Welterweights: Sugar Ray Leonard vs Jose Napoles

[klompton]

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.

You mean that fight where the natural welterweight used his height and reach advantages to time the smaller ex lightweight? Then add in that Leonard (who in this scenario would have been the taller fighter) was also the faster guy and your analogy actually works doubly against you.

[Ambling Alp II]

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?

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.[/quote]

For the umpteenth time, nobody is arguing that Naploes should have got a title shot sooner.

However, you and elmer keep going on about how easy Leonard had it. He beat 8 ranked opponents and a fringe middleweight contender (who gave Hagler a tough fight) before getting a title shot. He had to beat a great fighter (Benitez) to win it. How is that an easy road?

How is this an American thing? Cuevas was 15-6 and beat no contenders and got a title shot. Palomino beat no contenders before he got a title shot. Benitez beat no contenders before he got a title shot. Leonard beat 8 and somehow he got a free ride. Please.

Only Hearns and Benitez were standouts? Duran was a standout welterweight. Watch his fights at welterweight. He easily beat Palomino at welterweight.
Duran would have beat any welterweight Napoles ever beat. So would Hearns. So would Benitez.

Ultimately, your argument to rate Napoles higher is that 4th best welterweight that Napoles beat might be better than the 4th best that Leonard beat. Great argument.

[Broomhall]

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.

You mean that fight where the natural welterweight used his height and reach advantages to time the smaller ex lightweight? Then add in that Leonard (who in this scenario would have been the taller fighter) was also the faster guy and your analogy actually works doubly against you.

Not really. Mosely was by far the more fancied fighter and overwhelming favourite. Forrest did have some physical advantages, although Mosely himself was a biggish and strong welter. Mosely turned pro at 136, Forrest at 140, and they had both fought each other at light welter in the ams so I dont think the little lightweight, big welterweight analogy holds up really.

Also Alp Duran beat leonard. Got outpsyched in the return. I think Napoles also has a good shot against Duran.

[Ambling Alp II]

Yes Leonard lost to Duran, I was aware of that.
The only loss he had at welterweight was a competitive fight against a great fighter.
Napoles lost to Billy Backus, huge difference.

Leonard pscyhed out Duran? I don't know. I do know that Leonard convincingly outboxed Duran in the rematch and Duran quit. (cue elmer's crybaby excuses). I don't think Napoles could have outboxed him that badly.

Maybe Napoles would have beat Duran; hard to say. Leonard could have fought Backus 20 times and he would not have lost to him.

Leonard beat Duran,Hearns,and Benitez; all much better than Napoles. This is a slam dunk. I can't believe you can't see this.

[Idisagree]

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.


So what? How does that affects the outcome of the fight? Seems to me you are trying to argue that Napoles deserve more a title shot than Leonard. Leonard fought his way to the top at the professional level by beating everyone put in front of him and in impressive fashion. Surely you don’t want to argue that Leonard did not display a tremendous amount of skills. On the other hand Napoles had some very bad losses that did not help him. Leonard never lost to any mediocre fighter in his prime and Napoles did.

Leonard amateur career did help him building his name at the professional level, but he earned his way to a championship fight with his skills. Like it or not Leonard did not lose building up his name and Napoles did.



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

Again, so what? How does that relates to a fight vs Leonard. Are you trying to say that Leonard bought his way to championship fight? Please. How much greater was Napoles competition before he got his tittle shot? Name one elite fighter that Napoles beat before getting his title shot? I’ll be waiting.

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.

Again, name the so called greats that Napoles beat before getting a title shot. At least Leonard did not lose to any mediocre fighter.


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.

So what?

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.

This is the only paragraph that makes sense related to the outcome of the fight. I agree that Napoles had some sweet footwork, good jab, fast hands, and good ring generalship. But Leonard in my opinion had better footwork, better hand speed, and better ring generalship. Both had great chins but Napoles was susceptible to cuts.

Like I said before, Could Napoles win? Yes, it is possible but not likely.

Seems to me that you and Elmersalsa are arguing that because Leonard was a star that he got no skills and couldn't beat a guy who had a tougher road coming up such as Napoles. That is illogical.

[klompton]

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.

You mean that fight where the natural welterweight used his height and reach advantages to time the smaller ex lightweight? Then add in that Leonard (who in this scenario would have been the taller fighter) was also the faster guy and your analogy actually works doubly against you.

Not really. Mosely was by far the more fancied fighter and overwhelming favourite. Forrest did have some physical advantages, although Mosely himself was a biggish and strong welter. Mosely turned pro at 136, Forrest at 140, and they had both fought each other at light welter in the ams so I dont think the little lightweight, big welterweight analogy holds up really.

Also Alp Duran beat leonard. Got outpsyched in the return. I think Napoles also has a good shot against Duran.

