Welterweights: Sugar Ray Leonard vs Jose Napoles

[elmersalsa]

When you mix sugar and butter, you have good ingredients fora great cake. The great Sugar Ray Leonard vs the great Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles should be a great fight. Who wins?

[Seamus]

Leonard is too fast for even a prime Napoles. On his best night, Mantequilla loses by 4pts in a 15 rounder.

[Broomhall]

If he could avoid cuts Napoles for me on points.

[elmersalsa]

If he could avoid cuts Napoles for me on points.

Wow! Interesting pick, Broomhall. Well, Mantequilla was a fantastic fighter. The versions of him when he finally won the welter crown vs Curtis Cokes, was not prime Napoles, but certainly very good. He was in his prime in the 60s, around .'65 or '66. And there is not much clips of him of his early prime. Lots of top contenders and champions DUCKED HIM, according to the press.

[Broomhall]

If he could avoid cuts Napoles for me on points.

Wow! Interesting pick, Broomhall. Well, Mantequilla was a fantastic fighter. The versions of him when he finally won the welter crown vs Curtis Cokes, was not prime Napoles, but certainly very good. He was in his prime in the 60s, around .'65 or '66. And there is not much clips of him of his early prime. Lots of top contenders and champions DUCKED HIM, according to the press.

I picked him because I think generally when he was fighting the opposition was more in depth and better than when Leonard was fighting-my opinion-but 80 odd fights with only 7 losses over that era makes him a hard man to beat imo. I know people will point to early points losses but Napoles never had the "gold medalist" promotion behind him. He came up the hard way.

[elmersalsa]

If he could avoid cuts Napoles for me on points.

Wow! Interesting pick, Broomhall. Well, Mantequilla was a fantastic fighter. The versions of him when he finally won the welter crown vs Curtis Cokes, was not prime Napoles, but certainly very good. He was in his prime in the 60s, around .'65 or '66. And there is not much clips of him of his early prime. Lots of top contenders and champions DUCKED HIM, according to the press.

I picked him because I think generally when he was fighting the opposition was more in depth and better than when Leonard was fighting-my opinion-but 80 odd fights with only 7 losses over that era makes him a hard man to beat imo. I know people will point to early points losses but Napoles never had the "gold medalist" promotion behind him. He came up the hard way.

Oh yes. He came THE HARD WAY!

[Ambling Alp II]

If he could avoid cuts Napoles for me on points.

Wow! Interesting pick, Broomhall. Well, Mantequilla was a fantastic fighter. The versions of him when he finally won the welter crown vs Curtis Cokes, was not prime Napoles, but certainly very good. He was in his prime in the 60s, around .'65 or '66. And there is not much clips of him of his early prime. Lots of top contenders and champions DUCKED HIM, according to the press.

I picked him because I think generally when he was fighting the opposition was more in depth and better than when Leonard was fighting-my opinion-but 80 odd fights with only 7 losses over that era makes him a hard man to beat imo. I know people will point to early points losses but Napoles never had the "gold medalist" promotion behind him. He came up the hard way.

Leonard hardly came up the easy way. He beat 8 top 10 contenders and a respectable middleweight before fighting for the title.
Leonard beat much better competition than Napoles did.The was not more depth in the division in Napoles time. Leonard beat better competition in his career, should not be a question about that.

Naploes was a hard man to beat; Leonard was harder.

[elmersalsa]

I agree of what have you said above Alp about Leonard fought better competition, but Mantequilla had it WAY HARDER THAN SUGAR RAY COMING UP.

First of all, Mantequilla fought for PEANUTS in his native Cuba. The Cuban Revolution of Fidel Castro came in 1959 and he abolished boxing in the country. So Napoles and other Cuban fighters, like the great Luis Manuel Rodriguez, Benny "Kid" Paret, Isaac Logart, Orlando Zulueta and Florentino Fernandez had to flee Cuba to Mexico and other venues.

Mantequilla came to Mexico and still was fighting for PEANUTS when he got there. The Mexicanpress said that he was so good in his prime that the lightweight and jr. welter champs and top contenders DID NOT WANTED A PIECE OF HIM. He got DUCKED BY MANY IN HIS PRIME. He had to have over 50 fights to have a title shot, meanwhile Sugar Ray was made $40,000 dollars in his first fight. The advantages were huge to Leonard compared to Mantequilla. Napoles was way more than a BLUE COLLAR CONTENDER in the middle of the 60s decade.

What a difference a gold medal and being American makes

[Broomhall]

I agree of what have you said above Alp about Leonard fought better competition, but Mantequilla had it WAY HARDER THAN SUGAR RAY COMING UP.

