BoxRec

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh7XvFmpGV4

Had never seen this before; great fight. Yet another reminder of how deep the welter-middle divisions were in the 50s-early 60s. Both of these guys would've given Mayweather hell.

dempseyfire wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh7XvFmpGV4

Had never seen this before; great fight. Yet another reminder of how deep the welter-middle divisions were in the 50s-early 60s. Both of these guys would've given Mayweather hell.

This is why I think when people on another thread just write Napoles off V leonard they need to think again about how hard it was to be at the top of the welter tree in the 60s.

Napoles wasnt a WW until 1969. The division had burned itself out by the time he won the title. It couldnt have been too hard to be at the top of the tree at that point because he got his title shot without even being rated at WW and had never even faced a top WW at that point.

klompton wrote:Napoles wasnt a WW until 1969. The division had burned itself out by the time he won the title. It couldnt have been too hard to be at the top of the tree at that point because he got his title shot without even being rated at WW and had never even faced a top WW at that point.

You might want to check those ratings again

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_R ... ings:_1967]]

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_R ... ings:_1968

Ring magazine isnt an official ratings organization and never has been. The WBA and WBC determined a fighters challengers, not the ring, and back then they were both still credible organizations. Napoles was rated at LW and JWW until AFTER he beat Cokes. Go back and look it up.

Something interesting (at least to me) Jose Stable was a real "Philly Killer," beating Sidney Adams, C.L. Lewis, Charley Scott, Kitten Hayward, Dick Turner before losing to Percy Manning and Gypsy Joe Harris.

Other Philly Killers : Luis Rodriguez, who beat Charley Scott, Sugar Hart, Carl Hubbard, Mel Collins (2x), Jesse Smith, Georgie Benton, lost a home town decision to Percy Manning (who he later destroyed), defeated Bennie Briscoe (2x), and Candy McFarland.

John Mugabi KO'd Curtis Parker one round, KO'd Frank (Animal) Fletcher in 4 rds, and KO 1 over Earl Hargrove.

David Love beat Perry 'L'il' Abner, KO'd Willie Monroe and Boogaloo Watts, and beat Briscoe before Curtis Parker salvaged some Philly revenge stopping Love.

And Hagler, after losing nods to Watts and Monroe came back to KO each. He stopped Cyclone Hart, beat Bennie Briscoe and Ko'd Caveman Lee in one round.

klompton wrote:Ring magazine isnt an official ratings organization and never has been. The WBA and WBC determined a fighters challengers, not the ring, and back then they were both still credible organizations. Napoles was rated at LW and JWW until AFTER he beat Cokes. Go back and look it up.

He was clearly rated as a welter by Ring and had beaten at least a couple of the top 10 guys in those lists. many people would have gone by the magazines ratings rather than the alphabet boys. Presumably bth of those organisations ok'd Napoles as a challenger to Cokes?

Broomhall wrote:

klompton wrote:Ring magazine isnt an official ratings organization and never has been. The WBA and WBC determined a fighters challengers, not the ring, and back then they were both still credible organizations. Napoles was rated at LW and JWW until AFTER he beat Cokes. Go back and look it up.

He was clearly rated as a welter by Ring and had beaten at least a couple of the top 10 guys in those lists. many people would have gone by the magazines ratings rather than the alphabet boys. Presumably bth of those organisations ok'd Napoles as a challenger to Cokes?

Whether people gave Ring's ratings credence is neither here nor there. Champions are bound to defend against their mandatory challengers and those mandatorys are made by fighting the contenders in those closes. Napoles did not do that. At all. He had not faced a single top ten WW. The alphabet boys didnt have to OK Cokes fighting Napoles (which was an elective title defense, not mandated) because 6 months earlier Cokes had defended against his #1 challenger Ramon La Cruz so he had fulfilled his obligation and had another six months to go before he had to defend against another top challenger, which after Cruz was either Ernie Lopez or Raul Soriano depending on whether you want to go by when the fight was signed or actually fought.

klompton wrote:

Broomhall wrote:

klompton wrote:Ring magazine isnt an official ratings organization and never has been. The WBA and WBC determined a fighters challengers, not the ring, and back then they were both still credible organizations. Napoles was rated at LW and JWW until AFTER he beat Cokes. Go back and look it up.

