Welterweights: Sugar Ray Leonard vs Jose Napoles

[tiny_acres]

No one argues that Leonard has a superior resume.
I just do not see this as a blow out win for Leonard.
I feel Leonard would win but Napoles would give him a fair bit of trouble.

[Ambling Alp II]

You might to go back and read some of the posts. Broomhall is arguing that Napoles has the better resume; elmer (big surprise) is basically saying the same. It's absolutely ridiculous.

They also come up with BS that Leonard had "special priviledges." Since he was a Gold Medal winner (I guess they just hand those out to whoever is first in line) Just ignore the 8 Top 10 contenders that he beat on his way up (the same # as Napoles did in his first 11 years) and that (unlike Napoles) he had to beat a great fighter to win the title.

I don't see it as a blowout win; I don't think anyone has said that. Napoles was a great fighter; Leonard was clearly better.

[elmersalsa]

You might to go back and read some of the posts. Broomhall is arguing that Napoles has the better resume; elmer (big surprise) is basically saying the same. It's absolutely ridiculous.

They also come up with BS that Leonard had "special priviledges." Since he was a Gold Medal winner (I guess they just hand those out to whoever is first in line) Just ignore the 8 Top 10 contenders that he beat on his way up (the same # as Napoles did in his first 11 years) and that (unlike Napoles) he had to beat a great fighter to win the title.

I don't see it as a blowout win; I don't think anyone has said that. Napoles was a great fighter; Leonard was clearly better.

Put my name out of it, Alp. I have never said that the great Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles had better resume than the great Sugar Ray Leonard.

I said that Leonard beat better opponents
I said that Mantequilla had TOUGHER ROAD TO THE CROWN
I said that Mantequilla beat more top welterweights
I said that Leonard beat more quality welterweights. The ONLY REAL WELTER that he beat was the great Thomas Hearns
I said that Mantequilla fought for PEANUTS early in his career and in his mid career meanwhile Sugar Ray made $40,000 dollars in his first fight. And that is not a priviledge?

Every one knows in here that Leonard was better. Why are you bearing false witnesses?

The only thing is that there is not a handful of clips of Mantequilla's early fights when he was in his prime. That 70s version of Mantequilla does not beat Leonard.

Now for the folks in here. Leonard fought the great Marvin Hagler. What if the champion was the great Carlos Monzon? Would Leonard win? Mantequilla received a beating by King Carlos.

[elmersalsa]

Again, and why some people cant understand this other (than the fact that they seem to be Napoles fanboys) I cannot understand, Napoles didnt have it any harder in terms of level of competition than Leonard. Yes, he should have gotten a shot at a LW or JWW title earlier than he did at WW but that doesnt mean that the guys he was beating were better than the guys Leonard was beating, it doesnt mean that he could beat Leonard, and it doesnt mean that he was better than Leonard. Its a silly argument. And what does Leonard being American have to do with anything at all? That just strikes me as being jingoistic B.S. coming from a Cuban propping up another Cuban. I couldnt care less about any of that. What matters to me is the results and at WW Leonard fought and beat better fighters. Period. He also had success well above WW. If you think that doesnt matter in how he is going to stack up against a natural LW then go ask Carlos Monzon whether size played a difference in their fight because Napoles wasnt even competetive in that fight and guess what: Leonard was only an inch shorter than Monzon, had only two inches less reach, and was faster on his feet and with his hands, and just happened to be a master boxer and a hard puncher as well. I say again, Napoles has an uphill battle in this fight and anyone who doesnt make him an underdog is crazy or from Cuba.

I am not saying that Napoles had a better career. All I am saying that Napoles had a TOUGHER ROAD TO THE TOP. Why you cannot accept that?

Why you cannot accept that being a gold medalist, and plus, an American, gives you all kinds of priviledges. Ask the great Aaron Pryor what happened to him for not winning a gold medal? Heck, he did not even make the Olympics in '76. How much Pryor had to earn for his first fight? Ask him!

You guys are making it silly.

King Carlos would have stumped Leonard the same way he did Mantequilla. He might survived more rounds by running around like a rabbit. But that would not work. King Carlos was bigger. He fought an out of prime Mantequilla. And even if Mantequilla would have been in his prime, he loses to Monzon.

[klompton]

Again, and why some people cant understand this other (than the fact that they seem to be Napoles fanboys) I cannot understand, Napoles didnt have it any harder in terms of level of competition than Leonard. Yes, he should have gotten a shot at a LW or JWW title earlier than he did at WW but that doesnt mean that the guys he was beating were better than the guys Leonard was beating, it doesnt mean that he could beat Leonard, and it doesnt mean that he was better than Leonard. Its a silly argument. And what does Leonard being American have to do with anything at all? That just strikes me as being jingoistic B.S. coming from a Cuban propping up another Cuban. I couldnt care less about any of that. What matters to me is the results and at WW Leonard fought and beat better fighters. Period. He also had success well above WW. If you think that doesnt matter in how he is going to stack up against a natural LW then go ask Carlos Monzon whether size played a difference in their fight because Napoles wasnt even competetive in that fight and guess what: Leonard was only an inch shorter than Monzon, had only two inches less reach, and was faster on his feet and with his hands, and just happened to be a master boxer and a hard puncher as well. I say again, Napoles has an uphill battle in this fight and anyone who doesnt make him an underdog is crazy or from Cuba.

I am not saying that Napoles had a better career. All I am saying that Napoles had a TOUGHER ROAD TO THE TOP. Why you cannot accept that?

