BoxRec

Ezzard wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

silkov wrote: Napoles competition at 147 certainly matches up to Emiles... also Napoles was unbeatable in his prime and only lost his title the first time on a cut when he was already on the slide... I'd definately rate Napoles ahead of Griffith at 147.... in fact I'd pick him over Leonard in his prime... very underated all time great is Jose...

i cant see napoles beating leonard. leonard would cut napoles face to shreds, napoles was a proven cutter more than once ala L.C morgan billy blackus.

In every fanatsy match up that includes Napoles his cuts are brought up. He didn't bleed in every fight. It was a weakness but I wouldn't base my whole analysis on it. Napoles is a danegrous opponent for Leonard. I really don't think there's much to pick between Griffiths, Naploes and Leonard.

Very true, Napoles only really started being troubled by cuts in the latter part of his career when he'd lost the edge off his boxing and was suffering from wear and tear. Jose gets my vote.

silkov wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: i cant see napoles beating leonard. leonard would cut napoles face to shreds, napoles was a proven cutter more than once ala L.C morgan billy blackus.

In every fanatsy match up that includes Napoles his cuts are brought up. He didn't bleed in every fight. It was a weakness but I wouldn't base my whole analysis on it. Napoles is a danegrous opponent for Leonard. I really don't think there's much to pick between Griffiths, Naploes and Leonard.

Very true, Napoles only really started being troubled by cuts in the latter part of his career when he'd lost the edge off his boxing and was suffering from wear and tear. Jose gets my vote.

What about Napoles-Leonard? I imagine that Napoles would have the better of the early exchanges as he would have relished toe-to-toe action. I think Ray would change his game plan and look to stay outside. It would have been a top fight.

I really fancy Napoles over Leonard... what some people here are forgetting is that Napoles was already 29 when he finally got his title chance, not 21 or 22 like Griffith and Leonard... it makes his reign more impressive imo as he was probably already passing his peak by the time he won the title... against Leonard Napoles would have too much of everything imo... he was a great boxer and puncher and I see it as a furious fight with Napoles gaining the edge with his superior infighting... Napoles by decision...

napoles was at his peak when he won the welterweight title, he was only 28. dont buy any other bullshit.

- curtis cokes on the other hand was 32, and reports confirm his best years were during the early to mid 60s. not 1969 when he fought napoles.


silkov, ur trying to claim napoles was past his best at 28, yet ur saying how is curtis cokes past his prime even though he was 32. you cant have it both ways. curtis cokes best work was early to mid 1960s.

silkov wrote:I really fancy Napoles over Leonard... what some people here are forgetting is that Napoles was already 29 when he finally got his title chance, not 21 or 22 like Griffith and Leonard... it makes his reign more impressive imo as he was probably already passing his peak by the time he won the title... against Leonard Napoles would have too much of everything imo... he was a great boxer and puncher and I see it as a furious fight with Napoles gaining the edge with his superior infighting... Napoles by decision...

u fancy too much on age, everyone primes differentley. some fighters prime at 35, most at 25, etc. napoles was very much at his peak when he destroyed the underated curtis cokes.


part of fighting is experience, and most fighters at 21-22 are still green. experience and maturity, ring smarts are a big factors that a fighter needs.

Would have been a great fight.

I would go for SRL. He was one of boxing's greatest thinkers, plus add in his great footwork, blistering speed, granite chin & overall skills, he would have been too much for the admittedly excellent Griffith.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:napoles was at his peak when he won the welterweight title, he was only 28. dont buy any other bullshit.

- curtis cokes on the other hand was 32, and reports confirm his best years were during the early to mid 60s. not 1969 when he fought napoles.


silkov, ur trying to claim napoles was past his best at 28, yet ur saying how is luis rodrgiuez past his prime even though he was 32. you cant have it both ways. luis rodriguez best work was early to mid 1960s.

Lots of people who know Napoles agree that he was around his peak before he won the title, you say Griffith was past it when he fought Napoles but he still went on to give Monzon two of his hardest fights and he could still make 154 right into the 70s so your claim that he was weight drained against Napoles holds little sense....

your peak lasts more than 1 year. napoles was defintley in his prime when he fought cokes.

your peak lasts more than 1 year. napoles was defintley in his prime when he fought cokes.

