Welterweights: "Mantequilla" Napoles vs "Tito

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 04 Jun 2007, 15:19

who wins this fight? I pick Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 04 Jun 2007, 16:59

Napoles would have out classed Trinidad.... Napoles in about 5 rounds, or earlier if he was in the mood...

Alabama_Man · Post by **Alabama_Man** » 04 Jun 2007, 21:16

Trinidad's pressure would be too much. Napoles folds in 6.

Alabama_Man · Post by **Alabama_Man** » 04 Jun 2007, 21:17

Decagon wrote:Trinidad had one of the best left hooks the division's seen, up there with Robinson's and Hearns's.

Hearns had a horrible left hook, even Steward admitted this.

You simply don't know much about Hearns.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 04 Jun 2007, 23:10

Tito was one of the most popular fighters of his time, but he was only a very good, not a great fighter.

Napoles schools him.

Victor*KC · Post by **Victor*KC** » 04 Jun 2007, 23:23

The only way I see tito winning this is if his able to take napoles in the later rounds tito was a very strong fighter that would go down early and put his opponents down for the count.. late in the fight

Victor*KC · Post by **Victor*KC** » 05 Jun 2007, 00:44

Decagon wrote:
Victor*KC wrote:The only way I see tito winning this is if his able to take napoles in the later rounds tito was a very strong fighter that would go down early and put his opponents down for the count.. late in the fight
Napoles didn't have a history of tiring late in fights, though - or of being knocked out. All of his stoppage losses at welterweight were due to cuts.

Im aware of that put Tito was a very strong fighter who always showed up stronger thann his opponent late in a fight

Victor*KC · Post by **Victor*KC** » 05 Jun 2007, 01:39

Decagon wrote:
Victor*KC wrote:
Decagon wrote:Napoles didn't have a history of tiring late in fights, though - or of being knocked out. All of his stoppage losses at welterweight were due to cuts.
Im aware of that put Tito was a very strong fighter who always showed up stronger thann his opponent late in a fight
Not against Wright or Hopkins, and never for 15 rounds. Napoles was simply too slick for Trinidad to knock out. Are you saying that Trinidad would outpoint him!?!?!?!?!?!

Those were against bigger men Napoles was a small 147 pounder and wasn't as strong as trinidad no I don't think he could beat Napoles just defending the fact if he does win it's in the later rounds..

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 05 Jun 2007, 05:17

Napoles. He'd have to avoid the left hook but I think he'd beat Trinidad down easier than anticipated...and I consider myself a Tito fan.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 05 Jun 2007, 07:10

Terry D wrote:
Alabama_Man wrote:
Decagon wrote:Trinidad had one of the best left hooks the division's seen, up there with Robinson's and Hearns's.
Hearns had a horrible left hook, even Steward admitted this.

You simply don't know much about Hearns.
Tell that to Schuler, speak loudly though, he is dead. Hearns had a solid left hook when using it to set the right up.

Napoles to beat Tito.

Hearns developed a potent left hook to complement the right hand and to open opponents to the laser beam right hand.

Terry has picked out a great example of Hearns setting up Shuler with left hooks.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 05 Jun 2007, 13:51

The Think-a-Tron will be utilized later today to add confusion to this hypothetical...I favor Napoles....

m1kee50 · Post by **m1kee50** » 05 Jun 2007, 14:16

BoxBuzz wrote:The Think-a-Tron will be utilized later today to add confusion to this hypothetical...I favor Napoles....

lol, according to mine, 100 fights sees Napoles win 79(23), Tito win 13(8) and 8 draws (all over 12)

average stoppage was 9.5 to 10.5 rounds

Alabama_Man · Post by **Alabama_Man** » 05 Jun 2007, 14:16

Ezzard wrote:
Terry D wrote:
Alabama_Man wrote: Hearns had a horrible left hook, even Steward admitted this.

You simply don't know much about Hearns.
Tell that to Schuler, speak loudly though, he is dead. Hearns had a solid left hook when using it to set the right up.

Napoles to beat Tito.
Hearns developed a potent left hook to complement the right hand and to open opponents to the laser beam right hand.

Terry has picked out a great example of Hearns setting up Shuler with left hooks.

You think Hearns had one of the "best left hooks the division has ever seen"?

Steward: "Hearns always had an average lefthook to the head, but his lefthook to the body was very good."

