Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles VS.

[Grimm]

Ray Robinson

Ray Leonard

Thomas Hearns

Roberto Duran

Kid Gavilan

Barney Ross

Henry Armstrong

Carmen Basillio

[Grimm]

Ray Robinson Napoles smooth aggression would have some success but is not enough to edge out a win against Robinson. Robinson UD15

Ray Leonard Napoles would be able pressure Leonard and land more than he was taking in return. Napoles UD15

Thomas Hearns I would have to go with Hearns on cuts in this one. Not only was "Mantequilla" as smooth as butter but he cut like it as well. Hearns TKO 8 cuts

Roberto Duran Napoles combination of skill slickness and power would be too much for Duran. Napoles UD15

Kid Gavilan Two of the greatest cuban fighters of all time. Both were extremely tough and talented but I would give the edge to Napoles. I think his power and agression would be the difference. Napoles UD15

Barney Ross great fighter great skill but overall I feel Napoles was just better Napoles UD15

Henry Armstrong Non stop action from the beginning. Both great fighters but i believe Napoles would have been able to edge it out. Napoles SD15

Carmen Basillio Basillio has an awesome chin and a crazy workrate but overall I believe Napoles better skills would prevail Napoles UD15

[Grimm]

Come on guys these are interesting matchups

[Ambling Alp]

Loses to Robinson and Leonard.

Toss up with Hearns, Duran, Gavilan, Ross, and Armstrong.

Beats Basilio.

[Idisagree]

Loses to Robinson and Leonard.

Toss up with Hearns, Duran, Gavilan, Ross, and Armstrong.

Beats Basilio.

I agree with this except I would add Hearns to Robinson and Leonard.

[elmersalsa]

Bullshit, this was not the Mantequilla in his prime. When Mantequilla won the welter title, he was considered too old and way past his best days. At that time of his career, I don't see Mantequilla beating none of the all time greats mention in this thread.

Napoles was at his very best around circa 1963 through 1967. That was his very best.

[Grimm]

Bullshit, this was not the Mantequilla in his prime. When Mantequilla won the welter title, he was considered too old and way past his best days. At that time of his career, I don't see Mantequilla beating none of the all time greats mention in this thread.

Napoles was at his very best around circa 1963 through 1967. That was his very best.

What was not Mantequilla in his prime?

Did someone show you a picture or a date?

[TheGreatA]

Napoles looks absolutely brilliant in his title winning performance against Curtis Cokes and went onto be a great champion for years afterwards. The Napoles I saw could very well beat Duran, Gavilan, Ross, Basilio, even Armstrong, although each of them would be close fights. Leonard, Robinson and Hearns might be too big and good for him though. Napoles was never a big welterweight and he had problems with cuts. Mantequilla was smooth as butter, but also cut like butter.

[The Great John L]

Wow, a lot of posters are picking him to beat Armstrong. Well, I'll go out on a limb and say that Napoles would not have been able to deal with the non-stop aggression of Armstrong and he would have been TKO'd mid-late rounds.

He also loses to SRR and Hears, but beats the others, although these are all good matchups.

[TheGreatA]

I think Napoles vs Armstrong would actually be an ideal match-up at 140. Neither were truly welterweights in size, although both were certainly great at the weight. I would have to review the tapes of each fighter in order to make up my mind about it. However I'll say that Napoles looked extremely impressive in dispatching the aggressive Adolph Pruitt in two rounds during his welterweight reign (they had an earlier fight where Pruitt injured his arm early).

Maybe Armstrong too would be walking right into a buzzsaw like Pruitt did, or maybe he bothers Napoles with his rough in-fighting style, much like when he never gave the clever Barney Ross a moment's rest to win the welterweight title. Very interesting match-up between the all-out aggressive Armstrong and the calm and collected Napoles.

Here are highlights that I put together of Napoles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBUg_OhdPhY

Watch the Napoles-Pruitt II beatdown at 4:30 in the video.

[elmersalsa]

Napoles looks absolutely brilliant in his title winning performance against Curtis Cokes and went onto be a great champion for years afterwards. The Napoles I saw could very well beat Duran, Gavilan, Ross, Basilio, even Armstrong, although each of them would be close fights. Leonard, Robinson and Hearns might be too big and good for him though. Napoles was never a big welterweight and he had problems with cuts. Mantequilla was smooth as butter, but also cut like butter.

