Jose Napoles

[Expug]

Hes an all time great.
Id have him in my top ten at welter.
Id say his only weakness as a fighter was his tendency to get busted up a bit.
He was a great boxer / puncher.

[Expug]

LC Morgan stopped him on cuts too.
The reason I consider it his only weakness is because he was stopped on cuts by guys he shouldnt of had any problems with.
Remember I said he was an all time great though.
In my top ten for sure.

[zuru]

in response to Decagon:

I definitely agree,if not for his tender skin,and tendency to cut,he was AWESOME! I rate him as high as Robinson,if not for that weakness,
zuru

[Ezzard]

I think the competition for #2 at this weight is extremely fierce. My candidates are:

Griffith
Armstrong
Leonard
Napoles
Walker

and possibly Ryan

I wouldn't argue with any of those.

[dr_devious]

Although I dont like him much, I'd put Ray Leonard at number 2 in the all-time welterweight list. His wins over Hearns (particularly), Duran and Benitez make his resume at welterweight better than Napoles.

[silkov]

I can't think of a good reason to rank anyone other than Robinson above him.

I'm a huge Napoles fan but think that Armstrong and Gavilan should pip him... both would probably have been a bit too relentless and durable for Jose.... you've got Oscar too high also and Mickey Walker was at his best at 160...

[elmersalsa]

He was an exceptional boxer. One of the all time greats??? yes
One of the 50 top greatest fighters pound per pound??? no doubt about that. He had a great longevity and fought 18 world championship bouts, losing only in 3 occasions. Would have been rated higher in the pound per pound list if he would have beaten Carlos Monzon.

Also won more than 75 bouts and only lost 7 times. Nobody gave him a title shot when he was younger in his prime, which we never know how much greater he would have been if given a title opportunity much sooner.

At welterweight, I got him at #5 or #6

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Sugar Ray Leonard
4. Emile Griffith
5. Kid Gavilan
6. Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles

[silkov]

He was an exceptional boxer. One of the all time greats??? yes
One of the 50 top greatest fighters pound per pound??? no doubt about that. He had a great longevity and fought 18 world championship bouts, losing only in 3 occasions. Would have been rated higher in the pound per pound list if he would have beaten Carlos Monzon.

Also won more than 75 bouts and only lost 7 times. Nobody gave him a title shot when he was younger in his prime, which we never know how much greater he would have been if given a title opportunity much sooner.

At welterweight, I got him at #5 or #6

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Sugar Ray Leonard
4. Emile Griffith
5. Kid Gavilan
6. Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles

I agree, he was probably already past his best when he finally got the title, which makes his reign even more impressive... I 'd rate him over Griffith, he beat him fairly clearly in their fight....

[JC]

13. Jack Britton
14. Tommy Ryan
15. Oscar de la Hoya
16. Joe Walcott
17. Floyd Mayweather
18. “Nonpareil” Jack Dempsey
19. Aaron Brown (The “Dixie Kid”)
20. Jimmy McClarnin
21. Ted Lewis

Dec your list reminded be of a question. I've always wondered why Britton is always ranked quite a way ahead of Lewis at Welterweigh. I've never seen them ranked the other way round and there's usually a fair bit of daylight between them. They had very similar careers and obviously seemed to fight on pretty even terms. Not saying it shouldn't be just wondering why.

[enrique]

Luis Rodriguez would have sliced Napoles to shreds, being that Napoles cut fairly easy and Luis had pinpoint accuracy. Gavilan's speed would have been insurmountable for Jose....

[silkov]

Luis Rodriguez would have sliced Napoles to shreds, being that Napoles cut fairly easy and Luis had pinpoint accuracy. Gavilan's speed would have been insurmountable for Jose....

But Napoles skills and power would have given Luis problems... I think at his best he would have been too much for Rodriguez...

[Ambling Alp]

Although I dont like him much, I'd put Ray Leonard at number 2 in the all-time welterweight list. His wins over Hearns (particularly), Duran and Benitez make his resume at welterweight better than Napoles.

You deserve credit for being objective. A lot of people are unable to rate a fighter that they don't like as highly as they should.
Overall, Leonard beat better fighters than Napoles did. Leonard's loss to Duran isn't nearly as bad as Napoles loss to Backus.
Leonard also beat 9 Top 10 contenders before he got a title shot. Sugar Ray Robinson is the only welterweight that can logically be put above Leonard.
No question that Napoles was a great fighter. It's hard to say where he should rank. Probably anywhere beteeen #3 and #7. I have him #6 just behind Armstrong,Ross,Gavilan and just ahead of Griffith, but it's very close.

