BoxRec

As an extension to the Randy Turpin thread, how good was Napoles! Obviously most have us have seen the Napoles fight and losing to Palomino wasnt a terrible result..

But how good was he, did he just fight Napoles at the right time or is Stracey underated by Boxing fans today??

yeah napoles had deffo seen better days.

stracey was a european level fighter really.

the palomino fight put him in his place.

To get chinned by Palomino... he wasnt exactly top drawer was he.

overhand_right wrote:To get chinned by Palomino... he wasnt exactly top drawer was he.

J hope there is a trace of sarcasm in ths statment, Mr 'I would rather watch Boxing than play hide the sausage with my girlfriend'?

Not really. Palomino? Seen tapes of the guy (Stracey/Green/Duran), left me as underwhelmed as Jim Watt tapes.

Definitely not an old timer we say "oh Judah/Cotto/Mayweather/some other current fighter would never have lived in Palominos day!!"

i've only seen the stracey fight.

i was impressed with palomino.

wicked hooker and excellent to the body.

obviously i need to check out some other fights against the likes of benitez and duran. but from the stracey fight i was impressed.

overhand_right wrote:Not really. Palomino? Seen tapes of the guy (Stracey/Green/Duran), left me as underwhelmed as Jim Watt tapes.

Fair enough, each to his own. I however thing he was a good Champion (but not a great one).

And would have been in the mix with Welterweight Champions of recent vintage.

overhand_right wrote:Not really. Palomino? Seen tapes of the guy (Stracey/Green/Duran), left me as underwhelmed as Jim Watt tapes.

Definitely not an old timer we say "oh Judah/Cotto/Mayweather/some other current fighter would never have lived in Palominos day!!"

Well, Judah is garbage so there's a good chance we could say that about him even for Palomino(who was good not great).

One thing I can say is that John H Stracy is a great guy - or certainly he was the last time I met him.

He was a guest speak at a fight of mine a few years back. He passed my cornerman an autograph for me to bring back to the dressing room.

A true gent.

As for his abilities - I have not seen that much of him to be honest; so couldn't comment with much authority - but as a former Welterweight champion of the world he was certianly good enough!!

Yep, everybody I know who has met him has commented on what a top bloke he is.

met him many times and concur - top bloke. palomino was better than most on this thread claim. just beneath the very best in what turned into a tough division around that time. lets get it right, stracey went to the back yard of a renowned great, napoles, and got decked in the first. it showed tremendous composure and belief to transform this into an early destruction of his opponent, which is what he did. i think it was a great win. i like john too much to really get into the nitty gritty of his status. world champion, what can i say?

Imagine Andy Holligan destroying Julio Cesar Chavez when they fought in Mexico in 1993.
That's what Stracey did with Napoles.

overhand_right wrote:Not really. Palomino? Seen tapes of the guy (Stracey/Green/Duran), left me as underwhelmed as Jim Watt tapes.

Definitely not an old timer we say "oh Judah/Cotto/Mayweather/some other current fighter would never have lived in Palominos day!!"

Really? Name one good welterweight champion that Judah's beaten? The mediocre and feather fisted spinks? Carlos Baldomir....oh wait, hang on, he lost to Baldomir didn't he?

Stracey was good, A lot of the UK world champions were good. I wonder how much better the likes of Stracey, Minter et al would have done if they had the benefit of being in super/jr divisions.

Not to mention the proliferation of belts and soft defences.

I mean, imagine if Calzaghe had had to defend his title against someone like Hagler!

I think the fighters of that era had it a lot tougher, it was harder to get a title shot, and harder to hang on to that title once you got it. The alphabet situation now makes it easier to remain a champion with careful matchmaking, and soft or non-existent mandatories.

I'm not saying that Calzaghe is inferior to minter or sibson, but, he has had it far easier with the WBO title than belt holders back then did.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Not to mention the proliferation of belts and soft defences.

I mean, imagine if Calzaghe had had to defend his title against someone like Hagler!

I think the fighters of that era had it a lot tougher, it was harder to get a title shot, and harder to hang on to that title once you got it. The alphabet situation now makes it easier to remain a champion with careful matchmaking, and soft or non-existent mandatories.

I'm not saying that Calzaghe is inferior to minter or sibson, but, he has had it far easier with the WBO title than belt holders back then did.

the world title tag has been cheapened so much even in the last 4 or 5 yrs.

it's a terrible mess.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Not to mention the proliferation of belts and soft defences.

I mean, imagine if Calzaghe had had to defend his title against someone like Hagler!

I think the fighters of that era had it a lot tougher, it was harder to get a title shot, and harder to hang on to that title once you got it. The alphabet situation now makes it easier to remain a champion with careful matchmaking, and soft or non-existent mandatories.

I'm not saying that Calzaghe is inferior to minter or sibson, but, he has had it far easier with the WBO title than belt holders back then did.

Very true.

Minter alone fought better competition in about three years than Calzaghe has managed in his whole title reign.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I mean, imagine if Calzaghe had had to defend his title against someone like Hagler!

Or a few lbs the other way Michael Spinks!!!!!