Why you cannot accept that being a gold medalist, and plus, an American, gives you all kinds of priviledges. Ask the great Aaron Pryor what happened to him for not winning a gold medal? Heck, he did not even make the Olympics in '76. How much Pryor had to earn for his first fight? Ask him!

You guys are making it silly.

King Carlos would have stumped Leonard the same way he did Mantequilla. He might survived more rounds by running around like a rabbit. But that would not work. King Carlos was bigger. He fought an out of prime Mantequilla. And even if Mantequilla would have been in his prime, he loses to Monzon.

Explain to me, other than what Ive said before, how Napoles had a tougher road. Because you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are saying that in relation to the level of competition and number of contenders he had to supposedly wade through to get a championship but then drop back and say he made less money. Big deal. Im only concerned with their competition, whether he was paid more or less has no bearing on whether he would win a H2H fight with Leonard.

Oh, boo hoo, Leonard won a gold medal. The operative word there is WON. Pyror didnt win a gold medal because he LOST in the trials to Howard Davis (who just happened to be the darling of the Olympics until Leonard's star outshone him). As Alp said, they dont just hand those things out. People come out of the Olympics with a gold medal and get an immediate boost because its generally expected that a gold medalist is a pretty damn good fighter.

A lot of guys labor in obscurity before getting a title shot or without ever getting a title shot. That fact alone doesnt make them any better than anyone else. That seems to be what you are arguing because a look at the WWs Napoles fought to get ranked is pretty uninspiring and hardly an argument that he had this tough slog through a bevy of great fighters to get a title shot.

Maybe Monzon would have beaten Leonard, maybe not. One thing Im sure about is that Leonard would have much better than Napoles who was ridiculously over matched in that fight. Napoles was simply too small and thats going to a big issue hes going to have with a talented guy like Leonard. Go down the list of Napoles opponents at WW and I cant find one that was as big as Leonard outside of Monzon. Combine that size disadvantage with all of Leonards other gifts and advantages and Napoles is in trouble.

[Seamus]

There's a few forgotten American Gold medalists. Might get you attention win you turn pro, but you still got to win the fights yourself.

[elmersalsa]

Again, and why some people cant understand this other (than the fact that they seem to be Napoles fanboys) I cannot understand, Napoles didnt have it any harder in terms of level of competition than Leonard. Yes, he should have gotten a shot at a LW or JWW title earlier than he did at WW but that doesnt mean that the guys he was beating were better than the guys Leonard was beating, it doesnt mean that he could beat Leonard, and it doesnt mean that he was better than Leonard. Its a silly argument. And what does Leonard being American have to do with anything at all? That just strikes me as being jingoistic B.S. coming from a Cuban propping up another Cuban. I couldnt care less about any of that. What matters to me is the results and at WW Leonard fought and beat better fighters. Period. He also had success well above WW. If you think that doesnt matter in how he is going to stack up against a natural LW then go ask Carlos Monzon whether size played a difference in their fight because Napoles wasnt even competetive in that fight and guess what: Leonard was only an inch shorter than Monzon, had only two inches less reach, and was faster on his feet and with his hands, and just happened to be a master boxer and a hard puncher as well. I say again, Napoles has an uphill battle in this fight and anyone who doesnt make him an underdog is crazy or from Cuba.

I am not saying that Napoles had a better career. All I am saying that Napoles had a TOUGHER ROAD TO THE TOP. Why you cannot accept that?

Why you cannot accept that being a gold medalist, and plus, an American, gives you all kinds of priviledges. Ask the great Aaron Pryor what happened to him for not winning a gold medal? Heck, he did not even make the Olympics in '76. How much Pryor had to earn for his first fight? Ask him!

You guys are making it silly.

King Carlos would have stumped Leonard the same way he did Mantequilla. He might survived more rounds by running around like a rabbit. But that would not work. King Carlos was bigger. He fought an out of prime Mantequilla. And even if Mantequilla would have been in his prime, he loses to Monzon.

Explain to me, other than what Ive said before, how Napoles had a tougher road. Because you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are saying that in relation to the level of competition and number of contenders he had to supposedly wade through to get a championship but then drop back and say he made less money. Big deal. Im only concerned with their competition, whether he was paid more or less has no bearing on whether he would win a H2H fight with Leonard.

Oh, boo hoo, Leonard won a gold medal. The operative word there is WON. Pyror didnt win a gold medal because he LOST in the trials to Howard Davis (who just happened to be the darling of the Olympics until Leonard's star outshone him). As Alp said, they dont just hand those things out. People come out of the Olympics with a gold medal and get an immediate boost because its generally expected that a gold medalist is a pretty damn good fighter.

A lot of guys labor in obscurity before getting a title shot or without ever getting a title shot. That fact alone doesnt make them any better than anyone else. That seems to be what you are arguing because a look at the WWs Napoles fought to get ranked is pretty uninspiring and hardly an argument that he had this tough slog through a bevy of great fighters to get a title shot.

Maybe Monzon would have beaten Leonard, maybe not. One thing Im sure about is that Leonard would have much better than Napoles who was ridiculously over matched in that fight. Napoles was simply too small and thats going to a big issue hes going to have with a talented guy like Leonard. Go down the list of Napoles opponents at WW and I cant find one that was as big as Leonard outside of Monzon. Combine that size disadvantage with all of Leonards other gifts and advantages and Napoles is in trouble.

I will explain to you how Mantequilla had a TOUGHER ROAD.

FACT #1: MANTEQUILLA fought FOR PEANUTS starting his career, meanwhile Leonard made $40,000. Do the math, sir.

