Kid Gavilan v Jose Napoles

Glad it's not just me mate....

I think Gavilan's greater athleticism will give him the edge in this bout.

Napoles might be the more skilled overall, but the Kid's speed advantage is going to see him snatching rounds I feel.

 

I think that's sad RB, not in a me being funny way, but genuinely sad, that you've lost your passion for current boxing, i never will. I love nothing more than watching great stuff from the past but i'll always love boxing, no matter what the boxing politics is doing to the game. Have fun watching fights you've already seen for the rest of your life.

 

There's nothing like the excitement of live boxing and there are great fights out there. They don't have to be ATG's or even the best in the world but 50-50s, which do happen less often. And if your lucky you may get to witness greatness unfold.

 

Let's be honest, we've seen great fighters in our own lifetime, nostalgia is nice but not 24/7

 

The sport's history is far too vast to have seen it all.

 

Okay then have fun living exclusively in the past is maybe how i should have phrased it. You get what i mean.

 

You think?

Bold call that (no pun intended). Griffith looked a vastly worse fighter than the one who fought previously at Welterweight. I think you could make a case for him being shot, as he appeared to still have his strength, but he definitely was not at his best.

At 130lb Floyd is definitely a top 5 fighter. You can not dispute that.

I think you tend to be more negative on fighters than positive, generally. I think with Floyd we have a very good fighter who has a superb skillset and ability, who does not push himself to his full potential. He's is not so much great as very good.

I'm surprised. Boxing has too much of a hold on me for me to stop watching it live.

I disagree a fair bit here.

I think on the outside Napoles has the advantage using his jab to fall into mid range and land a few sharp shots before getting back out of range, sort of as you say in a 'patient, stalking aggressor' role. Keeping that jab pumping to keep the pressure on Gavilan and the combo's behind it to pile up the points.

With Gavilan I see him boxing as he did in the Turner fight in a sort of 'cat mode'. By which I mean he fights like a cat: his opponent goes for the attack and Gavilan scratches and fights with all his might to force his opponent away. When Napoles stays in for just a second too long, the cat-like Gavilan would be scratching, hissing and biting (not literally), with his fast slashing combinations. I think Gavilan's speed advantage here is a decided edge and he wins these exchanges.

I basically see a Leonard vs Benitez fight, with both men in centre ring sparring and with Napoles getting off first. But with lashings of Gavilan vs Turner that punctuates every exchange.

I basically can't pick this fight, but today I will go for Napoles. But in a trilogy these guys go 1-1-1.

 

I also feel Napoles had the superior uppercut, best demonstrated against Ernie Lopez, a vicious, precise, sharp counter right uppercut that left me awestruck, no matter how many times I replayed it.

 

Greg, I don't think I'm that negative, there are as many fighters I wax lyrical about positively I reckon.

I'm just not sold on Floyd having as quality a skillset as SOME think he has. As I've said before, I've seen many flaws that the opponents he's faced have not been able to exploit, 'underperforming' is like me telling my Missus I'm great in the sack when I've got a hot Chick in front of me, but when it's her I'm average

I don't cut him the slack others seem to. There are two fighters currently active who are amongst the top 50+ fighters that have ever lived IMO, and Floyd ain't one of 'em.

 

I think shot is way too strong a term. Griffith was a viable contender for another 5 or 6 years and managed to give Monzon two good go's.
I think Napoles was the greater fighter. Griffith pre Paret tragedy was a different beast and would certainly give Napoles all he could handle. I just think we get in to an issue of styles. I think Napoles was the better fighter backing up. I also think he had the better jab and better footwork, lateral movement. I just think he jabs Griffith, waits for Griffith to press him, gives him angles and counters him.


As for the discussion of the state of boxing today. I do think there are some good fighters and even some great ones. On a Saturday night if my options are a.) Drop $40 to watch Chavez Jr. vs Alfonso Gomez or b.) watch and study a couple Kid Gavilan fights, well that's a no brainer for me. I grew up watching the likes of Curry, Whitaker, and even Tyson on free TV. The logic of paying $40 to watch a Chavez Jr., or a washed up Mosely completely escapes me.

 

Griffith was not shot as a fighter but he was shot at the 143 lbs that he was fighting at and did not perform to his standards in my opinion. Napoles however was in impressive form, and displayed great footwork, combination punching and defense. The fight also shows that while an old fighter may be able to compete with the heavier, slower fighter, he can still lose to a smaller and quicker man who can take advantage of the decline in speed and reflexes.

Napoles probably wins in their primes as well, but Griffith being the workman-like performer that he was would be there all the way making it close on the judges' scorecards.

 

In terms of skillset and ability Mayweather is the best fighter around today.

I think one of the keys to beating Napoles is to push him back by using your strength advantage. A prime Griffith could easily display this tactics and take the fight to Napoles.

 

You're forgetting a certain Mr B. Hopkins:deal You know, the guy who has actually beaten top-notch opposition:hey

 

He hasn't beaten anyone vastly superior to anyone on Floyd's record IMO.

 

Explain.