View Full Version : How good was Jose Napoles?


26 and Live
03-29-2012, 12:21 AM
He doesn't look exceptionally fast nor does he look like an exceptionally hard puncher but he looks awkward as hell with excellent movement, good footwork, and great timing... I heard a guy say that he thinks he might have been the best WW of all time so I youtubed him and he looks like a bad man... What do you guys know/think about him?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GR-kuFNSXrA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

allupnem
03-29-2012, 03:46 PM
I think he rates well with other great WW. His only problem would be that he was prone to being cut. I have about 10 of his fights on dvd and think he could compete with all the past champs but I wouldnt pick him over Robinson, Leonard, or Hearns but i might against the rest

wmute
03-29-2012, 03:55 PM
He doesn't look exceptionally fast nor does he look like an exceptionally hard puncher but he looks awkward as hell with excellent movement, good footwork, and great timing... I heard a guy say that he thinks he might have been the best WW of all time so I youtubed him and he looks like a bad man... What do you guys know/think about him?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GR-kuFNSXrA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

He is too small compared to the other great WW, and he "missed his prime", due to being cuban etc...

That being said, he is an ATG and one of my favorite fighters to watch. Possibly the smoothest offense I have ever seen.

IronDanHamza
03-30-2012, 06:26 PM
Jose Napoles was a great fighter no doubt but I think he's a tad overrated sometimes.

I don't consider him a Top 3 WW like a lot of people these day's tend to.

I consider him a Top 10 without question but in the lower half.

tenPt
04-03-2012, 07:04 AM
I never really gave him full credit for the Griffith win, Emile was a middleweight at the time that unwisely thought he could make 147 again. In his prime Griffith would beat him.

The Surgeon
04-03-2012, 09:11 AM
When i think of Napoles i think one thing - SMOOTH! He was incredibly smooth offensively and a pleasure to watch. I think a top 3 spot is pushing it though, i tend to have have around 6 or 7 when doing rankings but given the depth of the WW division that is an amazing feat...

26 and Live
04-03-2012, 01:17 PM
Thanks for the feed back... I agree that he was very smooth... He returned fire in combinations like JMM but his defense looks better...

He looks better than most of the WWs I see today

Obama
04-03-2012, 11:28 PM
Napoles is neither the greatest welterweight of all time nor the greatest Cuban welterweight of all time. Kid Gavilan was better. That said, he's still an all time great. He definitely rates in the top 20 Welterweights. It's a great division, ATGs exist deep into the list.

IronDanHamza
04-05-2012, 07:24 PM
Napoles is neither the greatest welterweight of all time nor the greatest Cuban welterweight of all time. Kid Gavilan was better. That said, he's still an all time great. He definitely rates in the top 20 Welterweights. It's a great division, ATGs exist deep into the list.

I rank Gavilan higher aswell but plenty rank Napoles ahead of Gavilan.

Ray Corso
04-05-2012, 07:37 PM
Anyone in the top twentyfive of their division or multiple division is a worthy opponent and any of them can be great for night or part of their careers. Jose was an oustanding boxer with all the skills needed to perform on a high level plus being a very competitive man. I consider him above the Kid because he was more well rounded in all the areas. The Kid loved to mix it up and could abandon his boxing style at the drop of a hat and start slugging it out. Jose was a thinking fighter and stayed within his plan to combat his opponent but could change if his plan wasn't working. I have an old friend who fought all of the greats from the 50 thru the 60 and his opinions on these fighters is how I form some of my thoughts on them. Jose was a prime example of a fighter lots of young boxer in his time tried to emulate thats how good he was. Trying to copy someone is a high compliment in boxing. Ray

Barn
04-05-2012, 07:56 PM
Anyone in the top twentyfive of their division or multiple division is a worthy opponent and any of them can be great for night or part of their careers. Jose was an oustanding boxer with all the skills needed to perform on a high level plus being a very competitive man. I consider him above the Kid because he was more well rounded in all the areas. The Kid loved to mix it up and could abandon his boxing style at the drop of a hat and start slugging it out. Jose was a thinking fighter and stayed within his plan to combat his opponent but could change if his plan wasn't working. I have an old friend who fought all of the greats from the 50 thru the 60 and his opinions on these fighters is how I form some of my thoughts on them. Jose was a prime example of a fighter lots of young boxer in his time tried to emulate thats how good he was. Trying to copy someone is a high compliment in boxing. Ray
Who is your friend?

$coinblatt$
04-05-2012, 09:02 PM
https://p.twimg.com/AkDCVprCIAIepaD.jpg:large

bose
04-06-2012, 10:32 AM
He'd no doubt be champion today.

MalikKnucklez
04-07-2012, 12:34 AM
I think Napoles would've ranked higher if he didn't have the misfortune of maturing into a Welterweight so late. Even then, he retired 81-7 with some of those Ls coming via cut-stoppages, not actual losses.

He had an amateur record of 113 or 114-1.

He was definitely the most complete true Welterweight of all time after Robinson and Leonard in my opinion.

And one of the main reasons most major boxing distributors rank Gavilan higher is because Gavilan was a media darling, and was way more fun to watch.
But he was not better than Jose Napoles.

Jose wasn't a master at anything in particular (except footwork maybe) but he was GREAT at everything. He could be highly unconventional but technically/defensively sound, which is seldom seen

http://www.boxeo.ws/files/images/jose_napoles_foto_autografiada.jpg

Obama
04-07-2012, 02:38 AM
People need to understand Gavilan easily fought a level of opposition 2x as high. Pardon him for his "flaws". Napoles gets stopped a whole lot more in Gavilan's day. And he's already been stopped 4 times more than Gavilan as it is, who was never stopped.

IronDanHamza
04-07-2012, 12:01 PM
I think Napoles would've ranked higher if he didn't have the misfortune of maturing into a Welterweight so late. Even then, he retired 81-7 with some of those Ls coming via cut-stoppages, not actual losses.

He had an amateur record of 113 or 114-1.

He was definitely the most complete true Welterweight of all time after Robinson and Leonard in my opinion.

And one of the main reasons most major boxing distributors rank Gavilan higher is because Gavilan was a media darling, and was way more fun to watch.
But he was not better than Jose Napoles.

Jose wasn't a master at anything in particular (except footwork maybe) but he was GREAT at everything. He could be highly unconventional but technically/defensively sound, which is seldom seen

http://www.boxeo.ws/files/images/jose_napoles_foto_autografiada.jpg

Stoppage Via cuts are loss's.

And Gavilan is ranked higher because he beat better fighters and is a better fighter, IMO.

Not that Napoles isn't great, he is. He's an ATG.