Carmen Basilio vs Jose Napoles

Yeah.

 

Yeah.

 

This is a pretty even match until Basilio inflicts that tide-turning cut.

 

Basilio was a relentless warrior that really gave and took a lot of punishment and had the sort of will/heart that just pushed him on and on throughout his career to some great victories. Napoles was smooth and ever so slick he could box with a magic i could never tire of watching .both boxers had decent power but were not huge ko puncher's and both had top Chin's. for me napoles has the edge in defence so with no real confidence i have gone for napoles on pts

 

Which is of course an inevitability.

 

I think Napoles would win a decision.
Basilio fought with his face a bit too much.

 

Napoles was definitely the more talented ,but he was never more than a big lightweight really,as classy a boxer ,as he was ,and as good , precise, and accurate a puncher, I have my doubts he could have kept Carmen off of him.I think I will go for Basilio by close dec.
In a trilogy they would split it ,and it could go either way,imo.

 

Jose Napoles was a superb boxer, he had the poise, technical skills and integration of offence and defence. However, he liked to have the strength advantage in his fights or he tended to struggle. Despite him being little more than a 140lber, he packed serious strength into his frame.

If you look at Napoles best performances, they come against boxer types with little physical strength and little inclination to get in and force the issue. If you analyse his losses or turmoils at Welterweight it was big strong, rugged types who imposed themselves. Even Backus caused Napoles stylistic problems, way beyond his capabilities.

Now looking at Basilio we have the archetypal slugger. He's rough rugged and immensly strong, to me he is the strongest Welterweight to lace them up. Beyond this he has a good defence consisting of good head movement, but his offence is where his strength lies. He forces his strength well on his opponents inside and his combinations and power is quite impressive, especially in his left hand.

Basilio's losses tended to come to more out-boxers, like Graham and Davey and Robinson in the rematch. They utilised lateral movement and sharp long punches. Napoles never conformed to this stylistic template. He was more of a counter-pressure fighter, he'd look to pop that jab then work off of it with the counters. When Armando Muniz pressed the fight on Napoles, Napoles went hell for leathers with counters and body work, rather than backing up and moving and popping, I don't see why he would do it now.

I can see Basilio coming out early looking to apply the pressure, Napoles would be countering well but after a while Basilio's combinations would throw off the smoother, pin point combo's of Napoles and Basilio would start to impose himself and push Napoles around to pound out a decision or get a late stoppage.

 

One thing to take into account: Basilio was probably a worse bleeder than Napoles. Take it for what it's worth.

 

I've got Basilio and I think he's about as bad a styles match up as it gets for Napoles

 

Under 1950's rules re: cuts, I go with Basilio by SD.

Under 1970's rules......I go with Napoles by late cut stoppage.

 

Yes, Jose Mantequilla Napoles...once one of the greatest welterweight champs of history..now...just the Henry Cooper of welterweight history.

 

Carmine was tough and rough and no fight against him would be considered gentle...Naples was one of my favorite but the rough stuff may be an issue here. I always loved Napoles but I am Thinking Carmine pulls this out