Victor*KC · Post by **Victor*KC** » 05 Jun 2007, 18:50

Decagon wrote:You think Trinidad could knock out Napoles? Trinidad could barely land on De la Hoya; he'd probably throw his arms out of their sockets against Napoles. He's not exactly Carlos Monzon, you know.

Dlh moved alot in the fight and gave tito alot of side to side movement Napoles wasn't the type of fighter to move around that muc he liked to stay infront of his opponents and make his opponents miss..

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 05 Jun 2007, 18:51

~ MIKEE ~ wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:The Think-a-Tron will be utilized later today to add confusion to this hypothetical...I favor Napoles....
lol, according to mine, 100 fights sees Napoles win 79(23), Tito win 13(8) and 8 draws (all over 12)

average stoppage was 9.5 to 10.5 rounds

You can get that information by just reading the software...you can pretty much predict how a series of one hundred fights will go....by just the ranking number alone.

The magic of boxing is that one single enounter with all it's intangibles. So the closest you can capture that by computer is to let it go one time and then let it be.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 05 Jun 2007, 20:14

and in this case it holds true to form....

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... highlight=

Borinken25 · Post by **Borinken25** » 05 Jun 2007, 22:00

Decagon wrote:
Victor*KC wrote:Dlh moved alot in the fight and gave tito alot of side to side movement Napoles wasn't the type of fighter to move around that muc he liked to stay infront of his opponents and make his opponents miss..
The problem with Trinidad was that he basically had no defense, and top defensive fighters tore him to shreds. Winky Wright and Bernard Hopkins were able to block most of Trinidad's offense without putting on their track shoes, and not just because they were bigger than Trinidad - they could box, and Napoles could too.

Napoles never face a puncher like Tito and the one time he did (Monzon) he quit on his stool. Trinidad by TKO on cuts or KO inside of 10 or 11 rounds. Napoles did not have the size or the power to hurt Tito and at 147lb Tito was much mobile that his 160 lbs version. Who was the better fighter? Napoles. But style makes fights and imo Napoles had the wrong style and he would lose every 4 out 5 times.

Victor*KC · Post by **Victor*KC** » 05 Jun 2007, 22:31

Decagon wrote:
Victor*KC wrote:Dlh moved alot in the fight and gave tito alot of side to side movement Napoles wasn't the type of fighter to move around that muc he liked to stay infront of his opponents and make his opponents miss..
The problem with Trinidad was that he basically had no defense, and top defensive fighters tore him to shreds. Winky Wright and Bernard Hopkins were able to block most of Trinidad's offense without putting on their track shoes, and not just because they were bigger than Trinidad - they could box, and Napoles could too.

B-Hop was too strong for him he even outfought the smaller Trinidad on the inside no fighter has been a able figure out the WinkyWright puzzle even though hes passed his prime.. So you really can't count those losses against him.. Trinidad didn't have a good defense but he didn't have a defense like let's say someone like Miranda.. I still think Napoles wins most of the time but your making it sounds like Trinidad could never win this fight

Borinken25 · Post by **Borinken25** » 06 Jun 2007, 10:36

Decagon wrote:Harry Simon figured out the Winky Wright puzzle. You're acting like Wright is some defensive specialist - he simply outboxed Trinidad, the same way Hopkins and De la Hoya did. It had nothing to do with size or preternatural ability - Trinidad was easy to outbox.

Oba Carr, David Reid, and Fernando Vargas were supposed to be far superior boxers than Trinidad and look at what happen to them. As for DLH I think we have discussed that one enough and you know how I feel. Napoles was a great boxer but he would've lost to Tito. Napoles style was not the one to beat Tito, too small and not enough power to keep Tito out of balance. Tito would hunt him down and stop him around the 10 or 11 round.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 06 Jun 2007, 11:12

Borinken25 wrote:
Decagon wrote:Harry Simon figured out the Winky Wright puzzle. You're acting like Wright is some defensive specialist - he simply outboxed Trinidad, the same way Hopkins and De la Hoya did. It had nothing to do with size or preternatural ability - Trinidad was easy to outbox.
Oba Carr, David Reid, and Fernando Vargas were supposed to be far superior boxers than Trinidad and look at what happen to them. As for DLH I think we have discussed that one enough and you know how I feel. Napoles was a great boxer but he would've lost to Tito. Napoles style was not the one to beat Tito, too small and not enough power to keep Tito out of balance. Tito would hunt him down and stop him around the 10 or 11 round.

Daivd Reid? Fernando Vargas? To mention these guys in the same breath as a prime Napoles is ridiculous.