FACT #2: Mantequilla had to fight in BULL RINGS AND MATADEROS in Mexico City. Cuba abolished pro boxing in his country. So a couple of time is lost there. Mantequilla had to fight the toughest of the Mexican nation for PEANUTS. EVERYBODY AGAINST EVERYBODY. There is no picking and selecting opponents like Angelo Dundee with Leonard.

FACT #3: Outside of Mexico, Mantequilla was DUCKED BY EVERYBODY! From lightweight to welterweight, NOBODY WANTED TO FIGHT HIM. He was feared by the top world contenders and champions of the time. Nobody ducked Leonard.

FACT #4: Leonard had ABC TV, the gold medal on his neck and promotion and the American media. What Mantequilla had? Explain that to me. Leonard was making already heavyweight purses. Mantequilla was an OUTCAST of his country fighting in another land. He had to earn the respect of the Mexican public by fighting the very best of the nation.

FACT #5: Talking about privileges, the privileges that Leonard had compared to Mantequilla is like night vs day. With $40,000 dollars in your first fight you got access to lots of stuff. You could get better nutrition, equipment and leeway than someone that came to Mexico with NOTHING. The great Marvin Hagler had to go to Philadelphia to make his name. He got a title shot in his 50th fight, fighting everybody. The great Carlos Monzon had to fight in Europe to get big purses after he won the crown. Before that, like Mantequilla, King Carlos had to fight for PEANUTS. And you are telling me that being American with a gold medal is not a privilege? Is not that an advantage? Ask Nino Benvenutti. He is from Italy. He won a Gold medal in '60. Did he make $40,000 dollars in his first fight? Is not even close.

[klompton]

I will explain to you how Mantequilla had a TOUGHER ROAD.

FACT #1: MANTEQUILLA fought FOR PEANUTS starting his career, meanwhile Leonard made $40,000. Do the math, sir.

FACT #2: Mantequilla had to fight in BULL RINGS AND MATADEROS in Mexico City. Cuba abolished pro boxing in his country. So a couple of time is lost there. Mantequilla had to fight the toughest of the Mexican nation for PEANUTS. EVERYBODY AGAINST EVERYBODY. There is no picking and selecting opponents like Angelo Dundee with Leonard.

FACT #3: Outside of Mexico, Mantequilla was DUCKED BY EVERYBODY! From lightweight to welterweight, NOBODY WANTED TO FIGHT HIM. He was feared by the top world contenders and champions of the time. Nobody ducked Leonard.

FACT #4: Leonard had ABC TV, the gold medal on his neck and promotion and the American media. What Mantequilla had? Explain that to me. Leonard was making already heavyweight purses. Mantequilla was an OUTCAST of his country fighting in another land. He had to earn the respect of the Mexican public by fighting the very best of the nation.

FACT #5: Talking about privileges, the privileges that Leonard had compared to Mantequilla is like night vs day. With $40,000 dollars in your first fight you got access to lots of stuff. You could get better nutrition, equipment and leeway than someone that came to Mexico with NOTHING. The great Marvin Hagler had to go to Philadelphia to make his name. He got a title shot in his 50th fight, fighting everybody. The great Carlos Monzon had to fight in Europe to get big purses after he won the crown. Before that, like Mantequilla, King Carlos had to fight for PEANUTS. And you are telling me that being American with a gold medal is not a privilege? Is not that an advantage? Ask Nino Benvenutti. He is from Italy. He won a Gold medal in '60. Did he make $40,000 dollars in his first fight? Is not even close.

#1 what does that have to do with how Napoles would do against Leonard.
#2 And yet Leonard still has better wins.
#3 He was ducked by everybody? Because American Eddie Perkins went to Mexico to fight him. Curtis Cokes defended against him voluntarily (Napoles was not his mandatory). I could go on but dont give your bullshit that he was ducked by everyone. Ill ask again, exactly who did he fight to be able to demand a title shot and yet he still got one. And finally, most importantly, what does that have to do with him h2h against Leonard?
#4 what does that have to do with how Napoles would do against Leonard.
#5 You seem to have an issue not with the fact that Leonard was a better WW than Napoles but that some fighters in wealthy countries have a better standard of living. Thats a fact of life. Where do you live? Because if you live in the USA then youre here for the same reason the rest of us are so shut the fornicate up. If not I suggest you quit wasting your time on message boards and make whatever third world country you live in a better place. Or donate to the fighter of your choice so he can have all the perks you think everyone is entitled to regardless of pedigree. As for Nino Benvenuti you have no idea what you are talking about. The guy was a star in Italy before he ever even turned pro. In Italy he was the Sugar Ray Leonard of his generation.

Essentially by bitching and moaning and bringing up other fighters and how "hard" they had it (when in fact they hadnt really had it that hard) you are just kicking up dust. Doesnt matter. You are in the minority and your weak argument does nothing to change that.

[elmersalsa]

Klompton. You are a poor man in disgrace and also YOU WANT TO IGNORE THE FACTS.

I VOTED for Leonard in this thread, in this forum, that he was better, and that he would beat the 70s version of Mantequilla. If it is the 60s version, I CANNOT TELL. I ONLY SAW ONE CLIP OF MANTEQUILLA of the 60s, and he was very good of what I saw.

You look like you got the guilty trip and want to ignore it. For a fighter that made $40,000 in his first pro fight, to you, is not a privilege. Then what is it? Not even a top heavyweight made that kind of money in his early days. It is fact that Mantequilla HAD HARDER ROAD. IF YOU WANT TO BE IN LEONARD's DICK, that is fine. But do not disregard the facts.