Whatever, anyway, I've seen lots of both men and give Napoles a definate edge at 147... the fact that he beat Emile so handily in their fight proves my point...

silkov wrote:Whatever, anyway, I've seen lots of both men and give Napoles a definate edge at 147... the fact that he beat Emile so handily in their fight proves my point...

emile was far past his prime when he fought napoles, he was also underweight at 144lb.


- emile was an awesome welter in his prime early 1960s

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

silkov wrote:Whatever, anyway, I've seen lots of both men and give Napoles a definate edge at 147... the fact that he beat Emile so handily in their fight proves my point...

emile was far past his prime when he fought napoles, he was also underweight at 144lb.


- emile was an awesome welter in his prime early 1960s

How could Emile have been far beyond his prime when he still had such good fights ahead of him including his bouts with Monzon?... that doesn't make sense... and Emile was not weight drained, he could make 154 well into the 70s and only stayed at Middleweight because he couldnt beat Napoles.... why would have have moved down if he couldnt make the weight?... Emile made the weight easy, you're just making excusing for a defeat of one of your favourite fighters again, as usual...

griffith was never the same after he killed paret. he lost his true aggresion and killer instinct.

Decagon wrote:But what about the Monzon fight? Are you telling me he wasn't in his prime for that one? He was at least as good a fighter as Walcott was against Marciano, and he was facing a better fighter, and he arguably won!

'



monzon was over the hill in the 2nd griffith fight. marciano was in his prime.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Decagon wrote:But what about the Monzon fight? Are you telling me he wasn't in his prime for that one? He was at least as good a fighter as Walcott was against Marciano, and he was facing a better fighter, and he arguably won!

'



monzon was over the hill in the 2nd griffith fight. marciano was in his prime.

Yeah right!... 8)

Decagon wrote:Monzon after the Griffith fight: Makes seven title defenses over the next four years and retires champion.

Marciano after the Walcott fight: Makes six title defenses over the next three years and retires champion.

You define people as "over the hill" to suit your argument. It would've been more clever if you'd said "shot." I'd argue that Monzon fought better opposition in this time and beat it more impressively than Marciano did, despite the injury.

most sportswriters at the time claim monzon was on the slide in the 2nd griffith fight.

u fail to mention when monzon retired he was 36. when rocky retired he was 33.


monzon had been fighting for 10 years when he entered the 2nd griffith fight, marciano had been fighting only 5 years and had far less bouts entering the 1st walcott fight. monzon was also older.

Monzon was at his prime round about for both the Griffith fights... as was Emile... this is a fact, watch the fights...

silkov wrote:Monzon was at his prime round about for both the Griffith fights... as was Emile... this is a fact, watch the fights...

im not argueing, i own both fights so i will watch them. amazing a 35 year old post prime monzon was able to beat rodrigo valdez twice, what a special fighter monzon was. valdes is a great fighter, vastly underated

Decagon wrote:Actually, he was shot in the leg by his wife in 1973.

Very droll... I'll give you that one!... 8) ...Monzon was a bit of a maniac outside the ring by all accounts, which is strange as he was one of the most controlled fighters in the ring that I've seen...

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

silkov wrote:Monzon was at his prime round about for both the Griffith fights... as was Emile... this is a fact, watch the fights...

im not argueing, i own both fights so i will watch them. amazing a 35 year old post prime monzon was able to beat rodrigo valdez twice, what a special fighter monzon was. valdes is a great fighter, vastly underated

Monzon was one of the best I've seen, always thinking inside the ring, both he and Griffith had styles that matured well with age... Monzons record is phenomenal, unbeaten in his last 80 or so fights... its a shame his life fell apart after he retired...

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

emile was far past his prime when he fought napoles, he was also underweight at 144lb.


- emile was an awesome welter in his prime early 1960s

I TOTALLY AGREE. Leonard vs Griffith is a matchup made in heaven. Griffith loves to fight in the inside and SRL was an excellent and exceptional fighter. SRL can do it all, but I see him clutching and grabbing Griffith probably the whole fight as he did with Duran.

neither of the two will get KOd. 3 fights, 45 rounds. Leonard by a close decision.