaker > Mayweather is how I'd rank those 3..

Lets not forget Pep is the only fighter ever to win a round without throwing a punch..