And Vargas was never seen as being superior skill-wise to Tito . . he was just seen as a big hungry kid who could punch.

Arbachakov · Post by **Arbachakov** » 06 Jun 2007, 12:13

Napoles had more than enough power to take Tito out.

And that's what he would do, crushign the myth you can't stand in front of Tito and be successful.

Borinken25 · Post by **Borinken25** » 06 Jun 2007, 12:47

dempseyfire wrote:
Borinken25 wrote:
Decagon wrote:Harry Simon figured out the Winky Wright puzzle. You're acting like Wright is some defensive specialist - he simply outboxed Trinidad, the same way Hopkins and De la Hoya did. It had nothing to do with size or preternatural ability - Trinidad was easy to outbox.
Oba Carr, David Reid, and Fernando Vargas were supposed to be far superior boxers than Trinidad and look at what happen to them. As for DLH I think we have discussed that one enough and you know how I feel. Napoles was a great boxer but he would've lost to Tito. Napoles style was not the one to beat Tito, too small and not enough power to keep Tito out of balance. Tito would hunt him down and stop him around the 10 or 11 round.
Daivd Reid? Fernando Vargas? To mention these guys in the same breath as a prime Napoles is ridiculous.

And Vargas was never seen as being superior skill-wise to Tito . . he was just seen as a big hungry kid who could punch.

Those guys were not in the league of Napoles granted, but they were supposed to be superior boxers nevertheless. I still remember many predicting that Tito was going to be school by Vargas and even Foreman was predicting an easy win for Vargas. Foreman was saying the if Tito won that fight it will make him a believer. The point is that Tito was able to defeat good boxers and Napoles was a good boxer but never fought anybody with Tito’s power. Trinidad would’ve KO Napoles.

BTW Vargas was already doing his seven defense of the title with alrady wins over Campas, Marquez, Winky, and Quartey.

Alabama_Man · Post by **Alabama_Man** » 06 Jun 2007, 17:02

Decagon wrote:
Victor*KC wrote:Dlh moved alot in the fight and gave tito alot of side to side movement Napoles wasn't the type of fighter to move around that muc he liked to stay infront of his opponents and make his opponents miss..
The problem with Trinidad was that he basically had no defense, and top defensive fighters tore him to shreds. Winky Wright and Bernard Hopkins were able to block most of Trinidad's offense without putting on their track shoes, and not just because they were bigger than Trinidad - they could box, and Napoles could too.

You're just stupid and wrong.

First off Hopkins and Winky were both naturally bigger people than Trinidad. By the time he fought Winky, Trinidad was shot. This is supposed to be a matchup of Napoles and Trinidad at 147 where Trinidad is probably Top 15 All-time. What the heck do the Winky and Hops fights have to do with a 147 matchup?

Trinidad wasn't Pernell Whitaker but he knew how to shrink himself up to defend against punches. He was only hit clean because he committed to punch and most people who committed to punches get caught clean even DLH who isn't a defensive slouch himself.

But hey, what can I expect from a guy who said "Hearns has one of the best left hooks in the division ever," when his own trainer doesn't agree.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 06 Jun 2007, 17:47

"stupid" and "wrong" are such harsh judgements. Coud he have been merely "under studied" and perhaps "misguided"?

Victor*KC · Post by **Victor*KC** » 06 Jun 2007, 21:04

dempseyfire wrote:
Borinken25 wrote:
Decagon wrote:Harry Simon figured out the Winky Wright puzzle. You're acting like Wright is some defensive specialist - he simply outboxed Trinidad, the same way Hopkins and De la Hoya did. It had nothing to do with size or preternatural ability - Trinidad was easy to outbox.
Oba Carr, David Reid, and Fernando Vargas were supposed to be far superior boxers than Trinidad and look at what happen to them. As for DLH I think we have discussed that one enough and you know how I feel. Napoles was a great boxer but he would've lost to Tito. Napoles style was not the one to beat Tito, too small and not enough power to keep Tito out of balance. Tito would hunt him down and stop him around the 10 or 11 round.
Daivd Reid? Fernando Vargas? To mention these guys in the same breath as a prime Napoles is ridiculous.

And Vargas was never seen as being superior skill-wise to Tito . . he was just seen as a big hungry kid who could punch.

Alot of experts had picked both Reid and Vargas to defeat Trinidad.. im sure If trinidad never had faced Vargas people would be saying that Vargas would of beaten a prime Tito