First of all, Mantequilla fought for PEANUTS in his native Cuba. The Cuban Revolution of Fidel Castro came in 1959 and he abolished boxing in the country. So Napoles and other Cuban fighters, like the great Luis Manuel Rodriguez, Benny "Kid" Paret, Isaac Logart, Orlando Zulueta and Florentino Fernandez had to flee Cuba to Mexico and other venues.

Mantequilla came to Mexico and still was fighting for PEANUTS when he got there. The Mexicanpress said that he was so good in his prime that the lightweight and jr. welter champs and top contenders DID NOT WANTED A PIECE OF HIM. He got DUCKED BY MANY IN HIS PRIME. He had to have over 50 fights to have a title shot, meanwhile Sugar Ray was made $40,000 dollars in his first fight. The advantages were huge to Leonard compared to Mantequilla. Napoles was way more than a BLUE COLLAR CONTENDER in the middle of the 60s decade.

What a difference a gold medal and being American makes

Thanks Elmer, this is what I meant. It didnt hurt that Leonard was also a very good looking, marketable kid.

[Ambling Alp II]

Who paid his dues.

[elmersalsa]

You cannot compare Sugar Ray's coming up for a title shot with Mantequilla's. It is like water vs oil.

Mantequilla was ducked for years before he got a shot for a world title

[klompton]

This is a tough fight for Napoles who was the naturally smaller guy. The guy who probably fought the most like leonard that Napoles faced was Hedgemon Lewis who did good against Napoles in their first fight and wasnt nearly as good as Leonard was.

[Nile4000]

Ray beats Jose on a UD thats around 5 points strong.

[Broomhall]

I just dont see Leonards Welterweight career as any where near as good as Napoles. Napoles was dominant in the welters, Leonard had 7 welterweight title fights and lost one of those. Apart from Hearns and Benitez (who was a better junior welter) which really good welterweights did Leonard beat? He out psyched Duran in the return-but Andy Price? Dave Boy Green?

Napoles record way better at welter and a much tougher road to the top. Napoles has the crime of not being a yank.

[elmersalsa]

I just dont see Leonards Welterweight career as any where near as good as Napoles. Napoles was dominant in the welters, Leonard had 7 welterweight title fights and lost one of those. Apart from Hearns and Benitez (who was a better junior welter) which really good welterweights did Leonard beat? He out psyched Duran in the return-but Andy Price? Dave Boy Green?

Napoles record way better at welter and a much tougher road to the top. Napoles has the crime of not being a yank.

You are right Broomhall about Mantequilla had a tougher road to the top than Sugar Ray. The only TRUE WELTERWEIGHT that Leonard beat was the great Thomas Hearns.

[Ambling Alp II]

I just dont see Leonards Welterweight career as any where near as good as Napoles. Napoles was dominant in the welters, Leonard had 7 welterweight title fights and lost one of those. Apart from Hearns and Benitez (who was a better junior welter) which really good welterweights did Leonard beat? He out psyched Duran in the return-but Andy Price? Dave Boy Green?

Napoles record way better at welter and a much tougher road to the top. Napoles has the crime of not being a yank.

The wins over Hearns, Benitez and Roberto "Forever a lightweight" Duran were all more impressive than Napoles best wins. Napoles best wins were against Curtis Cokes, who wasn't in their league. (Emile Griffith had not been a welterweight for 4 years when he lost weight to get back down to 147. Still a nice win, but not as good as Leonard's best.)

No, Benitez was not a better Jr. welterweight than welterweight. In fact, he was a little better at welter. He was stronger and more experienced when he was a welterweight.

Green and Price were decent. Price was Palomino and Cuevas would probably agree that Price was pretty good. One of several pretty good wins for Leonard on his way up.

Could you tell what top welterweights Napoles beat before he fought for the welterweight title ? Can't come up with anybody.

Yes, Leonard was "only" 6-1 in welterweight title fights. 4 of those 7 fights were against truly great fighters. That is more impressive than 20 defenses over tomato cans. Quality trumps quantity.

[klompton]

I agree with alp. Napoles had it tough coming up because he couldnt get a shot at lw or jww not because he took all these great scalps at ww. Leonard would have been the best ww napoles ever fought. Napoles wouldnt have been the best ww leonard ever fought.

[Broomhall]

I just dont see Leonards Welterweight career as any where near as good as Napoles. Napoles was dominant in the welters, Leonard had 7 welterweight title fights and lost one of those. Apart from Hearns and Benitez (who was a better junior welter) which really good welterweights did Leonard beat? He out psyched Duran in the return-but Andy Price? Dave Boy Green?

Napoles record way better at welter and a much tougher road to the top. Napoles has the crime of not being a yank.