Mantequilla was DUCKED AND IGNORED FOR YEARS before getting a title shot. Nobody but you want it to be a lie. Maybe you are an American or you are in American fighter's DICK, like some people are. I like all fighters from everwhere, even Sugar Ray Leonard, THAT IS ONE OF MY FAVORITES. But to say that he had it rough to the top like Napoles IS A SPIT TO THE FACE.

America got the money. Latin fighters got to come here in this country to make $$$$ because it is PEANUTS where they from. And yes, Leonard was a great fighter. Yes, he had THE GOLD SPOON in his mouth compared to other fighters, even BLUE COLLAR AMERICAN FIGHTERS.

So do not come with that bullshit that Leonard had a rough way to the top, just like Mantequilla. That is oil and water, night and day, animal and humans, wrong and right. Whatever you want to call it.

Every fighter had a different road. Some make it, some do not. But Leonard had all THE BACKING, THE PROMOTION
THE TV SPOSURE AND THE GOLD MEDAL, PLUS BEING AN AMERICAN IS A PRIVELEGE. Nino Benvenutti did make $40,000 in his first fight. He got a gold medal. If he were American, he would get that 40k or close to it.

You are not making no sense by BITCHING FOR LEONARD.

[klompton]

Klompton. You are a poor man in disgrace and also YOU WANT TO IGNORE THE FACTS.

I VOTED for Leonard in this thread, in this forum, that he was better, and that he would beat the 70s version of Mantequilla. If it is the 60s version, I CANNOT TELL. I ONLY SAW ONE CLIP OF MANTEQUILLA of the 60s, and he was very good of what I saw.

So basically you are admitting that you dont know what you are talking about. "Ive seen one clip of Napoles in the 1960s at LW which was a first round KO over a journeyman and nothing else but I think he would beat a prime Leonard at WW..."

You look like you got the guilty trip and want to ignore it. For a fighter that made $40,000 in his first pro fight, to you, is not a privilege. Then what is it? Not even a top heavyweight made that kind of money in his early days. It is fact that Mantequilla HAD HARDER ROAD. IF YOU WANT TO BE IN LEONARD's DICK, that is fine. But do not disregard the facts.

Im not guilty about anything. I dont give a holy fornicate that Napoles didnt earn as much as Leonard. A privilege is something given to you. You act as if Leonard just stepped up and was handed that money as if he didnt have to work for it. As if he didnt go into the Olympics an underdog and win everyones heart with his performance. Who is on whose dick here when you cry a river over Napoles not making a boatload of money in a thread that is dealing solely with who was better... and then admit Leonard was. Jesus, who has the chip on his shoulder. Maybe if Napoles wanted to fight for more money he should have fled to richest country in the world, not one of the poorest.

Mantequilla was DUCKED AND IGNORED FOR YEARS before getting a title shot. Nobody but you want it to be a lie.

At LW and JWW. Not at WW. Thats the crux of the argument. Whether he was ducked at LW has no baring on how he would do at WW against Leonard and nobody is lying about that fact. I admitted he was ducked in the lower weight classes, but that just illustrates that WW was not his natural weight class and as such he was going to be at a disadvantage against Leonard. What you are misrepresenting here is that Napoles was ducked at WW. He wasnt. Curtis Cokes did not have to face him at WW. He was not Cokes mandatory when they fought. That was Raul Soriano and the Ernie Lopez. Cokes didnt have to fight Napoles at all. Napoles was rated as #1 at JWW and guess who was ducking him? Locche, an Argentinian, not some privileged American. In fact the title hadnt been in American hands since 1965 when Eddie Perkins lost it and wouldnt be until well after Napoles retired. Guess who Perkins fought 2 fights later? Jose Napoles. He didnt have to. Perkins was rated number 1 at JWW and Napoles was rated at LW. Perkins could have easily waited for a shot at Carlos Hernandez but he went to Napoles back yard, fought him, lost, and thats how Napoles got his ranking. He was briefly rated #1 at JWW in 1964 but dropped back down to lightweight to fight Carlos Hernandez who was rated #2 at LW and beat him. This more than anything screwed his chances up because Hernandez quickly fought and easily stopped #1 rated Kenny Lane and then jumped up to fight Perkins while Napoles was busy telling the press he couldnt decide if he wanted to be a LW or a JWW. It was this inconsistency, never spending much time in either division that kept him popping in and out of rankings and allowed the champions to fight other mandatories. When he finally got a title shot he had literally beaten nobody in the top ten of WW division and wasnt Cokes mandatory. So your outrage at him being ducked by privileged fighters is a bit misplaced. He bares some of the blame for the situation he was in and that was only at the lower weights. Save your outrage for Carlos Hernandez who was beaten by Napoles, won the title, and then refused to defend against him after saying he would if Napoles beat Perkins.

Maybe you are an American or you are in American fighter's DICK, like some people are. I like all fighters from everwhere, even Sugar Ray Leonard, THAT IS ONE OF MY FAVORITES. But to say that he had it rough to the top like Napoles IS A SPIT TO THE FACE.

So I take it you think waking up every morning at 4am to do roadwork and training all day to go and get punched in the face is easy. Otherwise I guess you think Leonard just showed up and got handed victories in his pajamas... Whatever man, Ive already pointed out and most people here agree that Napoles didnt fight any tougher competition than Leonard did. If he had it hard he can take some of the blame for making stupid choices. I wonder if Luis Rodriguez would have thought it was smart to settle in Mexico to further his boxing career when one a much closer choice was Miami which just happened to a booming boxing town at the time...