Vernon Forrest had a 3 1/2 inch height advantage over Mosley, and a 2 inch reach advantage. Sugar Ray Leonard had a 3 inch height advantage and 2 inch reach advantage over Napoles. Mosley had moved up to WW from LW. Napoles moved up to WW from LW. Mosley was considered a fast, skilled boxer puncher. Napoles was considered a fast, skilled boxer puncher. Forrest was considered a boxer who worked behind his jab. Leonard was considered a boxer who worked behind his jab. The difference is that your analogy confuses the roles of the two fighters by comparing what Napoles could do against Leonard to what Forrest did against Mosley. In reality Leonard is actually more in the Forrest role only he his much more talented and much more devestating. That doesnt bode well for Napoles.

[Broomhall]

Absolute nonsense

[Ambling Alp II]

No, most of it does makes sense.
What doesn't make sense is thinking Napoles record at welterweight was impressive than Leonard's.

[Broomhall]

No, most of it does makes sense.
What doesn't make sense is thinking Napoles record at welterweight was impressive than Leonard's.

More impressive. 17 world title fights over 6 years, beats Leonards 7 over 3 years, and really only Hearns stand out who leonard was losing to and Duran who beat him.

[Ambling Alp II]

Yes 17 is more than 7. So what? It's who you beat, not now many you beat.
Are you going to argue that Cuevas and Palomino were better as well? After all, they had more title fights. Why even bother debating who is the best. Just look at how many title defenses a guy has. I guess Larry Holmes is the #2 heavyweight of all time. The big wins over Scott LeDoux, Scott Frank, and Lorenzo Zanon help prove the point.


And yes besides Hearns, Duran and Benitez stand out. Who did Napoles beat that stands out? Curtis Cokes?
They were all clearly better than anyone Napoles beat.
Yes Leonard lost to Duran. And Napoles lost to the legendary Billy Backus.

[Idisagree]

If It is based only on title defenses then Samuel Serrano should have been inducted into the HOF many years ago. I agree with Ambling Alp II it is the quality of opposition.

Realistically speaking Curtis was at the end of his career. Napoles did not beat a prime Curtis. His best win was Emile Griffith. After that his resume becomes average.

Compare that to in their prime Hearns, Duran, and Benitez. Not close enough. Leonard record at welter is better in terms of competition.

[klompton]

If It is based only on title defenses then Samuel Serrano should have been inducted into the HOF many years ago. I agree with Ambling Alp II it is the quality of opposition.

Realistically speaking Curtis was at the end of his career. Napoles did not beat a prime Curtis. His best win was Emile Griffith. After that his resume becomes average.

Compare that to in their prime Hearns, Duran, and Benitez. Not close enough. Leonard record at welter is better in terms of competition.

I dont think his best win was Griffith. Griffith was weight drained and already past his prime at that point.

Its ludicrous to suggest that Napoles quantity trumps Leonards quality.

Alp said that Napoles lost to Backus but he also lost to Muniz. He just got an absurd gift in that fight. Thats the upside to fighting for peanuts in Mexico, you can have friendly officiating, home court advantage, a crowd of fans screaming your name, and a less than favorable environment for your foe. These guys dont seem to want to acknowledge that when complaining about Napoles being "forced" to fight for nothing in Mexico, something that was clearly his choice.

[Broomhall]

Yes 17 is more than 7. So what? It's who you beat, not now many you beat.
Are you going to argue that Cuevas and Palomino were better as well? After all, they had more title fights. Why even bother debating who is the best. Just look at how many title defenses a guy has. I guess Larry Holmes is the #2 heavyweight of all time. The big wins over Scott LeDoux, Scott Frank, and Lorenzo Zanon help prove the point.


And yes besides Hearns, Duran and Benitez stand out. Who did Napoles beat that stands out? Curtis Cokes?
They were all clearly better than anyone Napoles beat.
Yes Leonard lost to Duran. And Napoles lost to the legendary Billy Backus.

Napoles had some good wins against some top guys, c,mon man you know that. Most people have Leonard around top 4 welterweight and Napoles 6-8. They wouldnt rate him so high if he beat tomato cans.

As I said Hearns stands out, but he was beating Leonard and won the return in real terms, and Duran beat leonard. Backus got lucky with a cuts win.

[klompton]

Yes 17 is more than 7. So what? It's who you beat, not now many you beat.
Are you going to argue that Cuevas and Palomino were better as well? After all, they had more title fights. Why even bother debating who is the best. Just look at how many title defenses a guy has. I guess Larry Holmes is the #2 heavyweight of all time. The big wins over Scott LeDoux, Scott Frank, and Lorenzo Zanon help prove the point.