The wins over Hearns, Benitez and Roberto "Forever a lightweight" Duran were all more impressive than Napoles best wins. Napoles best wins were against Curtis Cokes, who wasn't in their league. (Emile Griffith had not been a welterweight for 4 years when he lost weight to get back down to 147. Still a nice win, but not as good as Leonard's best.)

No, Benitez was not a better Jr. welterweight than welterweight. In fact, he was a little better at welter. He was stronger and more experienced when he was a welterweight.

Green and Price were decent. Price was Palomino and Cuevas would probably agree that Price was pretty good. One of several pretty good wins for Leonard on his way up.

Could you tell what top welterweights Napoles beat before he fought for the welterweight title ? Can't come up with anybody.

Yes, Leonard was "only" 6-1 in welterweight title fights. 4 of those 7 fights were against truly great fighters. That is more impressive than 20 defenses over tomato cans. Quality trumps quantity.

Sorry man, but Hearns aside I think the quality of Napoles opposition counts as good as, if not better than leonards. I think fighters like Muniz, Gray, Pruit, Charles, Backus, Cokes, Lopez etc were NOT tomato cans and were all good professionals as least as good as Price, Green etc.

I do however think that Hearns beats Napoles.

[klompton]

Most of those guys were little better than clubfighters. Muniz (who should have beaten napoles), backus (who did beat him), lopez, gray. All popular local fighters but not a world beater among the bunch. Would leonard have struggled with some of those guys like napoles? I doubt it. Say what you will but leonard was very talented, proved when he stepped up his comp that he was equal to the task and was bigger as well. Napoles has an uphill battle.

[Broomhall]

Most of those guys were little better than clubfighters. Muniz (who should have beaten napoles), backus (who did beat him), lopez, gray. All popular local fighters but not a world beater among the bunch. Would leonard have struggled with some of those guys like napoles? I doubt it. Say what you will but leonard was very talented, proved when he stepped up his comp that he was equal to the task and was bigger as well. Napoles has an uphill battle.

I think to describe those guys as little better than clubfighters is pure wrong. Backus won on cuts. I think Leonard was certainly the best box/fighter of his generation. I think Leonard would have cut Napoles up and would probably have won on a TKO, but over 15 rounds with Napoles at his peak if he did not get cut, I think Leonard has the uphill struggle.

As with all of these things it is entirely subjective and I accept that my view is very much in the minority. Probably outside of Jose and his wife I am maybe the only person who thinks he might have won.

But I would say I dont think it fair to those men who were contenders in Napoles day to describe them as tomato cans or little better than clubfighters. To be a contender in the 50s and 60s you had to be good. You accumulated losses because that was the way things were particularly if unlike Leonard you did not have the backing of a big promotional outfit. If you look at the ring magazine top 10 welters in 1968 Napoles either beat them or beat the man who beat them. How many contenders did Leonard have to fight before he got his shot? Ranzany? Price?

[klompton]

I never said they were tomato cans. Now you are putting words in my mouth. But to pretend guys like Muniz, Backus, Lopez, and Gray were world beaters is simply ignoring the facts. You are building those guys up way more than what they were. What exactly did Backus do to get a shot at the title and who was his best win outside of Napoles? What makes him so much better than any of the non-descript lower class fights Leonard had? The guy never beat anyone in his life. Im comfortable and confident in saying that Leonard would have easily beaten Backus. Theres no doubt in my mind. If Backus passes for a hard fight for you then we can agree to disagree. Lopez was slightly better but still the definition of a clubfighter. What does it say about a guy whose best win was Hedgemon Lewis. Nothing against Lewis but he was only so good as well. When Clyde Gray fought Napoles he had a glossy win loss ratio but had lost to the only world class fighter he had faced: Perkins. Outside of that He lost to Muniz, drew with Guerrero, and beat Cerdan Jr. (who only had his fathers name and none of his skill) and Paduano (whose claim to fame is losing to LW Ken Buchanan). Is that tough? The vast majority of Muniz' fights were in LA fight clubs, he lost to the best fighters he faced and never raised himself appreciably above opponents that basically on his same plane. Again, little better than a clubfighter. Like I said, Napoles was a talented guy and a great fighter. Very skilled. But he had it tough not because he fought this murderers row of great fighters but because he was a LW that was forced to fight bigger fighters to get a title shot. Thats the problem hes going to face with Leonard times 2 because Leonard isnt just bigger hes also faster and more talented than anyone Napoles ever fought. Nevermind that Leonard could punch and was a tremendous boxer as well. If you want to argue what Napoles would have done against an uber talented LW (which was Napoles natural size) then thats a totally different discussion. But fighting an uber talented WW is a problem for him a far cry from the non descript opponents he faced at WW.

