Kid Gavilan v Jose Napoles

Galivan because because

 

Just because because because Bill Cosby.

 

Gavilan. IMO his slashing combos would do a serious disservice to Napoles face.

In terms of dictating pace and range I'd consider Napoles the slightly more assured presence; Gavilan was more likely to go all-out assault. Normally, that would lead me to believe an opponent would be walking onto Napoles' deft counters and get smashed to bits, but Gavilans chin rules this out.

A close, tightly-fought battle. Napoles looks worse at the end and Gavilan is a tad more active. I wouldn't necesarily pick either to definitely win, they're both ATG top 30 fighters with all-round skillsets that ar pretty hard to touch.

They'd both clown Floyd though.

 

Bold claim seen as though Floyd's never came anwhere near the border of being 'clowned'.

 

He's also never came anywhere near the border of either of these two fighters.

 

Something i strongl suspect you know that i'm aware of. I don't think it's objective to claim that he'd get clowned/emabarrassed when in reality he's never come within a light ear of such a thing. It's purely speculative. I think he'd lose, that's standard. He's a great boxer though and people need to get to rips with it.

 

I'll never understand this kind of logic. It's akin to those on the General Forum who say Joe Calzaghe would not be knocked out by prime Roy Jones or anyone else in history, because he never got knocked out in his pro career, so he "didn't know how to lose", etc etc. Floyd Mayweather has never came close to being clowned by Ricky Hatton or Diego Corrales, or anyone else he has fought, that much is true. But how on Earth does that mean he could not be soundly controlled and clowned by a vastly, vastly superior fighter to anyone he has ever faced? Rocky Marciano never lost on points, does that mean it's a "bold claim" to say that Ali or Bowe would outpoint him? Juan Manuel Marquez has never been stopped, does that mean it's a "bold claim" to say that Alexis Arguello would finish him? I don't think any of this is remotely bold. In many cases it's perfectly possible and often even likely that a fighter would have suffered a fate he never did in reality were he to face a certain foe from another era.

 

No i just explained it in the above reply to El Bujia. I think it's an exaggeraion that he's geting embarrassed, i have no doubt that he loses. Anyone tring to imply i'm biased will fail,

 

The lightweight Pernell Whitaker would clown the lightweight Floyd Mayweather. Of that I have little doubt. Everything would be right in that fight for Pea to find the opportunities to taunt the Pretty Boy once he had boxed his way into a commanding lead.

 

x10. It all starts with the jab, which I think Pea would win the whole fight with. Add to that everything else he has in his arsenal and Floyd would be rendered looking close to useless IMO. Pea would probably end up beating the **** out of him on the inside.

Teeto, I know how knowledgable you are mate, I'd never suspect that you weren't aware of Floyds pithy competition. But, going by what we have, his skillset just isn't that impressive. Not with the plaudits he gets.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Floyd is just doing a bad impression of Kalambay.

 

Ha! Bravo!

 

If Floyd is getting clowned then we're in the worst state of depression in boxing history b some distance, because he's easily the best fighter in the world, so if our finest fighter is getting clowned then the we migh as well **** boxing off now because it's attrocious right now.

I favour Pernell Whitaker to beat him because they are both varied but Whitaker even more so, the fight would go through different chambers stylistically, and i expect Whitaker to win. Again, i don't see him being clowned, i rate Mayweather and i think the 'clowned' word is getting thrown around too easily here.

 

:good

 

I guess I would lean toward Gavilan slightly but with little confidence. I just watched Napoles completely neutralize and dominate Griffith. I don't buy the weight drained theory. I think Napoles always beats Griffith. But Gavilan is certainly a different puzzle and more formidable IMO. Gavilan would need all his craft and will. As I type this, I really don't know. **** it. DRAW!!!