[KOJOE90]

Some say Jose Angel Napoles was even better at Lightweight although never having see him fight at that weight I cannot comment, just something I have heard in several places.

[silkov]

Some say Jose Angel Napoles was even better at Lightweight although never having see him fight at that weight I cannot comment, just something I have heard in several places.

Well when you think about it the likes of Leonard and Griffith got their title shots in their early 20s while Jose had to wait till he was 29 and had moved up to Welterweight, its very probable that he was already past his best by the time he won the title, ...I've also heard that he used to party hard when he won the title which was why he was less than 100% in some of his defences... his fights with Lopez for instance, their first fight was very tough and competitive, in their second fight though Napoles was much sharper and pretty much destroyed Lopez that time... same with the Lewis and Backus fights...

[enrique]

Napoles started as a lightweight and was a natural 140 pounder. He moved up looking for a title shot but could make 140. He was a jr welter fattened up a few pounds.

He was spectacular in his fight with Carlos Morocho Hernandez and was truly a fairly complete fighter. I believe however that Gavilan's speed would have been too much for Napoles -who had fast hands but not fast feet- Both Gavilan and Rodriguez had the jabs and speed to have sliced up Napoles.

I've never met Napoles but I know dozens who knew him -Frankie Otero, Johnny Sarduy, Puppy Garcia, Florentino Fernandez, etc.- and the picure of Napoles as a human being varies from a consumate profesional to a surly, somewhat prejudiced person.

At 140 I would dream of a Napoles-Loche fight.... that would be tops!!!

[silkov]

Was Napoles as troubled by cuts when he was younger though?... I know he lost an early fight on cuts, but other than that I've always considered that he was already well into his mid30s by the time of the Backus and Muniz fights when he was cut up badly and that this vulnerbility was partly due to age and ring wear. Looking at Napoles its easy to see him at 140 or even 135 as he was only 5 feet 7 and certainly in his latter reign looked quite stocky... I can imagine that his weight went up and down quite a bit and this probably added to his tendancy to swell up and cut... Rodriguez is probably one of the most underrated and overlooked 147 champs...

[enrique]

Napoles did cut early in his career and had scar tissue by his late twenties.

Incidentally, Napoles was taught to box by former Cuban national champion Kid Bururu, a very good technical boxer who had a very long career -check out his record. He taught him and guided him through the amateurs until Napoles headed for a pro career in Havana.

[Broncano]

Napoles did cut early in his career and had scar tissue by his late twenties.

Incidentally, Napoles was taught to box by former Cuban national champion Kid Bururu, a very good technical boxer who had a very long career -check out his record. He taught him and guided him through the amateurs until Napoles headed for a pro career in Havana.

Bururu's record reads like a who's who of Cuban boxing greats. Looks like Mantequilla was in very good hands.

[Victor*KC]

1-SRR

2- Henry Armstrong

3- Jose Angel Napoles

4- Sugar Ray Leonard

5-Emile Griffith My Top 5..

[silkov]

Although I dont like him much, I'd put Ray Leonard at number 2 in the all-time welterweight list. His wins over Hearns (particularly), Duran and Benitez make his resume at welterweight better than Napoles.

I'd had Leonard at #2 for as long as I can remember, but he only spent a few years at welterweight; two-and-a-half years on the top. I wouldn't rank Salvador Sanchez #2 at featherweight either, because his prime was simply too short.

I can't think of a good reason to rank anyone other than Robinson above him.

I'm a huge Napoles fan but think that Armstrong and Gavilan should pip him... both would probably have been a bit too relentless and durable for Jose.... you've got Oscar too high also and Mickey Walker was at his best at 160...

Yeah, but you suck at picking fights. Oscar beat some pretty good competition, and I think Walker's true legacy as a fighter should be at 147. That's where he beat the best competition, and that's where he was champion the longest.