[Broomhall]

I never said they were tomato cans. Now you are putting words in my mouth. But to pretend guys like Muniz, Backus, Lopez, and Gray were world beaters is simply ignoring the facts. You are building those guys up way more than what they were. What exactly did Backus do to get a shot at the title and who was his best win outside of Napoles? What makes him so much better than any of the non-descript lower class fights Leonard had? The guy never beat anyone in his life. Im comfortable and confident in saying that Leonard would have easily beaten Backus. Theres no doubt in my mind. If Backus passes for a hard fight for you then we can agree to disagree. Lopez was slightly better but still the definition of a clubfighter. What does it say about a guy whose best win was Hedgemon Lewis. Nothing against Lewis but he was only so good as well. When Clyde Gray fought Napoles he had a glossy win loss ratio but had lost to the only world class fighter he had faced: Perkins. Outside of that He lost to Muniz, drew with Guerrero, and beat Cerdan Jr. (who only had his fathers name and none of his skill) and Paduano (whose claim to fame is losing to LW Ken Buchanan). Is that tough? The vast majority of Muniz' fights were in LA fight clubs, he lost to the best fighters he faced and never raised himself appreciably above opponents that basically on his same plane. Again, little better than a clubfighter. Like I said, Napoles was a talented guy and a great fighter. Very skilled. But he had it tough not because he fought this murderers row of great fighters but because he was a LW that was forced to fight bigger fighters to get a title shot. Thats the problem hes going to face with Leonard times 2 because Leonard isnt just bigger hes also faster and more talented than anyone Napoles ever fought. Nevermind that Leonard could punch and was a tremendous boxer as well. If you want to argue what Napoles would have done against an uber talented LW (which was Napoles natural size) then thats a totally different discussion. But fighting an uber talented WW is a problem for him a far cry from the non descript opponents he faced at WW.

The tomato cans comment was made in relation to alp. I see what you say about napoles opponents but the same could be said about Leonards opponents with the exception of maybe Benitez and Hearns. Both Gray and Ranzany were both contenders in the rings top 10 1978 years after they fought Napoles, and I dont see many differences in the guys Leonard fought on the way up.

Personally I dont see top 10 rated guys as clubfighters, even if that is where most of them had to fight, but if that is your view then fair enough.
So at the end of the day we can bat this around but we may just have to accept that boxing is subjective, you have your view which is overwhelmingly the majority one, and I have my view which as I have said I accept is very much in the minority.

[Ambling Alp II]

First, for the record I agree that Napoles should have got a shot at the Jr Welterweight title around 1965. It's also irrelevant to how he compares to Leonard.
And it's not a "Yank" thing either that he didn't get a shot sooner. There are Amercians who much more deserving than Napoles that had to wait for a long time for a title shot if they ever got one.

I didn't say specifically that Napolos opponents were tomato cans. I was making a point that quality is much more important than quality.

And the quality isn't even close. Sure, take away Leonard's top 3 victims and it's a different story. However, that makes no sense to do. It happened, he beat them.
Hearns was better than and would have beaten any welterweight that Napoles beat.
Benitez was better than and would have beaten any welterweight that Napoles ever beat.
Duran was better than and would have beaten any welterweight that Napoles ever beat.

Basically your argument comes down to Napoles 4th best welterweight victim is better than Leonard's. That's pretty weak. If a guy is consistent and can beat Benitez, Duran, and Hearns, he is not going to have too much trouble with the Clyde Gray's and Armando Muniz's of the boxing world. (Actually Leonard did fight Muniz early in his career on the way up and beat him easily. )

The real factors boils down to big wins and losses. Who beat better opponents? Leonard, by a mile.
Losses? Leonard loss a tough fight to Duran. That's it at welterweight. Napoles lost to the legendary Billy Backus. No comparison whatsover.

[elmersalsa]

So we all agree here that Mantequilla had a tougher time to the top than Sugar Ray.
We also agree that Sugar Ray beat better opponents
We also agree what a gold medal and being American, got more priviledges than anyone in the world
We also agree that Mantequilla fought for PEANUTS on his way up and Sugar Ray made $40,000 in only his first fight as a pro.
We also agree that Mantequilla beat more top welters, but they were not in the great Thomas Hearns' class
We also agree that Mantequilla was DUCKED BY THE TOP FIGHTERS AND CHAMPIONS OF HIS TIME.

I AGREE that Leonard would have beaten that version of the 70s Napoles. There is not much footage of Mantequilla of his early fights to the mid 60s, whe he was real in his prime. By 1969, many experts said that Mantequila's shot for the welter crown was too late. But he gave hof Curtis Cokes a serious beating

[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.