Thats a a good take. Napoles IMO hit a bit harder than Sugar Ray Leonard. And Leonard was no singles-hitter either.
I’d wager a few would make it very one sided Napoles would punish Benitez for his lack of offence badly. When your first priority is not being hit you can be hard to get rid of, but you don’t accomplish that much expect surviving with all that movement. How Wilfredo wagged his head around… it shut his own offence down, his weight would be all over the place, the reflexive pulling and tugging this way and that took him out of range or made him unable to throw a good shot often - he was hard to hit (yes) but when he did get hit he got hit hard, Curry bounced him off the canvas like a basketball. Wilfredo Benitez I respect greatly, as I do all fighters who get in the ring but he had vulnerabilities that arguably one of the BEST boxers of all time (Napoles) would take care of.
A World Champion while in High School (beating a HoF Champ) isn’t enough to qualify as an accomplishment?
I'll lean to Benitez in this one by decision. As great as he was Jose Napoles was a natural lightweight. It's a testament to his skill level the success he had a welter. But he never faced anyone as skilled a Benitez. And Benitez fought the 2nd best welter in history in Ray Leonard ,and gave him a run for his money. Also at super welter, Benitez managed to frustrate the great Thomas Hearns. Both those fighters were bigger and better than Napoles. It probably would be a boring fight. A cerebral one. Only liked by the fans who appreciate the great skills that would be demonstrated by both men. But Benitez, being the natural bigger man, and defensively harder to hit cleanly would began to pull away as the fight progressed. His hand speed (Which seems to get over looked by many) would allow him to land more than he received. Also, Napoles who seemed to cut easily, would be very susceptible from Benitez's sharp counters. I like Benitez by close but unanimous dec.
For my money Napoles is one the most elite offensive fighters (and overall boxers) ever seen on film. With that offense, he also had a relatively high defensive standard and visual acuity around his peak (e.g. 140lb run and Cokes). Napoles was a also a great ring general who knew when to turn it up, whereas Benitez could start admiring his own work and be inconsistent. An elite offensive fighter with comparable defense nearly always beats an elite defensive fighter, in my view, especially when they can be somewhat lacadisical. Also, people mention the Cervantes bout whilst forgetting how close it was and how tight the rounds actually were. Cervantes had a good argument for deserving the decision imo. He'd also already been active for yonks by that point. People gloss over this nowadays and talk like it was some domination, which is unfair to Cervantes. Benitez also had struggles with Palomino who, whilst quality, was not a patch on Napoles offensively or defensively. The Leonard bout is also overstated. Benitez was competitive but was clearly losing, especially after the 6th when SR started to invest in the body. This bout actually shows quite a few of Benitez's flaws I have previously mentioned. At 140, I think Napoles was a monster and wins clear against the yet to be fully developed Benitez. At 147, I think it's close but I favour Napoles (at his best) by decision.