America got the money. Latin fighters got to come here in this country to make $$$$ because it is PEANUTS where they from. And yes, Leonard was a great fighter. Yes, he had THE GOLD SPOON in his mouth compared to other fighters, even BLUE COLLAR AMERICAN FIGHTERS.

There we go again. So he just showed up and was handed everything. In one sentence you say he was a great fighter and then in the other he was a spoiled american. Sorry but great fighters dont just fall off the american money tree.

Every fighter had a different road. Some make it, some do not. But Leonard had all THE BACKING, THE PROMOTION
THE TV SPOSURE AND THE GOLD MEDAL, PLUS BEING AN AMERICAN IS A PRIVELEGE. Nino Benvenutti did make $40,000 in his first fight. He got a gold medal. If he were American, he would get that 40k or close to it.

I dont know what "sposure" is but you sit here and bitch about americans and have no idea that Benvenuti was on TV fighting every time out from the time he was in the amateurs all the way through his final fight. In fact there are probably more filmed fights of Benevenuti than there are of Leonard by far. So dont come on here and talk about what you have no idea about. Being American is a privilege and I sure as shit hope you arent living here because ungrateful shits like you that think everything is handed to us and we dont have to work for it that come here and then bitch about what a horrible place this is when nobody kisses your ass. Again, you dont know what your talking about either in regards to Leonard, Napoles, and especially not Benvenuti if you dont think he was a king in his country.

[Broomhall]

You might to go back and read some of the posts. Broomhall is arguing that Napoles has the better resume; elmer (big surprise) is basically saying the same. It's absolutely ridiculous.

They also come up with BS that Leonard had "special priviledges." Since he was a Gold Medal winner (I guess they just hand those out to whoever is first in line) Just ignore the 8 Top 10 contenders that he beat on his way up (the same # as Napoles did in his first 11 years) and that (unlike Napoles) he had to beat a great fighter to win the title.

I don't see it as a blowout win; I don't think anyone has said that. Napoles was a great fighter; Leonard was clearly better.

Napoles was fighting at a time (in my opinion) when to be a welterweight contender you had to be better than in the 70's. A lot of tough quality pros when losses dont mean what they mean now. So the quality of the resume is debatable.

Leonard clearly had promotional advantages. Marketing mans dream.

The last statement subjective. No problems with most people saying Leonard was better, and no worries about knowing I am way in the minority, but I just think that the 60s was tougher than the 70s.

[Idisagree]

I make Leonard the clear favorite. Bigger and better. Napoles would hold his own but he will lose in the end. No shame in losing to Leonard.

I don't see what Napoles having a harder road than Leonard has to do with this fight. We should be talking about skills and styles. Based on that I would make Leonard the clear favorite.

Could Napoles win? Yes, it is possible but not likely.

[elmersalsa]

Do not be on Leonard's dick klompton. Do not be on Leonard's dick. Be precise and short, because I am not going to read all what you wrote.

$40,000 dollars in your first fight is A PRIVILEGE FOR ANY FIGHTER, ESPECIALLY IF HE IS AMERICAN. You do not want to admit that, FINE. I deal with it.

Napoles was fighting from lightweight to welterweight. That he did not beat a top welter to get a title shot, was A LIE THAT YOU CAME UP WITH. Check his record. And even at that, he beat the top welters while being champ. So what is the difference? Saying that he did not fight at ww for a title shot is like saying that he was ducking the top welterweights.

You cannot compare $40,000 dollars in your first fight with PEANUTS. Leonard and Napoles are way two different roads...Everybody in here knows that. Oh maybe you do not.

Of what I saw about Napoles in the 60s was that he was quick, just like Leonard. It was the only footage I saw. Would Leonard beat that version of the 60s? why not? Would the 60s Mantequilla beat prime Leonard? Why not? Both were great fighters. It is just that one WAS PRIVILEGED AND ONE WAS NOT.

Not even the great Muhammad Ali made $40,000 in his first fight. Not even Nino Benvenutti. Those are facts.

And yes, you seem to have a GUILTY TRIP. Just ignore it, that is all. Ignore it. But you cannot ignore the facts that the road to the top was HARDER FOR THE CUBAN THAN THE AMERICAN. THAT IS A FACT, LIKE IT OR NOT. GOODBYE.

[elmersalsa]

You might to go back and read some of the posts. Broomhall is arguing that Napoles has the better resume; elmer (big surprise) is basically saying the same. It's absolutely ridiculous.

They also come up with BS that Leonard had "special priviledges." Since he was a Gold Medal winner (I guess they just hand those out to whoever is first in line) Just ignore the 8 Top 10 contenders that he beat on his way up (the same # as Napoles did in his first 11 years) and that (unlike Napoles) he had to beat a great fighter to win the title.

I don't see it as a blowout win; I don't think anyone has said that. Napoles was a great fighter; Leonard was clearly better.

Napoles was fighting at a time (in my opinion) when to be a welterweight contender you had to be better than in the 70's. A lot of tough quality pros when losses dont mean what they mean now. So the quality of the resume is debatable.

Leonard clearly had promotional advantages. Marketing mans dream.

The last statement subjective. No problems with most people saying Leonard was better, and no worries about knowing I am way in the minority, but I just think that the 60s was tougher than the 70s.

AMEN. Broomhall, YOU ARE THE GREATEST!!!

[elmersalsa]

Mantequilla made $20,000 when he challenged world welterweight champion Curtis Cokes.

Another FACT FOR KLOMPTON: Mantequilla fought 9 welterweights (WINNING ALL OF THEM) since 1967, before getting a title shot That he did not deserved a title shot at welterweight IS ANOTHER LIE BY KLOMPTON....KEEP DEFENDING AMERICAN FIGHTERS, OK KLOMPTON?

