Who do you consider the greater fighter: LM Rodriguez or J Napoles?

Well, same skill level, great fighters....
But I consider Napoles to be higher, in my opinion, a superior resume, beat better fighters and was more consistent.....

 

I consider Luis Manuel Rodriguez the greater fighter.

I think resume wise they are quite equal. But the quality of opposition is very similar, perhaps with a slight edge towards Rodriguez.

Napoles having wins against the likes: of Urbina, LC Morgan, Hernandez, Perkins, Pruitt, Cokes, Griffith, Lopez, Toro, Backus, Lewis, Charles, Gray and Muniz. Over 63-75, so 12 years.

Rodriguez having Paret, Griffith, Akins, Cokes, Frederico Thompson, Giambra, Moyer, Gonzalez, McClure, Mims, Morgan, Carter, Benton, Briscoe, Rivero, Wright, Rondon and Mundine. From 58-71 so 13 years.

Personally I prefer LMR's opposition as he almost simultaneously was cleaning out the Welterweight and Middleweight divisions beating ranked contenders in both divisions, regularly. I also think his wins over Griffith are huge (and bigger than Napoles win over Griffith) as it showed he was better than a prime ATG.

Although saying that Napoles was a top contender in two weights before becoming Welterweight champion but I don't feel he cleaned out the other two divisions, but he did clean out Welterweight.

I also feel LMR had some big wins past prime and did some real good work there, whereas Napoles did not have the same past-prime accomplishments.

I also feel that LMR is the better fighter, from watching both of them. And his level of opposition means he is more proven (although just slightly).

 

Toss of a coin really. Napoles has the dominant longstanding reign over a good if unspectacular era of contenders with a handful of standout wins whereas Rodriguez has a controversially brief title reign but an outstanding overall body of work outside of it with arguably more top level wins. Their longevity was similar and they both did significant work outside of welterweight (at lw/lww and m/w respectively). Napoles has the better record on paper against Griffith and Cokes, going 3-0 as he did, but it obviously isn't as simple as that if you account for Griffith being a bit diminished against Napoles and Rodriguez having a very strong argument for winning all 4 of his Griffith fights clearly. In fact it might be your interpretation of the Griffith-Rodriguez series on which everything stands or falls depending on how you look at it. I'm not sure who beat more ranked contenders without digging a bit deeper but I'd reckon it was Rodriguez on first thought.
I like Rodriguez (just) in a fight between them at welterweight and I think he probably stands up a tiny tad better in a h2h sense against most other top welterweights as well as plenty of excellent middleweights. Obviously Napoles has his excellent reputation at lw/lww to make up for this. Napoles to me was a little bit more pleasing to watch (thought LMR is very good to watch too) and they were both exceptionally complete and well-rounded fighters who ticked all the boxers, with Rodriguez being a slightly more unique stylist.

Sorry Popkins , I haven't voted because my grey matter is turning in on itself......

 

Very good topic.

I rank Rodriguez higher because he accomplished more, but as far as skills go I think they are comparable (as far as the level goes, not the styles...).

I think if Napoles had an era as stacked as Luis' was, he'd probably have comparable achievements (albeit at lightweight and welterweight - he wouldn't have Luis' success at middle).

Funnily, if they fought each other, I'd probably slightly favour Napoles to win.

 

Napoles has to be given credit for being a natural lightweight kicking the crap out of all the best WWs, so I rate him higher on that basis. I think I prefer Rodriguezs style but I would love to see some more LW and LWW Napoles

 

Luis' middleweight resume probably bears up well to Napoles' welterweight resume, even though of course Napoles was the dominant figure at welter and Luis wasn't at middle.

 

And to add to that, Luis was usually weighing in little over welterweight when he was kicking fully fledged middleweights asses. That needs to be taken into account too....

 

Napoles > Griffith > Rodriguez :good

It's a tough call because Rodriguez competed in a tougher era while Napoles had the dominant title reign. As great as Napoles probably was at lightweight and light welterweight, his work in those divisions doesn't match up to what he did at welterweight, while Rodriguez was trendemous both at welterweight and middleweight, although unable to establish himself as the best in either division.

I'll go with Napoles, which is probably the consensus, though only because Rodriguez tends to be the most underrated fighter of his time. There should be legitimate questions as to what Napoles could have accomplished in Rodriguez's shoes, certainly he wouldn't have been as successful at middleweight but only because of his smaller frame.

 

I won't pretend to be an expert on the era, but it seems Napoles WW opposition is better than Rodriguez's MW opposition, and Napoles did better against like opponents, although I'm not sure if Rodriguez was as primed as Napoles or if Napoles fought versions that were quite as good

Pity the 2 never fought

 

I rate Rodriguez slightly higher on the basis of his his middleweight exploits aswell. Both have similarly good resumés (LC Morgan x2, Carlos Hernandez, Alfredo Urbina, Eddie Perkins, Curtis Cokes x2, Emile Griffith, Ernie Lopez x2, Billy Backus, Armando Muniz &
Benny Paret x2, Virgil Akins, Curtis Cokes x2, Emile Griffith, Denny Moyer, Holly Mims, LC Morgan, Rubin Carter x2, George Benton, Bennie Briscoe x2, Jose Monon Gonzalez, Tony Mundine), ability wise it's pretty much even for me, I just give Rodriguez the edge because of as I said his MW exploits and I think he had a slight, slight edge in terms of longevity.

 

I really rate LMR highly in the skills department. He is one of the top 10 fighters I have ever seen, and has the best display of all-round domination I have seen on film (vs Giambra), he really shows ever single facet of what makes a great fighter IMO, in that.

I'd favour him to beat Napoles but it would be very very close.

Napoles was always more of a LWW IMO, he seemed to grow into LWW rather than being a jumped up Lightweight.

Surely LMR deserves credit for being a natural Welterweight and kicking the crap out of the best Middleweights.

Napoles, Welterweight resume is better than LMR's Middleweight resume. But LMR has the superior Welterweight resume IMO, and his Middleweight resume is better than Napoles Lightweight/Light-Welter resume.

LMR is probably one of the most unluckiest fighters ever. You could argue he was the best fighter at Welterweight and Middleweight at one point, I actually feel he was better as a Middleweight.

 

There simply ain't much in it to call, although I'd favor Rodriguez at Welterweight narrowly.

 

Rodriguez was great but Napoles was greater.

 

I think that maybe Rodriguez gets the special treatment Buchanan and Giardello get on here, and even Griffith to an extent. Textbook style, fundamentally reliant fighters being overrated H2H on paper