And yes besides Hearns, Duran and Benitez stand out. Who did Napoles beat that stands out? Curtis Cokes?
They were all clearly better than anyone Napoles beat.
Yes Leonard lost to Duran. And Napoles lost to the legendary Billy Backus.

Napoles had some good wins against some top guys, c,mon man you know that. Most people have Leonard around top 4 welterweight and Napoles 6-8. They wouldnt rate him so high if he beat tomato cans.

As I said Hearns stands out, but he was beating Leonard and won the return in real terms, and Duran beat leonard. Backus got lucky with a cuts win.

Your moving the goal post again. Nobody said he didnt have some good wins. But overall his level of competition was lower than Leonards and prior to winning the WW title he faced no WW contenders and had done nothing to earn his shot. Period. If you dont think Ring Magazine strategically placed fighters in its magazine or rankings just to broaden its appeal abroad then you dont know what your talking about. It had been doing that since at least the 1930s. Why Napoles is ranked high by some at WW is based on what he did AFTER he won the title not before and its undisputable that who he beat and lost to at WW were at least a level or two below who Leonard beat and/or lost to at WW and thats the crux of this post and something you cant seem to grasp. Jose Napoles has exactly one guy on his resume at WW that is the HOF: Curtis Cokes. Cokes is at best a lower tier HOF inductee and someone Id have a hard time calling an all time great. He was a good not great champion. Leonard has Duran, Hearns, and Benitez, right there you talking about three guys, each of whom tower above Cokes.

[Broomhall]

Yes 17 is more than 7. So what? It's who you beat, not now many you beat.
Are you going to argue that Cuevas and Palomino were better as well? After all, they had more title fights. Why even bother debating who is the best. Just look at how many title defenses a guy has. I guess Larry Holmes is the #2 heavyweight of all time. The big wins over Scott LeDoux, Scott Frank, and Lorenzo Zanon help prove the point.


And yes besides Hearns, Duran and Benitez stand out. Who did Napoles beat that stands out? Curtis Cokes?
They were all clearly better than anyone Napoles beat.
Yes Leonard lost to Duran. And Napoles lost to the legendary Billy Backus.

Napoles had some good wins against some top guys, c,mon man you know that. Most people have Leonard around top 4 welterweight and Napoles 6-8. They wouldnt rate him so high if he beat tomato cans.

As I said Hearns stands out, but he was beating Leonard and won the return in real terms, and Duran beat leonard. Backus got lucky with a cuts win.

Your moving the goal post again. Nobody said he didnt have some good wins. But overall his level of competition was lower than Leonards and prior to winning the WW title he faced no WW contenders and had done nothing to earn his shot. Period. If you dont think Ring Magazine strategically placed fighters in its magazine or rankings just to broaden its appeal abroad then you dont know what your talking about. It had been doing that since at least the 1930s. Why Napoles is ranked high by some at WW is based on what he did AFTER he won the title not before and its undisputable that who he beat and lost to at WW were at least a level or two below who Leonard beat and/or lost to at WW and thats the crux of this post and something you cant seem to grasp. Jose Napoles has exactly one guy on his resume at WW that is the HOF: Curtis Cokes. Cokes is at best a lower tier HOF inductee and someone Id have a hard time calling an all time great. He was a good not great champion. Leonard has Duran, Hearns, and Benitez, right there you talking about three guys, each of whom tower above Cokes.

I will post same response as in the other thread. Well I think rather than get into insults as this seems to be the way these things go when you get annoyed someone doesnt agree with you, you have your opinion and I have mine. I have seen Duran and Benitez fight many times, and I think Napoles (and Cokes) have a good shot with either of them at ww. Duran was a great lightweight, possibly the greatest of all time but his losses to laing, benitez and Leonard indicated he had problems with cute guys at the higher weight, so there is every reason to think that Napoles and Cokes could have given him a lot of trouble. Benitez only just squeaked by Palomino and did not stay at WW for long enough to establish himself as a great in that division.

Also I thought we were judging Leonrad/Napoles on their overall career at ww, not specific parts of it.

As I said I absolutely know mine is a minority view and I feel Hearns would beat Napoles without question, but leonard was also struggling with Hearns, but overall I geuss we will have to agree to disagree.

[Ezzard]

I do agree that Leonard's natural size advantage will be the key factor here.

I do feel Napoles's record is getting undervalued. But I guess his best pre-title wins were south of 147.

Two of the very best.

[Ambling Alp II]

Yes 17 is more than 7. So what? It's who you beat, not now many you beat.
Are you going to argue that Cuevas and Palomino were better as well? After all, they had more title fights. Why even bother debating who is the best. Just look at how many title defenses a guy has. I guess Larry Holmes is the #2 heavyweight of all time. The big wins over Scott LeDoux, Scott Frank, and Lorenzo Zanon help prove the point.


