Emile Griffith v Jose Napoles - who was the greater fighter?

Griffith has the far better resume, though I prefer Napoles. I rate Griffith higher based primarily on his resume and efficiency at two weight classes. Napoles as well, but most of his accomplishments took place at WW, even if he was a better LW.

It all depends on what you mean.

 

Napoles. Pretty close, though in a P4P sense.

 

Griffith was physically stronger than Napoles, and a great versatile/technician type of fighter, kind of a controlled sort of swarmer/boxer who didn't do anything great, but a lot of things very good, and was one of the greatest 15 round fighters in history. Content with and adept at going for decision victories and pacing himself. Jose Napoles didn't compete as consistently over the long haul as Griffith, but he reached a higher plateau of brilliance in terms of greatness as welterweight champ, if for a comparatively shorter time on the world stage than Griffith. Napoles was a much better, harder, even explosive puncher, and got the nickname Mantequilla for reason being that he was as smooth a boxer/puncher as has ever been seen. His peak years, from 68 to 74 saw him compete as a brilliant and destructive force. Napoles showed he was at least a full level above Griff in his masterful 1969 title defense, which saw him SCHOOL Emile emphatically over the 15 round destance and decking his man in the 3rd along the way. Napoles outboxed, outfeinted, outpunched and out countered Emile all night, and never once fell to the temptation of getting sucked into a more physical, brawling type of fight that Emile so desperately wanted to get Napoles into. It was a masterful defense by Mantequilla.

 

i think its griffith, he fought everyone... and beat everyone

nino, luis, tiger and from what i heard in the ring magazine, the monzon rematch was signifigantly close.

 

I think it's Napoles in all honesty. He was so dominant in the welterweight division despite it being slightly heavier than where he'd rather be, and he beat a lot of tough fighters on the way up. His career is comparable to Marvin Hagler's, except his resume is a bit better. If Hagler's #32-34 on my pound-for-pound list, Napoles is about #25 and that's very high when you consider the only people above him outside of the top ten are Pernell Whitaker, Bob Fitzsimmons, Tony Canzoneri and the like. Griffith would be only a spot or two below at #23-24.

 

Griffith accomplished far more IMO. Napoles looks more impressive, and prime for prime I would favor him, but I don't think what he achieved is up to par with what Griffith did.

I rate Emile somewhere around #30 all-time, and Napoles around #35, so it's close, but Griffith is more likely to be closer to 25 than Napoles is to 30.

 

You really consider those his peak years? I'd say they were a bit earlier.

To be fair, Griffith was badly weight-drained and not at his best for this bout.

 

Griffith had been looking like an old man since his series with Benvenuti ended, and there was some question about his ability to make the weight (after all the time spent at 160) on top of that. The Griff that Napoles beat was a shell of himself.


The question really is a tough one IMO. Napoles was a dominant champion, but his competition for most of his reign was really just so-so. If he was fighting today, he would probably get a lot more criticism for his level of comp. Griffith was a definite great, proven fighter, but I really don't know quite what to make of Napoles. I would've loved to have seen a fight between Napoles and a prime Griffith. That would've settled all matters either way.

 

Griffith was a damn good fighter right up until after the Monzon fights.

Problem for the napoles bout was him coming back down to Welter.

 

Griffith has the better resume, while Napoles was far more consistent and I rate him better head to head, a lot of Emile's big wins could have gone the other way kinda like Oscar almost all his big fights are close. Its close between Napoles and Griffith but I personally rate Napoles higher.

 

Idiot. I meant:

"Griffith would be only a spot or two below at #26-27."

 

I thought his form was pretty sh*tty compared to what it had once been, ever since the Benvenuti fights.

Look at his fight with Dick Tiger not too long after Napoles, Griff looked like a shell there too. He won because Tiger was even older and more of a shell than he was (and in fact, on the verge of dying of cancer).

 

I don't agree.

It was only post Monzon 2 that he had declined enough to be said not to be very good anymore.

he was never a great middleweight in the first place though IMO.