This content is protected This content is protected This isn't a head-to-head matchup, I'm interested who everyone thinks was better. That means, who'd do the best when matched up against all the great welterweights, disregarding accomplishments. Jose Napoles or Emile Griffith? Napoles, you could say, was a more dominant champion - but then he didn't have Luis Rodriguez (#9 or 10 welterweight by me) to contend with. Is Griffith's middleweight success telling? Or would Napoles have fought just as well if he'd moved up earlier?
I think Napoles does better against more welterweights than Griffith, but Griffith does better against more middleweights. I'd only pick Robinson and Leonard to beat Napoles, and would make a fight with Hearns a 50-50 affair. I'd pick Robinson, Leonard, Gavilan, Armstrong and of course Napoles to beat Griffith, and I'd make Hearns a 50-50 affair. Whereas I can't really see too many fighters having a decent chance of beating Napoles,I think a lot more exist that could beat Griffith. I'd give the likes of Barney Ross, Pernell Whitaker, Billy Graham and Wilfred Benitez a decent chance of beating Griffith (though I'd favour Griffith over all of them), but I can't see Napoles having too much trouble with any of them. At middleweight, I think Griffith's body was more suited to the weight. Napoles was a small to medium sized welterweight, and his style wouldn't be amenable to dealing with many middleweights where he'd be slower and wouldn't have the same effect with his punches. Griffith seemed to carry the weight much easier without compromising his style (as much).
I always felt Napoles was better, a lot of Emile's fights could have gone the other way. I just feel Napoles matchs up better with the other ATG welterweights the only real weakness he had was he bleed easy.
Griffith wasn't in his prime when he was beaten by Napoles though - weight drained, a few years past his best. '61, '62, that was the real Griffith. Whoever would have won that fight is a mystery, it may have still been Napoles, but it'd be much closer. Using an odds scale I'll show how Napoles and Griffith would/wouldn't be favoured against some notable welterweights (Napoles/Griffith are the numbers on the left): Napoles 50/50 Griffith 60/40 Gavilan 50/50 Robinson 40/60 Hearns 40/60 Leonard 50/50 Duran 50/50 Rodriguez 60/40 Armstrong 65/35 Ross 60/40 Walker 75/25 Walcott 65/35 McLarnin 60/40 Curry 65/35 Basilio 70/30 Lewis Griffith 50/50 Napoles 50/50 Gavilan 50/50 Robinson 55/45 Hearns 50/50 Leonard 50/50 Duran 55/45 Rodriguez 60/40 Armstrong 60/40 Ross 60/40 Walker 75/25 Walcott 65/35 McLarnin 60/40 Curry 55/45 Basilio 65/35 Lewis There's not a lot in it really. I'm assuming both Napoles and Griffith are primed and ready to go. Of course, on an off night, someone like Curry may beat Griffith (only to be hammered in the rematches).
The fight that occurred was too one sided for me to make a prime Griffith 50/50 with Napoles. Whilst it'd be closer, I think Napoles would always be too slick. Nice breakdown. Disagree with a few, but no really rediculous opinions amongst that lot.
Napoles was at his peak as a fighter in about '68-'74. With the exception of a freak blip in 1970 when he was upset by Billy Backus, he was simply head and shoulders above all welterweights. He was, in a word, BRILLIANT. He twice faced a very good champion in the dangerous and classy Curtis Cokes and beat him to a pulp two times. There are photos of Cokes, sitting on his stool in surrender, after both these fights, and they look almost identical. Cokes is as puffed up and battered as a man who stuck his head in a hornets nest. In 1969 also, Napoles met Emile Griffith for defense number two, and decked Emile in the secon round on the way to winning an easy decision. One tactic Mantequilla used masterfully over and over again, was to feint Griffith with a left, causing Emile to counter with his right, then Napoles would sharply counter Griffith's counter with a right of his own. Griffith fell for it every time. And Napoles refused to get in the trenches with Griffith and get into a slugging match, instead neatly outboxing and countering him all the way. Napoles was a blend of smooth as butter defense and moves in general, and wicked power. He tko'd Ernie "Indian Red" Lopez in 1970, accurately snaking in debilitating power shots through Lopez' guard and deked him 3 times, forcing the ref to stop it in round 15. In their rematch, Napoles impressed the hell out of me by taking out the rugged Lopez with one killer shot, a right hand in the 7th round, a punch so devatating that it dislodged Lopez' eye from it's socket. It was hard to believe that one well placed shot could do so much damage, and the boxing writers were awed as well. A couple of years later, Napoles fought his most deserving challenger, Adolph Pruitt. Pruitt looked like a champion in the making, scoring devatating ko's over his opposition. Mantequilla had one of his stellar performances in blitzing Pruitt in 3 rounds. Mantequilla was likened to a "buzzsaw" in that his punches seemed to rip Pruitt to pieces. Pruitt was totally outclassed for 2-1/2 lopsided rounds, the **** beat out of him. I think Napoles starting declining as a fighter after he was battered by Carlos Monzon. Just about all the experts figured Napoles would outclass Monzon, and of course, they were all proven very wrong. Jose still had a few more good years left, even in decline, before he finally got stopped by John Stracey of England. I believe that Griffith was a proven great over two different weight classes, welter and middle, but Jose Napoles was a shade or two greater as welterweight champion. Napoles would ahve had no problem at all in his prime against Luis Rodriguez, or any other of Griffith's challengers, and I think that his only weakness was his tendency to cut around his eyes at times. I think he would have competed equal to if not better than any welterweight in history with the lone exception of Sugar Ray Robinson. As for Griffith, I think he perforns less consistantly and less brilliantly than Napoles against the welterweight greats, but that's just a comparison relative to Napoles, as Griffith was a great, though somewhat less consistant performer. I think guys like Ray Leonard would have troubled Griffith, as would have Hearns and Benitez and Duran, but I can see Griffith beating any of them in rematches, and NONE would have knocked him out either at welter or middleweight.
I'm guessing you disagree with the Robinson ones most? In a series, I'd say Griffith wins the first, the second is either a draw or controversial decision to Griffith, then Robinson knocks him out in the third to seal his superiority.
He was a middleweight by that point in his career. He had no business as a welterweight, a division he was steadily outgrowing. He may have made the weight easy, he certainly wasn't right on the limit, but I reckon he was too light for his own good. Back in the early '60s it wouldn't have been a problem. That doesn't mean to say Napoles wouldn't have outfoxed him... It means a more energetic and youthful Griffith would have at least made it closer.
He wasn't forced at gunpoint to have the fight and he made weight comfortbaly. In fact, this was one of the very few occassions where Emile gave full credit to his opponent. Despite being one of boxing's more venerable people he was usually not overly gracious in defeat...comes with working with Clancy I suppose (boxing all-time #1 bad loser). Weight drainage wasn't a factor; being badly outclassed was.
Griffith was badly outclassed, but you don't think weight was a factor? Even though he'd been fighting as a light middleweight/middleweight consistently for the last few years? I see it like I see it with Archie Moore - struggled to make light heavyweight after he got used to heavyweight. Luckily, he was good enough to see off allcomers.
No. It's not as if he was short of offers, especially with a mooted 4th meeting with Benevenuti on the cards.
Both are pretty equal historically imo. Griffith looks slow as hell against Jose.It was so one sided it's difficult imagining Griffith ever winning but to be honest i think the likes of Lopez,Lewis, Pruitt and others would have defeated that Griffith as well.
