Jose Napoles greater than Pea?

As great as Pernell was, Napoles was even greater..no doubt at his very peak BEFORE he won the welterweight title from Curtis Cokes.

 

Why not? Simply because Griffith is a better welterweight than Chavez? So the circumstances are irrelevant?

Would you say Pac's win against DLH is a better win than Wilfred Benitez's over Harold Weston, because DLH was a better welterweight than Weston?

Don't see why it shouldn't be debateable when Griffith looked so bad. The guy hadn't fought at the weight for nigh on 4 years when he dropped down to fight Napoles, and anyone that has seen the fight knows how slow and flat he looked.

Chavez, by comparison looked a much more able fighter imo. Much sharper. The only reason why I think Griffith would probably still beat Chavez is because Chavez was quite small for the weight and Griffith would have been too big for him. But is that, again, mere speculation?

 

I explained it before.
Griffith was a bit drained but overall the better fighter at welterweight. Chavez was smaller and slightly past it. That´s put them on around the same level. But Napoles looked more dominant and better against Griffith than Pea did against Chavez.

 

I just think Whitaker just looks to be the better boxer of the 2, its close though but give Whitaker an edge. Both are very dominant at their best over the best of their time. Resume is a subjective issue, both have excellent resumes, you could easily argue a Prime Delahoya is a better WW than a past prime drained Griffith, but I won't bother

 

Most of the main points have been made. It depends mainly on how you view Whitaker's controversial fights.

In terms of ability, I'm not sure. I think he'd probably beat Napoles anywhere from 135-147, the stylistic edge being the difference, and I'd rate Whitaker as a better Lightweight. However, Napoles has more facets to his game, a master of all ranges, and has the skillset to compete with (and beat) much bigger guys that would seriously trouble Pea, as proven by his run at 147 and, indeed, his performance against Monzon.

However you look at it, they're both among the very finest fighters of all time, and have shouts at being the greatest ever on film in terms of skillset, IMO.

 

I think DLH beat BOTH "Pea and Quartey" on PPV back in 1997 and '99..... Yes, by slim margins, but DLH still won on my cards...... After all, DLH did get the decisions in both affairs.....

MR.BILL:hat

 

I don't see how anyone gave Whitaker the win against De La Hoya. He really didn't land **** that fight.

 

In my opinion Napoles is a few dozen spots ahead of Pernell. he can really turn up the heat in a fight

 

Easily one of the most inane comments I've ever seen on an internet forum.

Since when is a win resume with at least one ATG, two wins over a P4P entrant, numerous former and reigning titleholders and ranked contenders across four weight classes "nothing to brag about"? :roll:

Really? You've questioned other fighters with better sets of wins than that.

 

Why not?

Chavez was considered the best P4P fighter in the world and was favored to win. Griffith was a deposed champion (and never would be champ again), generally acknowledged as faded, and his status was considered even more questionable by sucking back down to his old weight class for the first time in ages; and the odds reflected all this.

 

I don't really see where and how Napoles has an edge here.

 

Pea was better.And lets not forget Some people thought Eddie Perkins BEAT Napoles.

 

Perkins was an excellent fighter himself. Although it is a bit strange what you say, considering that the cards were basically a white wash in Mantequilla's favor.

 

Well, he threw more, landed more, and landed at a higher connect percentage than Oscar, according to punchstat. For what that's worth, anyway.