Who ranks higher at 147 lbs: Jose Napoles or Sugar Ray Leonard?

[Rusty Tromboni]

According to Griffith himself; “I was in the best shape of my career but I just couldn't get up in the fight. But I must say Napoles is a very good champion." - Emile Griffith.

He may have been on the tail end of his prime, but he was still game. After the Napoles fight he went on a ten fight win streak before losing to Monzon.

TJ Dillashaw was saying the same things before fighting Cejudo. The dude was already making a ridiculous cut to reach 135. It was insane that he'd even attempt 125. Like it would have been even less ****** to play chicken with a bus, or stick his hand in boiling water. Griffith's final go at the Ww title was just as ridiculous. And i am certain he also had to grossly over-train to make weight.

I really don't put much into what fighters, trainers, pundits say. Not always. The facts speak much louder than words. Griffith was, like many great Welterweights, really just a Middleweight waiting to happen. But unlike Walker and Hearns, he stuck around longer than he needed to. In fact, along with Carlos Ortiz, he was one of the first guys to really apply the aggressive weight-cutting. Not quite to the extent we see today, but like we do in Wrestling.

How that affected his legacy, I don't know. People like to think of his as one of the great Welterweights (he was), but he was actually a better Middleweight. I won't get into that here, but I will suggest anyone who disputes that claim reference his record and performances.

I will concede, however, that:
1) Griffith was more tender and shaky than people remember him as. He could be knocked out - way easier than Tommy HEarns could. He wasn't as tough as the Walkers, Basillios, and Gavilans of the division, whom he's often compared to as a strong pressure fighter.
2) Napoles had a bigger punch than we remember him for. He was so beautiful to watch. Probably people would pay to watch him shadow box over watching a lot of other Boxers fight in the ring. So we forget how violent and effective his offense was. His ability to time Griffith, and Griffith unable to react or correct is kinda comical, though.

Also, Griffith was inconsistent. Kinda like Patterson. I am talking about both within their fights and across their careers. Griffith would take off in fights, take his foot off the gas. These men fought in spurts. And even more than Floyd, he also seemed to come up short in fights he should have won, and soared in fights where he wasn't expected to get off the ground.

Getting KO'd to Rubin Carter out of the gate and giving Monzon his stiffest challenge pretty much define how undefinable Griffith is. One this we do know for certain: In 1969 he had no buisness fighting at Welterweight.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Leonard is for sure faster. but smooth is fast, and napoles is smooth as hell.you can't see his punches coming because he never explodes. kinda like Ali.

I like that comparison a lot!!!!


I ten to think of them very differently. Napoles was an undersized guy with an oversized offense. He was small for a Welterweight, which is an achivement in itself. Only Duran, Whitaker and Floyd (kinda) could really make the jump from being great Lihtweights to great Welterweights. But Napoles wasn't fast, he was just smoooothe.

Ali, conversely, was a big man who practically floated. But he didn't have the soundest defense, and he hit like a B I T C H.

They look diametrically opposed, but you certainly found a similarity.

While speaking of Napoles and Angelo Dundee products: Of all the battles of the Cubans, Napoles vs. Rodriguez, would be the one I would start with.