And yes besides Hearns, Duran and Benitez stand out. Who did Napoles beat that stands out? Curtis Cokes?
They were all clearly better than anyone Napoles beat.
Yes Leonard lost to Duran. And Napoles lost to the legendary Billy Backus.

Napoles had some good wins against some top guys, c,mon man you know that. Most people have Leonard around top 4 welterweight and Napoles 6-8. They wouldnt rate him so high if he beat tomato cans.

As I said Hearns stands out, but he was beating Leonard and won the return in real terms, and Duran beat leonard. Backus got lucky with a cuts win.

Wow. Unbelievable spinning.
Yes Napoles had some good wins. He beat fighters that were better than tomato cans. Never said he didn't.
He simply didn't beat nearly as good of opposition as Leonard. And no Cokes wouldn't have had a good chance to beat benitez, or Duran.

Beat Leonard in real terms? First of all, the 2nd fight wasn't as welterweight, it doesn't count when rating them at welterweight. They weighed over 160 and were past their primes. If you are counting this fight, then you have count Leonard's win over Hagler.

Second, we can talk about the Hearns-Leonard fight in another thread; it doesn't belong here.

Third, in real terms, Hearns was not beating Leonard in the first fight. Leonard should have been ahead on the scorecards. Leonard had him hurt in several rounds while Hearns never hurt him once.

Fourth, doesn't really matter. In boxing, you do get credit for winning the fight even if you are behind.

Backus just got lucky? It's your own fault if you get stopped on cuts. Napoles could have avoided getting stopped by cuts in many ways. If his defense was better, he wouldn't have got cut. If his offense was better, he could stopped Backus before getting stopped himself. You aren't just unlucky if you get stopped on cuts. You lost fair and square.

Outside of Robinson, wouldn't bet on anyone fighting Leonard's opposition at welterweight and only losing one fight.
Napoles beat some decent fighters at welter, but nothing special. There had to be at least 15 guys who could have matched or bettered his record against that competition.

[Seamus]

Clear advantage for Leonard in handspeed and defense. One could make the argument that Napoles was rather unlucky getting cut so badly in his upset loss to Billy Backus, but it should also be pointed out that the wild swinging Backus was landing shots he'd never land on Sugar Ray.

[Idisagree]

Third, in real terms, Hearns was not beating Leonard in the first fight. Leonard should have been ahead on the scorecards. Leonard had him hurt in several rounds while Hearns never hurt him once.

Ambling Alp II,

I agree with everything you said except that Leonard should have been ahead on the scorecards on the first fight vs Hearns. Hearns was out-boxing Leonard clearly. The fight in my view was not close in terms of who won more rounds. Leonard needed that KO to win the fight. Leonard hurt Hearns and won maybe two rounds clearly but Hearns was winning most of the rounds. No shame there as Hearns was an outstanding boxer too.

[Ambling Alp II]

I disagree.
Leonard won one round clearly? Going into the 14th, there were three rounds that he hurt Hearns badly and should have won the round 10-8. There were other rounds he won clearly and several others that were close.

[elmersalsa]

The great Sugar Ray Leonard cannot lose in anything.

"He had THE SAME ROAD TO GLORY JUST LIKE the great Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles, even with only 25 fights while Mantequilla had to have 50 fights to get a title shot"....Amazing stuff

[Ambling Alp II]

And for the umpteenth time nobody is saying that Leonard had to wait as long as Napoles. Nobody is saying that Napoles should not have got a title fight sooner.

What some people are saying is that Leonard did not have an easy road. He won 27-0 with 8 wins over ranked contenders when he got a title shot. Then he had to beat a great fighter to win the title. That is not an easy road.

But of course, once again you aren't reading what people are really posting.

[elmersalsa]

And for the umpteenth time nobody is saying that Leonard had to wait as long as Napoles. Nobody is saying that Napoles should not have got a title fight sooner.

What some people are saying is that Leonard did not have an easy road. He won 27-0 with 8 wins over ranked contenders when he got a title shot. Then he had to beat a great fighter to win the title. That is not an easy road.

But of course, once again you aren't reading what people are really posting.

And all I am saying that Sugar Ray had an easier road than Mantequilla to the top...How about that?

[klompton]

Ray had to actually fight contenders and earn his title shot. Hard to argue that a guy who got handed his title shot had it harder. But again, none of that had any bearing on whether or not Leonard was better... Which he was.

[elmersalsa]

Ray had to actually fight contenders and earn his title shot. Hard to argue that a guy who got handed his title shot had it harder. But again, none of that had any bearing on whether or not Leonard was better... Which he was.

Napoles was not handed a title shot either. He had a tougher road, beat 9 welterweights, lightweight to welters ducked him, and only a brave and cagey veteran, (that also had it harder than Leonard to the top)like Curtis Cokes, gave him a title shot.