He was clearly rated as a welter by Ring and had beaten at least a couple of the top 10 guys in those lists. many people would have gone by the magazines ratings rather than the alphabet boys. Presumably bth of those organisations ok'd Napoles as a challenger to Cokes?

Whether people gave Ring's ratings credence is neither here nor there. Champions are bound to defend against their mandatory challengers and those mandatorys are made by fighting the contenders in those closes. Napoles did not do that. At all. He had not faced a single top ten WW. The alphabet boys didnt have to OK Cokes fighting Napoles (which was an elective title defense, not mandated) because 6 months earlier Cokes had defended against his #1 challenger Ramon La Cruz so he had fulfilled his obligation and had another six months to go before he had to defend against another top challenger, which after Cruz was either Ernie Lopez or Raul Soriano depending on whether you want to go by when the fight was signed or actually fought.

Whom Napoles beat the following year. He had to be doing something to be rated numero uno by Ring magazine.

I just checked the Ring rankings and the ABC rankings and Jose Napoles popped up in the Ring welterweight rankings in late 1967/early 1968 without having fought ANY of the rated WWs in either ring or any of the ABC rankings. He steadily and quickly climbed the Ring rankings without ever fighting any of the WW contenders in any organization. He wasnt even ranked as a WW outside of Ring and was eventually given his shot by Cokes when Cokes exercised his option to make a non mandatory title defense. So, no, he did not face any WW contenders from anyone ranking fighters that mattered. If you want to argue that he was ducked at LW and WW I agree, as Ive said several times but dont lay that blame on coddled American fighters because the title shot he did get he didnt deserve and it was one of those coddled Americans that gave it to him when he didnt have to.

klompton wrote:I just checked the Ring rankings and the ABC rankings and Jose Napoles popped up in the Ring welterweight rankings in late 1967/early 1968 without having fought ANY of the rated WWs in either ring or any of the ABC rankings. He steadily and quickly climbed the Ring rankings without ever fighting any of the WW contenders in any organization. He wasnt even ranked as a WW outside of Ring and was eventually given his shot by Cokes when Cokes exercised his option to make a non mandatory title defense. So, no, he did not face any WW contenders from anyone ranking fighters that mattered. If you want to argue that he was ducked at LW and WW I agree, as Ive said several times but dont lay that blame on coddled American fighters because the title shot he did get he didnt deserve and it was one of those coddled Americans that gave it to him when he didnt have to.

He didnt Pop in to the ratings he beat good fighters at the time, and had beaten leading contender Sorriano in 63 I think, and also going into the fight had a 20 fight winning streak beating good guys like Davis and Morgan.

I dont think or didnt say that American fighters are coddled, including leonard but I do think that Leonard had a very powerful promotional team who picked the right fights for him at the right time. And I do feel the quality of welterweights was better in the 60s and coming into 1970 than the 70s going into the 80s.

Broomhall wrote:

klompton wrote:I just checked the Ring rankings and the ABC rankings and Jose Napoles popped up in the Ring welterweight rankings in late 1967/early 1968 without having fought ANY of the rated WWs in either ring or any of the ABC rankings. He steadily and quickly climbed the Ring rankings without ever fighting any of the WW contenders in any organization. He wasnt even ranked as a WW outside of Ring and was eventually given his shot by Cokes when Cokes exercised his option to make a non mandatory title defense. So, no, he did not face any WW contenders from anyone ranking fighters that mattered. If you want to argue that he was ducked at LW and WW I agree, as Ive said several times but dont lay that blame on coddled American fighters because the title shot he did get he didnt deserve and it was one of those coddled Americans that gave it to him when he didnt have to.

