How good was Jose Napoles?

[Barn]

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?

[$coinblatt$]

[bose]

He'd no doubt be champion today.

[MalikKnucklez]

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

[Obama]

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]

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

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.