13. Jack Britton
14. Tommy Ryan
15. Oscar de la Hoya
16. Joe Walcott
17. Floyd Mayweather
18. “Nonpareil” Jack Dempsey
19. Aaron Brown (The “Dixie Kid”)
20. Jimmy McClarnin
21. Ted Lewis

Dec your list reminded be of a question. I've always wondered why Britton is always ranked quite a way ahead of Lewis at Welterweigh. I've never seen them ranked the other way round and there's usually a fair bit of daylight between them. They had very similar careers and obviously seemed to fight on pretty even terms. Not saying it shouldn't be just wondering why.

Interesting question. The old historians always ranked them #3 and #4. I gave Britton the nod because he beat better competition, and he got the better of their series. Also, many historians try to avoid "clumping up" different eras. It makes it look like you suddenly said, "oh, I better rank a bunch of fighters from the 1920s." It's wrong, but it makes the list look better.

Tell me the greats that Oscar beat then wise guy, you just rate him so high because he's about the only one you have on video. Also anyone whop knows anything about Walker knows that he was better at middle than at 147 and he was also champ for longer at 160 (5 years) while he was champ at 147 for just 4 years. He was also never beaten as champ at 160. I know its hard for you but try and get some facts right sometimes...
I had reservations about coming on this thread as it was done by you but I thought maybe you'd dried out a bit and was ready for some interesting sober debate on Napoles... then you come on here and start with the schoolboy stuff and show me how wrong I was!... thanks for not disapointing me!.... keep popping the pills man!...

[dr_devious]

De La Hoya seems a bit high to me........Trinidads record at WW is better. PBF shouldnt be ranked top 20 at WW yet, hes never beat anyone of note at this weight yet

[silkov]

De La Hoya seems a bit high to me........Trinidads record at WW is better. PBF shouldnt be ranked top 20 at WW yet, hes never beat anyone of note at this weight yet

Yeah, it makes me laugh when people call Oscar a 'great' welterweight... he would have been just another contender in the 60s, 70s or 80s... definately the most overrated boxer of our time... though Jones and Trinidad come close...

[Ezzard]

De La Hoya seems a bit high to me........Trinidads record at WW is better. PBF shouldnt be ranked top 20 at WW yet, hes never beat anyone of note at this weight yet

Yeah, it makes me laugh when people call Oscar a 'great' welterweight... he would have been just another contender in the 60s, 70s or 80s... definately the most overrated boxer of our time... though Jones and Trinidad come close...

At least DLH took big fights and big challenges. I respect him for fighting everyone, even fighters who were hard stylistically for him.

I think he was really a force below 147. What's your take on his earlier career?

[Ezzard]

Although I dont like him much, I'd put Ray Leonard at number 2 in the all-time welterweight list. His wins over Hearns (particularly), Duran and Benitez make his resume at welterweight better than Napoles.

You deserve credit for being objective. A lot of people are unable to rate a fighter that they don't like as highly as they should.
Overall, Leonard beat better fighters than Napoles did. Leonard's loss to Duran isn't nearly as bad as Napoles loss to Backus.
Leonard also beat 9 Top 10 contenders before he got a title shot. Sugar Ray Robinson is the only welterweight that can logically be put above Leonard.
No question that Napoles was a great fighter. It's hard to say where he should rank. Probably anywhere beteeen #3 and #7. I have him #6 just behind Armstrong,Ross,Gavilan and just ahead of Griffith, but it's very close.

Alp

There's a great argument for Leonard at #2, no doubt... But do you really think that anyone who doesn't rank him #2 is by definition anti-Leonard? Come on, leave the details for a moment and look at the competition...

Napoles, Griffith, Walker, Armstrong are all P4P greats...

IMO ranking is all about subjective opinion. Sometimes I think we react emotionally to a fighter and construct an argument to convince ourselves after the fact.

[silkov]

De La Hoya seems a bit high to me........Trinidads record at WW is better. PBF shouldnt be ranked top 20 at WW yet, hes never beat anyone of note at this weight yet

Yeah, it makes me laugh when people call Oscar a 'great' welterweight... he would have been just another contender in the 60s, 70s or 80s... definately the most overrated boxer of our time... though Jones and Trinidad come close...

At least DLH took big fights and big challenges. I respect him for fighting everyone, even fighters who were hard stylistically for him.

I think he was really a force below 147. What's your take on his earlier career?

He cherry picked a lot of his fights though, even below 147... and a lot of his competition has been just average.... I didnt think he beat Whitaker either in their fight....