Jose Napoles on an all-time list

Where would you rate him with regards to pound-for-pound?

My subconscious says he'd be rated under the likes of Julio Cesar Chavez, Ray Leonard and Carlos Monzon, but is that a bit unfair?

Here's his list of end-of-year*** RING rated wins and Hall of Famers at the bottom:

Angel Robinson Garcia
Bunny Grant
Tony Perez (x2)
Baby Vasquez (x2)
LC Morgan (x3)
Alfredo Urbina (x2)
Carlos Hernandez
Adolph Pruitt (x2)
Eugenio Espinoza
Herbie Lee
Leroy Roberts
Eddie Pace
Ernie Lopez (x2)
Edwin Mack
Manuel Gonzalez
Billy Backus
Jean Josselin
Hedgemon Lewis (x2)
Ralph Charles
Roger Menetrey
Clyde Gray
Horacio Saldano
Armando Muniz (x2)​

Eddie Perkins
Curtis Cokes (x2)
Emile Griffith​

Okay, in comparison to Ray Leonard (for example), there are no monumental victories like Marvin Hagler on there.​

But at the same time, Napoles has as many wins over rated contenders as Ray Leonard had wins, regardless.​

Now moving on from Ray Leonard. Napoles was also a fairly small welterweight who was probably better suited at 140lbs or even 135lbs, but was jobbed out of a title shot for a few years before he finally won the welterweight title, which of course he defended thirteen times (losing it at one point from a butt-induced gash) in five different countries. It's almost as great as a smaller Henry Armstrong defending the welterweight title eighteen times, except Napoles fought in an arguably stronger era.​

Now I don't know about anyone else, but statistics such as 'never counted out' and number of knockouts sells a fighter very well, possibly boosting his overall standing when combined with his other achievements. And of course, Napoles was never counted out, infact he was never stopped on anything but cuts, and went on two separate knockout streaks of twelve fights sandwiching Napoles' win over the notoriously rugged Eddie Perkins. Many world contenders didn't see the middle rounds - nine of the fights I listed didn't even go past the third round, or ten if you want to include an at-the-time rated Johnny Santos who was blasted in three.​

Just a thought of the day. I think I'd rate Napoles higher than the usual, maybe #20.

--

*** Which is why Johnny Santos, for instance, doesn't feature.​

 

With respect, I think that's still understating it. We're talking about a 135-140lbs fighter cleaning up those two divisions and then, at the age of twenty nine, then travelling between countries and cementing himself as one of the truly great champions in a strong welterweight division.

'Probably top 50' is underselling it I reckon!

 

At some point in their careers, although you'll find that most of them were rated at the time of fighting. Every now and then you'll get one who was a bit of a has-been and was rated five years ago, but yeah, in the vast majority of cases these fighters were at or near their best.

I like to do it that way because it gives a fairer comparison with today's fighters. A win today over, say, Jameel McCline, might be lauded as 'decent' even if he hadn't been rated in the top ten for years. In contrast, if I said Henry Armstrong beat Johnny Bloggs, who had neither been rated for a few years, it might be overshadowed by McCline who is more famous today. Rambling a bit I know

 

More statistics; the annual RING ratings for 1964 lightweights showed no sign of Jose Napoles... Yet he'd already beaten four of its residents.

 

Yeah fair enough. I rate mostly on accomplishments unless stated otherwise, although Napoles would still rate very highly, probably higher infact, if it was just based on fighting ability. Some reckon he was as good as Ray Robinson in the late '60s - basically as good as any fighter gets.

 

Similar kind of rating to Napoles and Ike Williams, they're all floating around #20-22.