Napoles, Gavilan and Leonard

It's really hard to do lists, it can drive you insane.

 

Can I have some examples of these times when he got contentious decisions go his way?

I think Gavilan was quite consistent when you strip all the bull**** away from his career.

 

Well the fight I was thinking of was his 1951 fight against Gavilan where the majority of ringside press had it for Graham but there is no doubt he was ripped off through his career. Why he was robbed beats me because he was actually a pretty big draw.

He also won splits against Tommy Bell, Otis Graham, Joe Miceli, Bobby Dykes, Don Williams and Basilio and Minelli ( I own up to using boxrec on that last bit )

I'm sure you can shine a light on those fights but their must be occasions where he as the bigger name guy got the decision.

 

I keep changing my mind the more I think about it. But I have settled for this.

1. Gavilan - Has the longevity and the names on his record (kinda combining both guys here) with wins over Basilio (very close), Graham, Bratton and Turner standing out. He also showcases a excellant skill set - as all guys do, in fact they are all even ability wise IMO.

2. Napoles - Purely because I just think this guy is awesome. Has the longevity with his 2 title runs over a good few years. His wins over Griffith and Cokes look pretty good aswell but IMO aint up there with a Basilio or Hearns or Duran or even Benitez. However he has a deep resume with wins over top contenders like Lewis and Muniz that really add a gereat dimension to hsi resume. Ability wise the smoothest of the lot.

3. Leonard - A fantastic boxer-puncher with the best name son his record here, Hearns, Duran and Bentez but also has some good contenders like Muniz from his pre championships days. Up with the other two on ability but IMO falls short with his record, or more specifically lack of longevity

 

The Graham fight was badly received, but I think just about everyone here that has now seen that fight had it scored for Gavilan.

I had Gavilan taking it by a point, and whilst I could probably see an argument for Graham winning, it was ultimately the right decision I feel. Have you seen the fight Ric? Your thoughts on it?

I think the fact that Gavilan was Cuban and fighting in other fighters' back yards, together with the fact that he had a bit of a reputation for lairising (bolo punches, flurries, feet shuffling) probably didn't endear him to a lot of judges.

I've only seen the Basilio fight amongst that lot (which I thought Kid took), but it's interesting to note that his fights with Otis Graham, Joe Micelli, Bobby Dykes, Don Williams were all held in those guys' backyards.

A split dec win in an opponent's backyard more often than not is an indication of a clear win objectively... Not a fool proof theory, but I'm sure you'd agree it's a generally true one.

I'd also like to acknowledge boxrec for allowing me to make this last argument by searching the residences of all these guys

 

Yeah, probably a bit of that and the fact that Graham finished the stronger, which often leads people to forget what happened earlier and look at how the fighters ended up instead.

Kid Gavilan vs. Carmen Basilio: 146-143 Gavilan
Basilio: 2,3,4 and 15 Basilio.
Gavilan: 1,5,7,8,10,11 and 14 Gavilan.
Rounds 6,9,12 and 13 even.

I don't have a real problem with someone saying Basilio won this this, as you can tell by all the even rounds on my card, it was a pretty hard fight to score. It's been a long time since I've seen the fight, so I might put it on again soon and see if my opinions on it have changed at all.

Lack of footage is a problem, definitely.

As far as going by my own scorecards when rating fighters, I always do it. Afterall, it is MY list that I rate fighters on, so it might as well house my opinion.