Better fighter: Salvador Sanchez or Jose Napoles ?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Vic-JofreBRASIL, Dec 15, 2010.



  1. sweet_scientist

    sweet_scientist Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,744
    17
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Nov 8, 2004
    Very good stuff teeto :good
     
  2. teeto

    teeto Obsessed with Boxing booted

    28,088
    9
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Oct 15, 2007
    Thanks SS
     
  3. GPater11093

    GPater11093 Barry Full Member

    38,042
    30
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Nov 10, 2008
    Just watched some Sanchez. When me and teeto was talking about Napoles was more technical, I wanted to say that Sanchez was more intelligent, but I did not feel like that was the right word.

    Now I would say that Sanchez was more intuitive and creative, often finding his own way of doing things, whereas Napoles relied on more technical skills to do his thing.
     
  4. red cobra

    red cobra Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    36,303
    3,741
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jul 28, 2004
    Great analysis GP!:good
     
  5. El Bujia

    El Bujia Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,745
    10
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Apr 4, 2010
    How do you mean? Any examples as far as Sanchez is concerned?
     
  6. GPater11093

    GPater11093 Barry Full Member

    38,042
    30
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Nov 10, 2008
    Well generally, he didn't exactly use 'proper' technique when dealing with opponents, and in general did some things not in the textbook to succeed. Whereas Napoles was much more faithful to it.

    An example would be in the Nelson fight he begins to lead with a left hook counter, which isnt something you see every day. That is just one example.
     
  7. MRBILL

    MRBILL Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    21,118
    25
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Oct 9, 2008
    Joe Naps prolly deserves the call, but Sal Sanchez was my vato from Mexico...

    I like Sanchez...:bbb:deal

    MR.BILL:hat
     
  8. GPater11093

    GPater11093 Barry Full Member

    38,042
    30
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Nov 10, 2008
    Also another example could be engaging Gomez from the ropes.
     
  9. dpw417

    dpw417 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,463
    261
    Sportsbook:
    7,838
    Jul 13, 2007
    Gp and Teeto very good breakdowns.

    If someone pointed a gun at me...I'd say Napoles by the slimmest margin. Guys would it be fair to say that Sanchez would be more apt to strategically withdrawl where Napoles wouldn't? What I mean by this is (what Teeto said), Napoles came at you with his skillset and had the utmost confidence in his ability, even maybe to a fault. He even went right at the giant Monzon who looked to be two divsions bigger.
    Addendum: The Napoles who who unseated Cokes was beyond belief.
     
  10. nickythekid

    nickythekid Active Member Full Member

    780
    0
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Apr 11, 2009
    I like Sanchez better personally but only slightly. First historical fighter I watched and remember thinking he was real class. So poised and patient, serpentine was a good discription, it implies being coiled and ready to strike with venomous force, which i think is appropriate. There is also the romanticism of dying young and not forfilling his potential. To die at 23 and be considered an atg featherweight is mighty impressive.
     
  11. teeto

    teeto Obsessed with Boxing booted

    28,088
    9
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Oct 15, 2007
    Yeah i think i get what you mean, he was certainly very very confident in his ability, like you say, the way his quality shows early in the Monzon fight it's like he's thinking 'idon't get what the deal is with this guy, i'm better than him'

    EDIT-this is a reply to dpw417, forgot to quote
     
  12. El Bujia

    El Bujia Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,745
    10
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Apr 4, 2010
    On the contrary, I'd say that fight is a prime example of Napoles adopting the necessary strategy to take on a fighter with Monzon's tools. He knew he wasn't going to get anywhere boxing with finesse on the outside against an opponent of that size, so he did the only thing he could, which was to go straight at him and attempt to cause him discomfort. It didn't work, and it never would've, in my opinion, but only because of Monzon's class (in addition, of course, to his tremendous size advantage). I think Mantequilla showed that he was capable of boxing with the best and pressing the fight with the best. It all depended on the situation.
     
  13. dpw417

    dpw417 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,463
    261
    Sportsbook:
    7,838
    Jul 13, 2007
    I definitely see your point...and it is valid. ( Because that is what Napoles applied or tried to anyway. And you never know what you are in the ring with until you are there.)The point I attempted to make was that Napoles might have been better served if he had not so aggressive (regardless he would not have won this fight) if he were to be more measured and not pressed so hard he may have made Monzon reach for him more(?) Then use the aggression he displayed more intermittantly instead of full on, all the time. Monzon was not a typical inside fighter, he used strength on the inside to rough opponents up, but he dialed in from a distance. But the bottom line is for me anyway is that I think Napoles could have fought more effectively against Monzon but it wasn't in his make-up to do so...But in reality it was a matter of picking your poison.
    Duran found out early that he couldn't push Hagler and so he didn't. He knew that he would have to use more finesse than usual...Napoles attacked the mountain and stubbornly refused to change no matter what.
     
  14. GPater11093

    GPater11093 Barry Full Member

    38,042
    30
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Nov 10, 2008
    How adaptable do you think he was, though?
     
  15. sweet_scientist

    sweet_scientist Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,744
    17
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Nov 8, 2004
    I kind of agree with those saying Napoles was the more skilled of the two, but Sanchez had something about him which made him just as able imo as Napoles: may I call it 'unflappability'? There's just nothing you could do to unsettle him. He could keep his concentration no matter what was thrown at him, and couldn't be thrown off by anything. He was like a machine in that sense.... Napoles was unflappable too of course, but not quite like Sanchez.

    Watching Sanchez to me, especially when you wanted someone he was fighting to beat him, was like re-living a bad nightmare. You could throw everything you had at him, and punch and kick and stab and shoot as many times as you want, but you were just delaying the inevitable before you'd finally be taken down......

    Am I alone in feeling this?

    And how dare he pick up the pace like he could in the mid to late rounds... **** was unnatural...
     

Share This Page