[elmersalsa]

COKES made $80k for defending the title against Mantequilla. Mantequilla made $20K. Leonard made $1,000,000 dollars when he challenged the great Wilfred Benitez. That is not a privilege, then, what is?

[Idisagree]

COKES made $80k for defending the title against Mantequilla. Mantequilla made $20K. Leonard made $1,000,000 dollars when he challenged the great Wilfred Benitez. That is not a privilege, then, what is?

I don't understand what that has to do with a fight of Leonard vs Napoles. To me that is totally irrelevant.

Styles makes fights not money.

[klompton]

Mantequilla made $20,000 when he challenged world welterweight champion Curtis Cokes.

Another FACT FOR KLOMPTON: Mantequilla fought 9 welterweights (WINNING ALL OF THEM) since 1967, before getting a title shot That he did not deserved a title shot at welterweight IS ANOTHER LIE BY KLOMPTON....KEEP DEFENDING AMERICAN FIGHTERS, OK KLOMPTON?

Youre pathetic Salsa. Cokes was the champion. Why wouldnt he get more money? Furthermore, go look it up and come back here and tell me who these top welterweights were that he beat to get his title shot. If you cant answer that question take your broken english back to whatever hole you were shipped here from and spend your time there bitching about the USA. While your at it why dont you completely ignore the fact that Napoles was fighting for smaller purses a full decade before Leonard was and there is this thing called inflation (a concept too difficult to explain to someone who cant even speak the language) needless to say you might want to go study the economics of the 1970s to try to understand why purses skyrocketed during that period when discussing a mega star like Leonard. Then go ask Napoles why, if he was so worried about his purses, was he so intent on fighting in Mexico? Once again we have a decision by Napoles effecting his ability to earn and then one of his ignorant fanboys come on here and cry and moan about the opportunities he didnt have. Its all there in the record but its a lot easier for an ignorant pinhead like yourself to blame everyone else than admit that maybe your hero wasnt a whole lot smarter than you, which would explain some of his block headed decisions and the result they had on his career.

But again, none of that has anything to do with the fact that Napoles wasnt a better WW than Leonard and didnt have a better resume. You were the one that brought that up and tried to somehow extrapolate the idea that Napoles supposedly having it so hard somehow made for a tougher fight for Leonard. That shit doesnt mean anything. Once you get in the ring you dont bring the ghetto with you or your 26 brothers and sisters that you share a shack with. Its you, your two fists, and the other guy. You act like Leonard never fought anyone who had it tough. Most boxers have it tougher than the average Joe. Thats a given. Being poor isnt going to win fights for Napoles.

[elmersalsa]

Mantequilla made $20,000 when he challenged world welterweight champion Curtis Cokes.

Another FACT FOR KLOMPTON: Mantequilla fought 9 welterweights (WINNING ALL OF THEM) since 1967, before getting a title shot That he did not deserved a title shot at welterweight IS ANOTHER LIE BY KLOMPTON....KEEP DEFENDING AMERICAN FIGHTERS, OK KLOMPTON?

Youre pathetic Salsa. Cokes was the champion. Why wouldnt he get more money? Furthermore, go look it up and come back here and tell me who these top welterweights were that he beat to get his title shot. If you cant answer that question take your broken english back to whatever hole you were shipped here from and spend your time there bitching about the USA. While your at it why dont you completely ignore the fact that Napoles was fighting for smaller purses a full decade before Leonard was and there is this thing called inflation (a concept too difficult to explain to someone who cant even speak the language) needless to say you might want to go study the economics of the 1970s to try to understand why purses skyrocketed during that period when discussing a mega star like Leonard. Then go ask Napoles why, if he was so worried about his purses, was he so intent on fighting in Mexico? Once again we have a decision by Napoles effecting his ability to earn and then one of his ignorant fanboys come on here and cry and moan about the opportunities he didnt have. Its all there in the record but its a lot easier for an ignorant pinhead like yourself to blame everyone else than admit that maybe your hero wasnt a whole lot smarter than you, which would explain some of his block headed decisions and the result they had on his career.

But again, none of that has anything to do with the fact that Napoles wasnt a better WW than Leonard and didnt have a better resume. You were the one that brought that up and tried to somehow extrapolate the idea that Napoles supposedly having it so hard somehow made for a tougher fight for Leonard. That poo doesnt mean anything. Once you get in the ring you dont bring the ghetto with you or your 26 brothers and sisters that you share a shack with. Its you, your two fists, and the other guy. You act like Leonard never fought anyone who had it tough. Most boxers have it tougher than the average Joe. Thats a given. Being poor isnt going to win fights for Napoles.

You was the first to LIE BLUNTLY that Mantequilla did not fight a welterweight fight to get a title shot. I showed you that he fought 9 welterweights! Now, they got to be in the top 10? Well, why any of the top 10 fighters made a fight with him? The evidence is clear that he was DUCKED BY THE TOP CONTENDERS AND CHAMPIONS OF HIS DAY.

Now, answer me what fighter makes $40,000 in his first fight? Why everybody in here is turning their backs, including yourself? Ain't that a privilege? Let us judge the matter. So it was right for him to make $40,000 dollars?

Now you want to accuse for my English? Is that a good way to defend yourself? How many languages do you speak? If you are European, you should be speaking more than one language. Maybe you are American and can speak just only one. But that is not the point. Even with my broken English, I AM WHUPPING YOUR ASS in this subject. You are trying to EQUALLY HAVE BOTH OF THESE FIGHTERS THAT THEIR ROAD TO THE TOP WAS THE SAME....SEE HOW PATHETIC YOU LOOK?

