BoxRec

I see this as a 50-50 fioght and geuinely don't know who would win but I have a feeling that people are going to be split along generational lines, such was the greatness of these 2 fighters.

Maybe I'll surprise you then, I think Emille is great but I would bet on Ray. Ray didnt get into the "long durable career" that Emille chose thats for sure. But because Ray measured himself and seemed to study and always find a way to win I think that at his best he could have outworked and outsmarted Emille.

Maybe your going think I'm sitting on the fence when I add that I don't think Ray would have done as well if you stuck him in fight for fight into Emille's schedule. Ray took it somewhat easy and was able to peak very high, Grifftith took what came along, fought anyone and everyone and kept going until his trainer told him he didnt have it anymore and then agreed it was over.

Griffith should be rated higher overall and had a greater career but if you pit them against each other on their best day I think Ray wins it. It's sort of why I and some others rate Archie Moore above Ezzard Charles Career wise and yet Ezzard appeared to have had his number.

I think Ray would find his number, I think Griffith was more durable and would weather a long haul career much better than Ray. Part of this is psyche. Ray lived in an era where fighters started to live the good life.

I hope Decagon chimes in on this with his odds tables.

griffith's vastly underated at 147, he was hell in his prime. i rate griffith 3rd greatest 147 of all time. however ray was special, godly like. I think rays combination of speed and skill will be too much for emile. emile had trouble with speed as seen in luis rodriguez fights. however, emiles strength ,skill and power will give leonard fits along the way.

leonard close decision

I thought that Leonard fought I a very high caliber of competition when the Welterweight division was very strong. I know that their is a great deal of sentiment for the old time fighters on this board but judging from the films of Griffith and what I have seen of Leonard, I would say Sugar Ray wins hands down. He was just flat out to good.

I agree , Leonard boxes and moves , doesnt get into too many exchanges on the inside and wins a decision.

leonard. Too much skill and i think the only man who could have beaten him at welter ever was robinson and that would have been 55/45 imo

well at those odd it's a pick em situation. But thats the very point of an oddsmaker. Good work on that.

You guys are selling Emile short. He would have outboxed Ray. He would have been the worst kind of opponent for Leornard.

Griffiths on points over 15

KO Artist wrote:You guys are selling Emile short. He would have outboxed Ray. He would have been the worst kind of opponent for Leornard.

Griffiths on points over 15

I do agree with Buzz on the career versus peak BUT, and this is a bit contradictory, I also think Emile is Ray's nightmare style wise... I still can't call this fight.

emile matches up great vs leonard, but i still think leonard wins. luis rosdrigues showed speed hurts griffith, and leonard was the fastest.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:emile matches up great vs leonard, but i still think leonard wins. luis rosdrigues showed speed hurts griffith, and leonard was the fastest.

Fair play, but what a fight it would have been? Pure skill.

KO Artist wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:emile matches up great vs leonard, but i still think leonard wins. luis rosdrigues showed speed hurts griffith, and leonard was the fastest.

Fair play, but what a fight it would have been? Pure skill.

hell yea


i rate leonard and griffith 2nd and 3rd greatest welters of all time

hmmm the thread went silent on that one.....I'd like to weigh in eventually on this but the silence has spooked me for the moment.

Decagon wrote:And if Griffith's #3, where's Luis Rodriguez?

# 12 welterweight all time

Decagon wrote:Where do you rank Napoles?

# 6 welterweight all time

Decagon wrote:Why is Griffith so far ahead of them?

because in his prime he was amazing. plus he beat better competition than jose napoles

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Decagon wrote:And if Griffith's #3, where's Luis Rodriguez?

# 12 welterweight all time

There was hardly anything to choose between Griffith and Rodriguez so Rodriguez should be far higher... Napoles beat Emile handily when they fought... Napoles had too much speed for Griffith... Napoles was the uncrowned champion at 147 and 140 for years before he finally got a title shot... as for Leonard I'd pick him over Griffith at 147 but I'd pick Griffith over Leonard at 160... Emile was a far better middleweight than Leonard...

Decagon wrote:Napoles in his prime was just as good, plus he beat Griffith. Can you explain why you think Napoles's competition was better than Griffith's?

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...

Decagon wrote:Napoles in his prime was just as good, plus he beat Griffith. Can you explain why you think Napoles's competition was better than Griffith's?

i think griffiths welterweight competition was better than napoles. also, griffith was far past his prime and weight drained when jose napoles beat him, granted he was still a very good fighter, but nowhere near the vintage 147 griffith.

silkov wrote:

Decagon wrote:Napoles in his prime was just as good, plus he beat Griffith. Can you explain why you think Napoles's competition was better than Griffith's?

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.

luis rodriguez is better than anyone napoles ever beat, including a over the hill curtis cokes.

luis rodriguez, benny kid paret, jorge jose fernandez, jose stable(beat curtis cokes), prime manny gonzalez, denny moyer, gaspar ortega, huge punching florentiino fernandez, ralph duphas, don fullmer. i think this is better competition than napoles. better quality.


- benny kid paret is a very underated welter, he was a very good master boxer, griffith beat him 3 times(including the robbery).



- i also think curtis cokes is underated, would have loved to see a fight between him and emile griffith.

I think a 1962 peak emile griffith beats a peak jose napoles

- griffith in his prime could do it all. he was also incredibly well built and very strong. he lost his killer intinct after paret.

I thought about this. It's a very hard to pick fight, but i'm going with Emile Griffith by points. Possibly even TKO but I think if he hurt Leonard, Leonard would run for the rest of the fight so TKO is unlikely.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:luis rodriguez is better than anyone napoles ever beat, including a over the hill curtis cokes.

luis rodriguez, benny kid paret, jorge jose fernandez, jose stable(beat curtis cokes), prime manny gonzalez, denny moyer, gaspar ortega, huge punching florentiino fernandez, ralph duphas, don fullmer. i think this is better competition than napoles. better quality.


- benny kid paret is a very underated welter, he was a very good master boxer, griffith beat him 3 times(including the robbery).



- i also think curtis cokes is underated, would have loved to see a fight between him and emile griffith.

Where is your evidence that Cokes was past his best when he met Napoles?... Napoles was just a vastly better boxer. Also don't forget that Napoles was 28 before he got his title chance and arguably already passing his peak himself... unlike Griffith who got his chance while still in his early 20s. Napoles would always have beaten Griffith because he was too fast and he was a sharper boxer at his best... simple as that, ...had he got to a title earlier in his career his record would be even more impressive....

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

silkov wrote:

Decagon wrote:Napoles in his prime was just as good, plus he beat Griffith. Can you explain why you think Napoles's competition was better than Griffith's?

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.