He didnt Pop in to the ratings he beat good fighters at the time, and had beaten leading contender Sorriano in 63 I think, and also going into the fight had a 20 fight winning streak beating good guys like Davis and Morgan.

I dont think or didnt say that American fighters are coddled, including leonard but I do think that Leonard had a very powerful promotional team who picked the right fights for him at the right time. And I do feel the quality of welterweights was better in the 60s and coming into 1970 than the 70s going into the 80s.

I didnt say he popped into the rankings. I said he popped into the Rings WW rankings. He did not beat a ranked WW before he got his title shot. Period. Not a guy ranked by the Ring or any ABC, When he fought Soriano Soriano wasnt ranked and wasnt even a WW and had just been knocked out in his last fight. Soriano didnt get ranked until several years later. The way the Ring handled Napoles' ranking was as lame as the ABC organizations today.

Fate Davis and LC Morgan were journeymen who were unranked and had never beaten a WW contender at that point.

If you think guys like Curtis Cokes, Ernie Lopez, and Raul Soriano were better than guys like Duran, Hearns, and Benitez we can agree to disagree. You can even throw a fading, weight drained Emile Griffith in that mix. No doubt in my mind Leonard had to beat the stiffer competition on his way to his title and after.

klompton wrote:

Broomhall wrote:

klompton wrote:I just checked the Ring rankings and the ABC rankings and Jose Napoles popped up in the Ring welterweight rankings in late 1967/early 1968 without having fought ANY of the rated WWs in either ring or any of the ABC rankings. He steadily and quickly climbed the Ring rankings without ever fighting any of the WW contenders in any organization. He wasnt even ranked as a WW outside of Ring and was eventually given his shot by Cokes when Cokes exercised his option to make a non mandatory title defense. So, no, he did not face any WW contenders from anyone ranking fighters that mattered. If you want to argue that he was ducked at LW and WW I agree, as Ive said several times but dont lay that blame on coddled American fighters because the title shot he did get he didnt deserve and it was one of those coddled Americans that gave it to him when he didnt have to.

He didnt Pop in to the ratings he beat good fighters at the time, and had beaten leading contender Sorriano in 63 I think, and also going into the fight had a 20 fight winning streak beating good guys like Davis and Morgan.

I dont think or didnt say that American fighters are coddled, including leonard but I do think that Leonard had a very powerful promotional team who picked the right fights for him at the right time. And I do feel the quality of welterweights was better in the 60s and coming into 1970 than the 70s going into the 80s.

I didnt say he popped into the rankings. I said he popped into the Rings WW rankings. He did not beat a ranked WW before he got his title shot. Period. Not a guy ranked by the Ring or any ABC, When he fought Soriano Soriano wasnt ranked and wasnt even a WW and had just been knocked out in his last fight. Soriano didnt get ranked until several years later. The way the Ring handled Napoles' ranking was as lame as the ABC organizations today.

Fate Davis and LC Morgan were journeymen who were unranked and had never beaten a WW contender at that point.

If you think guys like Curtis Cokes, Ernie Lopez, and Raul Soriano were better than guys like Duran, Hearns, and Benitez we can agree to disagree. You can even throw a fading, weight drained Emile Griffith in that mix. No doubt in my mind Leonard had to beat the stiffer competition on his way to his title and after.

I didnt say that guys like Cokes, Lopez and Sorriano were better than Duran, Hearns and Benitez. Hearns and Duran were title defences one of which he lost, and the other he as well behind on points and lucky to get a draw next time round. I think Cokes could take Benitez.

We were discussing opposition up until both men won the title. Defences of the title I think Napoles record stands up to leonards with the one exception of Hearns who as I said I think would beat napoles.