And so what if Mantequilla went to Mexico? If he would have gone to America, still his pay would have not be better than a fighter that made $40,000 in his first fight. The fact is that Napoles had to fight over 50 fights to get that amount of money.

Everybody turn their backs that Leonard got THE GOLD SPOON
Everybody turn their backs that Mantequilla had a TOUGHER ROAD
I guess the other fighters from another nation does not matter, unless, if it is the great Muhammad Ali and the Americans.

Now, you are coming with INFLATION in this subject? Well, how come the great Marvin Hagler, AN AMERICAN, did not get $40,000 in his first fight? How come he had to endure and suffer for so long for BIG PAYDAYS? Not only just him. Why the rest of the boxers in the boxing world had to suffer LONG FOR A BIG PAYDAY? They were Sugar Ray's comtemporaries.

HE GOT THE GOLD SPOON...DEAL WITH IT!
HE IS AN AMERICAN....DEAL WITH IT!
HE HAD AN EASIER ROAD THAN MANTEQUILLA....DEAL WITH IT!

[elmersalsa]

I am just enjoying this and destroying all the LIES OF KLOMPTON. THE MORE HE SPEAKS, THE MORE PATHETIC HE LOOKS DEFENDING AMERICAN FIGHTERS.

[elmersalsa]

COKES made $80k for defending the title against Mantequilla. Mantequilla made $20K. Leonard made $1,000,000 dollars when he challenged the great Wilfred Benitez. That is not a privilege, then, what is?

I don't understand what that has to do with a fight of Leonard vs Napoles. To me that is totally irrelevant.

Styles makes fights not money.

Read the whole thread and understand what was the subject about, sir.

[klompton]

Mantequilla made $20,000 when he challenged world welterweight champion Curtis Cokes.

Another FACT FOR KLOMPTON: Mantequilla fought 9 welterweights (WINNING ALL OF THEM) since 1967, before getting a title shot That he did not deserved a title shot at welterweight IS ANOTHER LIE BY KLOMPTON....KEEP DEFENDING AMERICAN FIGHTERS, OK KLOMPTON?

Youre pathetic Salsa. Cokes was the champion. Why wouldnt he get more money? Furthermore, go look it up and come back here and tell me who these top welterweights were that he beat to get his title shot. If you cant answer that question take your broken english back to whatever hole you were shipped here from and spend your time there bitching about the USA. While your at it why dont you completely ignore the fact that Napoles was fighting for smaller purses a full decade before Leonard was and there is this thing called inflation (a concept too difficult to explain to someone who cant even speak the language) needless to say you might want to go study the economics of the 1970s to try to understand why purses skyrocketed during that period when discussing a mega star like Leonard. Then go ask Napoles why, if he was so worried about his purses, was he so intent on fighting in Mexico? Once again we have a decision by Napoles effecting his ability to earn and then one of his ignorant fanboys come on here and cry and moan about the opportunities he didnt have. Its all there in the record but its a lot easier for an ignorant pinhead like yourself to blame everyone else than admit that maybe your hero wasnt a whole lot smarter than you, which would explain some of his block headed decisions and the result they had on his career.

But again, none of that has anything to do with the fact that Napoles wasnt a better WW than Leonard and didnt have a better resume. You were the one that brought that up and tried to somehow extrapolate the idea that Napoles supposedly having it so hard somehow made for a tougher fight for Leonard. That poo doesnt mean anything. Once you get in the ring you dont bring the ghetto with you or your 26 brothers and sisters that you share a shack with. Its you, your two fists, and the other guy. You act like Leonard never fought anyone who had it tough. Most boxers have it tougher than the average Joe. Thats a given. Being poor isnt going to win fights for Napoles.

You was the first to LIE BLUNTLY that Mantequilla did not fight a welterweight fight to get a title shot. I showed you that he fought 9 welterweights! Now, they got to be in the top 10? Well, why any of the top 10 fighters made a fight with him? The evidence is clear that he was DUCKED BY THE TOP CONTENDERS AND CHAMPIONS OF HIS DAY.

Now, answer me what fighter makes $40,000 in his first fight? Why everybody in here is turning their backs, including yourself? Ain't that a privilege? Let us judge the matter. So it was right for him to make $40,000 dollars?

Now you want to accuse for my English? Is that a good way to defend yourself? How many languages do you speak? If you are European, you should be speaking more than one language. Maybe you are American and can speak just only one. But that is not the point. Even with my broken English, I AM WHUPPING YOUR ASS in this subject. You are trying to EQUALLY HAVE BOTH OF THESE FIGHTERS THAT THEIR ROAD TO THE TOP WAS THE SAME....SEE HOW PATHETIC YOU LOOK?

And so what if Mantequilla went to Mexico? If he would have gone to America, still his pay would have not be better than a fighter that made $40,000 in his first fight. The fact is that Napoles had to fight over 50 fights to get that amount of money.

Everybody turn their backs that Leonard got THE GOLD SPOON
Everybody turn their backs that Mantequilla had a TOUGHER ROAD
I guess the other fighters from another nation does not matter, unless, if it is the great Muhammad Ali and the Americans.

Now, you are coming with INFLATION in this subject? Well, how come the great Marvin Hagler, AN AMERICAN, did not get $40,000 in his first fight? How come he had to endure and suffer for so long for BIG PAYDAYS? Not only just him. Why the rest of the boxers in the boxing world had to suffer LONG FOR A BIG PAYDAY? They were Sugar Ray's comtemporaries.

