Would a prime Benitez have beat a prime Griffith era for era?

TBH, I thought Paret's hands were quicker. Not saying Griffith wasn't fast, he was for sure, but I don't think he's some ATG speed demon. Rodriguez's feet were definitely quicker too.

 

Paret was quick himself tho. Contemporary articles often noted his speed and at times were quite adjective about it.

 

I'd expect Griffith to win on points.

 

This was my thought and I was looking through the post before I added it. Griffith was a tireless worker in the ring. Though he wasn't a big puncher. Still, Benitez more than likely wins a close decision, Griffith though skilled and always in excellent shape, wasn't on the level of prime Leonard or Hearns, especially in the hand speed and power area yet Benitez made the both of them look foolish at certain times in their fights.
I like Benitez to win a close but unanimous dec. But he would need to be on his "A" game.
If not , Griffith takes the dec with his consistency. Neither would see the canvas in this fight no matter who wins unless they slipped.

 

i agree w/ u there

 

can't agree here

 

I think it's close enough to be a series of fights. Perhaps Benitez wins the first based on his slick boxing style. He was slippery and awkward. I think Griffith if nothing else showed the ability to adjust and comeback better, smarter in return bouts. Gil Glancy was a fine trainer and I could see him applying those maybe going to the body from rd 1. Using what I believe to be an advantage in strength to get rougher.
Griffith was consistently in shape and I think he wins a 3 fight series.
1 bout? I'll lean towards Benitez by decision.

 

In terms of hand speed ....I would put Emile Griffith in the same tier as Evander Holyfield and Larry Holmes ....good hand speed

 

I pick Griffith.

 

Since at one time that Emile Griffith trained Wilfred Benitez, Emile would know how to defeat a prime Benitez. Emile has faced many tougher fighters in his era, Wilfred is not known as a puncher, and could be laxed in a fight, the example being, the Harold Weston fight in 1979, where his father Gregorio had to slap his son to revive him. Griffith by a unanimous decision.

 

Good points made on both sides. I agree with ETM that it might take a series to separate them. Griffith was generally very consistent but even pre-Paret could fight within himself sometimes and was in a lot of close fights with lesser guys than Benitez. I always try to allow room for someone being befuddled by a great cutie or defensive whizz if they never faced one. It's not hard to see Benitez turning the trick at all or making him the fave.

I agree with John though that Griffith was fast in his early days and underrated in that regard. He just did everything so well and had no real weaknesses that I think it gets taken for granted how well he did some things. Sort of the Ortiz of the welters (size and strength at the weight included).

He had quick, educated feet too and was very adept at controlling range with little shifts and half steps, integrating it seamlessly with well timed and selected punches. He could shift inside really quickly with defensive smarts (chin down, arms and elbows tucked, hands up, torso protected and moving, head movement etc) behind punches and feints (especially his looping but accurate overhand right). And once there, we all know how monstrously strong he was at locking guys with grappling, mauling and manipulating weight. But he shortened his punches brilliantly with both hands at close range and mixed it really well with subtle rough housing and tangling. It made his fights ugly a lot of the time but was very effective and I could see Benitez really having his ball taken away from and not being allowed time, room or range to slip and counter in a groove if Griffith got his approach right and tried to make it a skilled mauling contest. He was bigger, stronger and lighter of foot than Cervantes and a better body puncher. Benitez was obviously an outlier and freak of nature but still very textbook imo in his defensive approach despite his casual mastery of a wide array of techniques. Not a physical unusual oddball herky jerky high volume mover like Rodriguez.

Or it might just boil down to him possibly just being that shade better than Emile and at the savant end of his style that gets it done for him. You had to just be better than Griffith imo rather than depending on a stylistic advantage, but Benitez might just be that. I don't see it being anything other than close and probably controversial tbh.

 

Griffith was a terrific all round Fighter. He has speed, smarts, strength and bottomless courage but peak Benitez was just so hard to land on.
For all Emile's work rate and effort, I can see Benitez winning what would probably be an unpopular decision.

 

True comment. Though it does tend to make the place a bit more fun if we have a go all the same.

Cheer up, mate. We might get back to the pub inside of 2021.

 

Maybe he's choosing his words wrong, woulds and coulds

Well yeah all the coulds are coulds so don't ask, and all the woulds aren't possible so don't ask

 

But if you take away hypothetical matches that didn't happen, all we have left to discuss are fights that happened. There could be no debate; well, very little as we'd be disputing the undisputable in many cases.

Imagine the poll. Who won the fight between Lennox Lewis and Vitali Klitschko in 2003?

Lewis 68 votes
Klitschko 1 vote

You don't need me to name names as to where I think that rogue vote might come from.