As stated before, Leonard fought several ranked fighters prior getting a title shot. Napoles fought exactly 0 ranked WWs before getting a title shot. Youve been arguing this point for two days now but its a fact that he didnt. If you are so convinced he did you tell me who he fought that was ranked and Ill pull the rankings and post them proving you wrong. Like I said, if you want to bitch and moan about him being ducked at LW and JWW fine, fair enough, I agree. But he also didnt help his case any by never being able to decide at which weight he wanted to devote himself. Thats not an excuse but his constant bouncing up and down from LW to JWW and back kept him bouncing around in the records and meant he was never ranked #1 in either division very long. This gave those other guys the excuse not to fight him. Elmer was the one who was trying to tie Napoles lack of getting the breaks to his not being a privileged American. I merely pointed out that it wasnt Americans who were ducking him and in fact the title shot he did get, which he had done nothing to earn at that weight, was given to him as an optional defense by Cokes (an American) who didnt have to fight him.

Cokes might beat Benitez but I wouldnt make him a favorite. Benitez was a slickster and those guys could give Cokes problems.

klompton wrote:As stated before, Leonard fought several ranked fighters prior getting a title shot. Napoles fought exactly 0 ranked WWs before getting a title shot. Youve been arguing this point for two days now but its a fact that he didnt. If you are so convinced he did you tell me who he fought that was ranked and Ill pull the rankings and post them proving you wrong. Like I said, if you want to bitch and moan about him being ducked at LW and JWW fine, fair enough, I agree. But he also didnt help his case any by never being able to decide at which weight he wanted to devote himself. Thats not an excuse but his constant bouncing up and down from LW to JWW and back kept him bouncing around in the records and meant he was never ranked #1 in either division very long. This gave those other guys the excuse not to fight him. Elmer was the one who was trying to tie Napoles lack of getting the breaks to his not being a privileged American. I merely pointed out that it wasnt Americans who were ducking him and in fact the title shot he did get, which he had done nothing to earn at that weight, was given to him as an optional defense by Cokes (an American) who didnt have to fight him.

Cokes might beat Benitez but I wouldnt make him a favorite. Benitez was a slickster and those guys could give Cokes problems.

Whoa man. I havent bitched or moaned about anything. I just think this era of fighters was a tough one with men taking fights and chances where they couldn which is maybe why Mantequila bumped around the weights. He had to work. He didnt have £40,000 dollars a fight or million dollar advertising contracts.

He went into the Cokes fight on an unbeaten 20m fight streak and i think there were some pretty good guys in that streak which is why the ring had him ranked number one.

Or they realized he was popular and would sell magazines in Mexico, which was their M.O.

No get around Napoles not deserving his ranking at WW and not earning his title shot there either. Props to him for making the most of it and Im glad he finally won a title but theres been a lot of nonsense posted here and on the other post about Napoles that is grounded in fantasy and hero worship, not fact.

klompton wrote:Or they realized he was popular and would sell magazines in Mexico, which was their M.O.

No get around Napoles not deserving his ranking at WW and not earning his title shot there either. Props to him for making the most of it and Im glad he finally won a title but theres been a lot of nonsense posted here and on the other post about Napoles that is grounded in fantasy and hero worship, not fact.

Many experts rate Napoles top 10 welter, they dont do this for fun. He was a top fighter who beat his share of top fighters. Ring magazine dont rate him numero uno for nothing.

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 at WW. 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. Are you going to sit here and tell me that after Floyd beat Arturo Gatti at 140 and had never fought a contender at 147 you would have ranked him at #1 at WW??? And thats a guy who was already a multi division titlist and a star. Napoles was operating in obscurity and had some good wins in the lower divisions but dont act like he had earned a #1 ranking and a title shot because he hadnt. Its absolutely asinine to pretend he did. I dont care if hes your favorite fighter or your dad. 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.

klompton wrote: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 at WW. 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. Are you going to sit here and tell me that after Floyd beat Arturo Gatti at 140 and had never fought a contender at 147 you would have ranked him at #1 at WW??? And thats a guy who was already a multi division titlist and a star. Napoles was operating in obscurity and had some good wins in the lower divisions but dont act like he had earned a #1 ranking and a title shot because he hadnt. Its absolutely asinine to pretend he did. I dont care if hes your favorite fighter or your dad. 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.

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.