HE GOT THE GOLD SPOON...DEAL WITH IT!
HE IS AN AMERICAN....DEAL WITH IT!
HE HAD AN EASIER ROAD THAN MANTEQUILLA....DEAL WITH IT!

You say its clear that he was ducked at WW and that he fought all of these welterweights to get a title shot then prove it. List me the 9 amazing welterweights that he fought that showed a deserved a title shot at WW. Because if you start listing of JWW and LW we are talking about apples and oranges. Show me the WWs that ducked him.

Marvin Hagler didnt get $40,000 because he was a nobody when he turned pro. Just like Napoles. You seem to have a problem with having to work hard to get rewards. Leonard worked hard and achieved star status as an amateur. That wasnt handed to him whether you want to believe it or not. The guy made himself a star. Hagler didnt have a flashy style, didnt have a great personality, and wasnt the leading amateur, hence he didnt make a lot turning pro. If I have to spell this out for you why are you even here? Its like trying to explain boxing 101 to a 2 year old. Napoles turned pro in obscurity in revolution era Cuba. Not exactly conducive to making a lot of money. He then moved to Mexico, not exactly conducive to making a lot of money. He then bounced from weight class to class and was ducked by a bevy JWW and LW fighters (none of whom were American BTW) before being granted a shot at a title he was not ranked for and not the mandatory for. So I dont get what your outrage is about.

[Broomhall]

You might to go back and read some of the posts. Broomhall is arguing that Napoles has the better resume; elmer (big surprise) is basically saying the same. It's absolutely ridiculous.

They also come up with BS that Leonard had "special priviledges." Since he was a Gold Medal winner (I guess they just hand those out to whoever is first in line) Just ignore the 8 Top 10 contenders that he beat on his way up (the same # as Napoles did in his first 11 years) and that (unlike Napoles) he had to beat a great fighter to win the title.

I don't see it as a blowout win; I don't think anyone has said that. Napoles was a great fighter; Leonard was clearly better.

Napoles was fighting at a time (in my opinion) when to be a welterweight contender you had to be better than in the 70's. A lot of tough quality pros when losses dont mean what they mean now. So the quality of the resume is debatable.

Leonard clearly had promotional advantages. Marketing mans dream.

The last statement subjective. No problems with most people saying Leonard was better, and no worries about knowing I am way in the minority, but I just think that the 60s was tougher than the 70s.

AMEN. Broomhall, YOU ARE THE GREATEST!!!

Thanks man

[Idisagree]

COKES made $80k for defending the title against Mantequilla. Mantequilla made $20K. Leonard made $1,000,000 dollars when he challenged the great Wilfred Benitez. That is not a privilege, then, what is?

I don't understand what that has to do with a fight of Leonard vs Napoles. To me that is totally irrelevant.

Styles makes fights not money.

Read the whole thread and understand what was the subject about, sir.

Mr. Elmersalsa,

I read the entire thread and it seems you want to argue that Napoles had a tougher road and as result that made him a better fighter than Leonard. You seem to try to convince people that Napoles was tougher than Leonard and would have beaten him because he struggle to come here to the US. It seems that you also want to correlate money with the outcome of the fight. That makes absolutely no-sense to me. If that is not what you are trying to say, then explaine to me what Leonard making more money than Napoles has to do with a fight of Leonard vs Napoles.

You seem to have a problem with understanding economics that klompton is pointing out to you. I suggest you pick up an economics book and read it because what he said is accurate. But that is non-boxing related just like you bringing up Napoles struggles to make it to the US.

If you believe that Napoles would beat Leonard, then explain how he would have beaten Leonard style wise not monetary wise.

What is it that you are trying to say by saying that Napoles had a tougher road and how is that related to a fight between them?

[Broomhall]

Mr. Elmersalsa,

I read the entire thread and it seems you want to argue that Napoles had a tougher road and as result that made him a better fighter than Leonard. You seem to try to convince people that Napoles was tougher than Leonard and would have beaten him because he struggle to come here to the US. It seems that you also want to correlate money with the outcome of the fight. That makes absolutely no-sense to me. If that is not what you are trying to say, then explaine to me what Leonard making more money than Napoles has to do with a fight of Leonard vs Napoles.

You seem to have a problem with understanding economics that klompton is pointing out to you. I suggest you pick up an economics book and read it because what he said is accurate. But that is non-boxing related just like you bringing up Napoles struggles to make it to the US.

If you believe that Napoles would beat Leonard, then explain how he would have beaten Leonard style wise not monetary wise.

What is it that you are trying to say by saying that Napoles had a tougher road and how is that related to a fight between them?[/quote]

First of all Napoles had to have over 60 fights to get his shot. Fighting in clubs and dives. leonard was a headliner from the start world title shot in what 27 28 fights? There is NO doubt that with Leonards looks, personality and charisma (not to mention beating a cuban) he was ALWAYs the standout golden boy of that era-more so possibly than any gold medalist in US boxing history-even more than the young Cassius Clay.

Napoles had to fight whoever , wherever for peanuts. leonards opponents picked and planned by his promotional outfit.

look at leonards pre Benitez resume-some good fighters on there, but nothing better than Napoles (several of the same oppononts, only older) and I dont think the strength in depth was the same in the 70s. The only real standout welters that Leonard beat was Hearns (who I think would have beaten Napoles) and Benitez.

There were no star welterweights at the time Napoles was active, but the game was different then. contenders would fight each other, the 0 wasnt important.

Stylewise napoles had good movement, good jab, fast hands, good body shots, good ring generalship. You look at Forrest/Mosely for an example of how a fighter who does the basics very well can upset the applecart.