Jose Napoles greater than Pea?

As great as Joe Nap was, I still see Perny Whit scoring a decision over him in a 12 rounder..... Fo Show.......

MR.BILL

P.S. YES! At 147.....

 

Personally, I've always thought it might actually be the other way around. Napoles seems to get rated a lot based on the looks of his performances, but his reputation exceeds his resume IMO. Although he certainly looked awesome as a LW and jr. WW, he didn't get the kind of big fights there needed to substantiate how good he really was. As for WW, I think overall the '70s was a rather so-so era at best.

 

I hate threads like this. There's a lot more to rating a fighter than his record on paper (provided we have substantial footage). That applies for both men.

 

Pea does get overrated a lot. i wasnt impressed with his comp the way I was with Napoles'. Pernell loses to a prime Camacho

 

I think they are somewhat interchangeable as far ranking for greatness goes.

Who you have higher depends on how you answer the following questions:

1. Did you think Whitaker beat DLH, Ramirez, Chavez and Rivera?

2. How do you assess the worth of a weight drained Griffith and a welter Chavez and lightweight Nelson?

3. Do you hold Napoles' cut stoppages against him?



1. I think Whitaker beat DLH, Ramirez and Chavez and drew with Rivera in their first fight. As such I think his resume is fairly even with Napoles'.

2. I also think Chavez was in better form than Griffith was for their respective welterweight fights with Pea and Napoles. Nelson, was no great lightweight, but he was in good shape for Whitaker.

3. I have to take some marks away from Napoles for his cut stoppages to Morgan and Backus (thought Jose caught a break against Muniz too but I don't hold that against him). In light of this I think Pea was a little more dominant. That's what splits them for me.

Another interesting thing to consider (even though we can't) is what happened in the Perkins-Napoles fight. Did Perkins get robbed? Was it a legit win for Jose? In the absence of any evidence, I give Jose credit for it, but there is an asterisk there I would like to remove.

Wouldn't argue with anyone that has Napoles higher that Pea though. Great fighter, and definitely a better welterweight than Whitaker.

 

1. I thought he beat Ramirez and Chavez. Never seen the Rivera fight. Whitaker-DLH could have gone either way.

2. Griffith was a big welter, Chavez was clearly too small for it. Griffith was drained, Chavez was slightly past it. Pea and Mantequilla were around the same size. Also Griffith ranks higher as a welter as Chavez. Much higher. I give the clear edge to Napoles.
We don´t really know how good Nelson was at lw. Whitaker dominated him. I´m not sure where to rank that win. But I don´t think above Griffith or Chavez.

3. A bit but not much.


I think Pea is one of the loverboys of esb and gone from underrated and overlooked to slightly overrated. Don´t get me wrong, I love watching his fights but the views on his career need to be a bit more balanced.

 

Sweet Pea's win resume is nothing to brag about. Jose Napoles dominated a hall of fame junior welterweight, and two hall of fame welterweights. I would say he is quite proven.

 

I disagree. I had it 114-112 Oscar. Oscar landed the harder punches in the fight. Outlanded Whitaker in powerpunches by a 2 to 1 ratio.

 

Agreed. People have a hard on for the guy.

 

No.... Napoles wasnt as great, nor as good as Pea.

 

I agree that the Griffith that faced Napoles would still beat the Chavez that faced Whitaker, simply in virtue of how much bigger Griffith was and the styles involved there, but I think Griffith looked pretty horrible against Napoles.

Put Whitaker of the Chavez fight in there against that Griffith and I think Pea pretty much has a field day - probably a bigger field day than he had against Chavez.

 

Perhaps but that´s speculation. Napoles win over Griffith is a better one than Whitaker´s over Chavez. I don´t think that´s debatable.