Napoles vs Duran at Welter in LA

Duran wins at least 7 out of 10, given how he was prone to the occasional off night. He is just all wrong for Napoles.

 

You said Ray Robinson was wrong for Napoles. Hearns too, and now Duran. Oh, and Basilio.

Is there anyone you actually believe he could beat?

 

Wow...Thats a rag tag bunch of fighters there..Really a kick in the guts to Napoles saying he cant beat those bums.

 

They're great fighters of course, but perhaps it's an injustice to one of the greatest welterweight champions to say he wouldn't get much of a look-in against any of them. And from Sweet Pea's predictions it sounds like he'd pick Ray Leonard, Mickey Walker and maybe Henry Armstrong to be 'all wrong for Napoles' as well.

 

Napoles is seriously being undercut by some really otherwise knowledgable guys here, in my opinion. One question I have...what was Duran's high mark as a welterweight? Answer, the first Leonard fight. Is it reasonable to say that Leonard didn't fight his best fight here? That he didn't use his head so much, and instead, was maybe a bit overconfident, and maybe taken at bit out of his game somewhat by all of Duran's taunting...about Ray's manhood, his giving the finger to his wife, etc.,? And just a scant 5 months later, maybe Leonard thought about it, and made a "slight" adjustment to his gameplan and had dramatically different results, as in using his slick defensive abilities and speed and not the dumb fight plan he used in Montreal? And also, who the hell else did Duran beat at 147? I'm adamant in maintaining that the superior welterweight, Napoles would have been too much for Duran, just as Leonard was in the "no mas" fight, and Wilfred Benitez was at 154, because the right style and coolness of approach would have been used vs Duran, and not fighting Duran foolishly, head on and emotionally, which was ALWAYS the wrong way to fight him. However, I don't expect to convince ant Duran fans, just as you won't sway me, for Duran, whom I consider the greatest lightweight champ ever, was not as great at welter or any other class he visited after that. Say what you will, because just like Duran himself, most Duran fans have an unlimited arsenal of excuses and alibis.

 

I wouldnt say that personally...I pretty much reckon its a 50-50 fight between him and Duran, though I lean toward Duran.

Hearns is all wrong for anyone at the weight...Frankly, IMO ,under the right circumstances he could beat anyone in history there. Id actually give Jose a big chance in that one but Hearns would be one of the worst fighters for Napoles' skin..considering his speed, power and range etc.

Leonard would likely be all wrong for Napoles...I dont think its to much of a stretch saying that. I think saying Jose is a clear favorite in that fight is an injustice to the second best welter ever in Leonard.

It didnt look like Pea was totally writing off Napoles there...He did say Duran only wins it 7 times out of 10..Very few I think could take 3 away from the very best version of Duran at the weight in a 10 fight series.

We arent talking about just some average fighters here...they are the best..Certainly some of the best that weight has seen and in fact some of the best the sport has seen.
Absolutely no shame in Napoles losing to them.

 

This content is protected

 

Duran did beat Palomino at welter as well' clearly.
Everyones talking about the second Leonard fight but does anyone think that Napoles would of employed these tactics to beat Duran.
I've give my opinion earlier but I wouldn't argue with any one who goes for Napoles by the way, he was a great fighter.

 

Good post.

 

Spoon's post was rather eloquent and correct.

 

Again redcob..that works both ways.

Who did Napoles beat at 147 as good as Leonard or Duran?

Cokes? No way.

Griffith? Close but there is the whole weight drained argument that Ive heard a lot of people discuss.

Neither fighter is like Duran anyway.

There should be little debate about who fought the better fighters and who proved themselves against a higher calibre of opposition.

 

Both Ernie Lopz and Adolph Pruitt would have been champions if not for Napoles...especially Pruitt. What have you against Curtis Cokes? The man established himself as champion of the welters as solidly as Larry Holmes ever did at heavyweight...he could box and hit, and showed no signs of slowing down. Napoles emphatically dominated him, and repeated himself in a rematch. Remember, Napoles was championship material as a LIGHTWEIGHT long before he finally got his rightful chance at welterweight. He had one hell of a greater "resume" as it's fashionable to call a record at welterweight than did Duran, and there's no way to spin that, though I'm sure the excuse makers for Duran will.

 

That doesnt answer the question in the slightest...You are going off one some funny tangents here mate.

I asked who did Napoles fight who was as good as Duran or Leonard.

Pruitt and Lopez were not..regardless if they were championship material...They werent even as good as Palomino IMO.

I have nothing against Cokes and Id like to see where it makes out I do...He was a very, very good fighter. But again not as good as Leonard or Duran.

If you are going to question who Duran fought at welter to prove himself able to beat Napoles...then you have to ask the same of Jose. You wouldnt be objective if you didnt.
No one is doubting Jose has the deeper welter resume but what one performance did Napoles have that was as good as Duran beating Leonard?

This is not about who is greater at the weight..this is about who beats who.

 

I can't the phrase 'all wrong for him' - because it's bollocks.

When we're talking about fighters at this level, I mean true legends of the ring, there is nobody wrong for anyone. There are stylistic advantages, but great fighters overcome things like that.

Ray Leonard, who by the way isn't necessarily the second best welterweight, might find it hard to measure Napoles who was expertly good with his movement.

As it turns out, I too pick Hearns, Leonard & Robinson over Napoles. In a surprise turn of events, Robinson exchanges with Napoles and comes off worse than the other two, although still clinching victory. Hearns is about the only welterweight who'd hand Napoles a sound beating.

But Basilio, Walker, Armstrong, Griffith, Gavilan - Napoles beats them all. And with Duran (who I think would be 50/50 with Hearns at welterweight) it's a toss-up.

Of course, Napoles was said to be one of the best ever - regardless of weight - in the late '60s. He was a bit small for welterweight, like Armstrong, and it's testament to his greatness that he did so well despite being the same size as Carlos Ortiz.

Even so, Napoles dominated a strong era of welterweights. Hedgemon Lewis, Armando Muniz (he was past his best when he beat these men), Curtis Cokes - they were more than solid.

 

Peace Whatarock!!(lol) I respect your opinions about all that and regarding Cokes, we'll just have to ageree to disagree on the merits of Mantequilla Napoles!!:|