When Napoles beat Cokes he was way past his very best. Cokes looked like a fighter that was ready to be taken. Any other contender would have beaten Cokes in the night of April 13, 1969. A great win for Mantequilla, yes, but his very best days, circa 1963-1967, were over.

The Mantequilla that won the welter title was just a glimpse of what he used to be. I saw the video of Napoles fighting Alfredo Urbina in the rematch and that was the Napoles of his heyday. He was DUCKED for years by the lightweight and jr welter champs. He had to move to welter and still did not get a shot until Cokes got the balls to give him a title shot.

At welterweight I see that nobody beats Leonard and Robinson nor Hearns? Gimmie a break. Anybody could beat anybody as long as your are very good. Those legends were very good.

[TheGreatA]

When Napoles beat Cokes he was way past his very best. Cokes looked like a fighter that was ready to be taken. Any other contender would have beaten Cokes in the night of April 13, 1969. A great win for Mantequilla, yes, but his very best days, circa 1963-1967, were over.

The Mantequilla that won the welter title was just a glimpse of what he used to be. I saw the video of Napoles fighting Alfredo Urbina in the rematch and that was the Napoles of his heyday. He was DUCKED for years by the lightweight and jr welter champs. He had to move to welter and still did not get a shot until Cokes got the balls to give him a title shot.

At welterweight I see that nobody beats Leonard and Robinson nor Hearns? Gimmie a break. Anybody could beat anybody as long as your are very good. Those legends were very good.

I'm not so sure if Cokes had shown any signs of declining previous to the Napoles fights. Napoles just took the fight to him. Napoles continued to be a very good welterweight champion for the next 6 years.

I've also seen the Urbina fight and while Napoles looks more aggressive, I wouldn't say he necessarily looks any better than the does against Cokes where he displays polished punching technique and smooth foot movement while putting on intelligent pressure.

As for your last statement, didn't you just say that Napoles doesn't beat anybody at welterweight?

[elmersalsa]

When Napoles beat Cokes he was way past his very best. Cokes looked like a fighter that was ready to be taken. Any other contender would have beaten Cokes in the night of April 13, 1969. A great win for Mantequilla, yes, but his very best days, circa 1963-1967, were over.

The Mantequilla that won the welter title was just a glimpse of what he used to be. I saw the video of Napoles fighting Alfredo Urbina in the rematch and that was the Napoles of his heyday. He was DUCKED for years by the lightweight and jr welter champs. He had to move to welter and still did not get a shot until Cokes got the balls to give him a title shot.

At welterweight I see that nobody beats Leonard and Robinson nor Hearns? Gimmie a break. Anybody could beat anybody as long as your are very good. Those legends were very good.

I'm not so sure if Cokes had shown any signs of declining previous to the Napoles fights. Napoles just took the fight to him. Napoles continued to be a very good welterweight champion for the next 6 years.

I've also seen the Urbina fight and while Napoles looks more aggressive, I wouldn't say he necessarily looks any better than the does against Cokes where he displays polished punching technique and smooth foot movement while putting on intelligent pressure.

As for your last statement, didn't you just say that Napoles doesn't beat anybody at welterweight?

I said that the Napoles of the 70s could not beat none of the guys mentioned. If it were 1963 thru 1967, then, He could beat all of them.

[TheGreatA]

I said that the Napoles of the 70s could not beat none of the guys mentioned. If it were 1963 thru 1967, then, He could beat all of them.

I just don't see the huge difference between a mid 1960's Napoles and a late 60's/early 70's Napoles, so much that he would go from beating none of the fighters mentioned to beating all of them. Napoles was also more of a lightweight/light welterweight then.

[elmersalsa]

I said that the Napoles of the 70s could not beat none of the guys mentioned. If it were 1963 thru 1967, then, He could beat all of them.

I just don't see the huge difference between a mid 1960's Napoles and a late 60's/early 70's Napoles, so much that he would go from beating none of the fighters mentioned to beating all of them. Napoles was also more of a lightweight/light welterweight then.

In the mid 60s, Mantequilla was way faster than in the early 70s.