I think the temptation here is to say Chavez is greater and Napoles is better but I don't think it is as obviously clear cut as that. Let's deal with greater first: Napoles is an all-time top 10 and possibly top 5 in one of boxing's deepest divisions, welterweight. His opposition during his two undisputed title reigns was of a generally high caliber with some tough contenders (Ernie Lopez, Hedgemon Lewis) as well as a couple of fellow greats who he beat early on (Cokes x2 and Griffith). Between 1969 and the end of 1970, he was also arguably p4p the best fighter in the sport. On top of that, he was also arguably the best (not greatest) fighter ever who fought regularly at junior welterweight. He was in his physical prime at the weight and beat some decent fighters there, but none better than then only recently former world champion Eddie Perkins, who he took to the cleaners on points. Had he got his deserved title shot there it would either have impacted what he achieved in one of boxing's marquee divisions or it would have just enhanced his overall rep even more. Chavez has some obvious numerical highlights - 87-0 (somewhat controversial due to pre-title DQ defeat that was amended) and unbeaten for 13 years including nearly 10 years as champion across three weight divisions and with a total of 25 consecutive wins in world title fights. He's a legit top 5 at junior lightweight and has an argument for no. 1 at junior welterweight too. At lightweight he might have hit his peak but wasn't there long enough to make a significant historical impact in terms of placement. He was p4p no. 1 for much of the early 90s, probably from his win over Taylor that coincided with Tyson's defeat to Douglas through to the end of 1992, although it was clear by that time that it was either him or Whitaker who was the best. It wasn't until the following year that this was cleared up. He holds some excellent wins in each weight class. His first title win over Mario Martinez and his 2nd round KO of Roger Mayweather stand out at junior lightweight, his wins over Edwin Rosario - probably his best single performance at any weight - and his schooling of Ramirez to partially unify at lightweight were excellent while his win over Taylor, while obviously controversial, also partially unified the junior welter title and was a very signficant win at the time (and destroyed Taylor in the process). No real greats on his resume like Napoles but with Chavez it's the overall volume and body of work that comes together rather than individual standouts. So, for greatness, I'd say it's close, even very close, but probably Chavez for his overall consistency... although a very strong argument exists for Napoles.
Good break down, but i go with your first thought. Chavez greater, but Napoles better. Edit: im not sure id consider Cokes great though
Supposedly, Perkins always claimed that he was robbed by Napoles. The scorecards and the reports doesn't seems to suggest thst, but its a shame that we cant judge it for ourselves
I'm a very big appreciator of Napoles, I think he's better and greater. I think he's a good bit better, and would give Chavez a severe thrashing at 140, but I think he's only slightly greater (iirc, there was like three places in it). Chavez's consistency sets a level which few can match, and with skin like Napoles', he isn't one of them. I don't hold the losses to Morgan or Backus, nor do I hold him to the losses which were really early on in his career. However, I can understand that losses to Urbina, Morgan and Backus starts to look pretty egregious when compared with streak as clean as Chavez's long run. In terms of their competition, they've both got a lot of quantity, but Napoles has much more quality IMO. I've actually always thought Chavez's high end wins were quite underrated. Taylor, Rosario, Ramirez, Randall, and Camacho is a good group of guys to have beaten. Nobody today's got that sort of roster. But Napoles' wins over Griffith, Perkins, Hernandez, and Cokes 2x do, IMO. Napoles then has all of those title defences vs guys like Muniz, Lopez, Lewis, Charles and Gray. I'd rate those wins as a group as better wins than Laporte and Castillo. Even in his days before moving up to 147, he routinely beat better comp than Chavez did IMO. Not to shit on Chavez's competition, but I'd even collectively rate the likes of Urbina, Vazquez, Espinoza, Morgan, and Pruitt above guys like Martinez, Haugen Mayweather, and Lockridge. As a group, I'm extremely impressed with that era of junior welterweights. The ones we have on film look fantastic, and the ones we don't, we can see their quality by their records vs the ones we can see. In terms of divisional rankings, obviously Napoles being top ten at welter is the standout result, but I think Napoles' work at 140 should be noted. He was ranked top ten by ring for five years, and number one for three. He beat nine ranked fighters, and was so badly ducked by fighters that Lopopolo risked suing for breach of contract to get out of fighting him. Men like Carlos Ortiz and Nicolino Locche didn't want anything to do wit him, and these are men whose reputations for fighting ANYBODY weren't questioned at the time and they certainly shouldn't be questioned now. At 140, Chavez can fairly be ranked above him by virtue of winning the championship, and his tenure at 130 is deserving of a top ten placement there, too.
Yes, I think Nap edges it in both greater (close) and better (clear). Chavez wins in consistency, but consistency doesn't equate to better.
I was tempted to disagree with the severe thrashing bit in the first paragraph, because I don't think that too many severely thrash Chavez. I think that he is a solid night's work for anybody at 135, 140. But for years before it happened I was worried about Frankie Randall because I thought that he was the guy to beat Chavez. At this point in time, I don't know if it was something stylistic that I saw or a vision of the future. I think that it was just because Randall knew how to fight, even if Primo Ramos starched him and i never have glimpses of the future with things that matter, like lottery numbers. But if I thought, years ago, that Randall knew how to fight well enough to beat Chavez......well, Napoles is a lot more than Frankie Randall.
Yeah, I dont think anyone "thrashes" a prime Chavez at 135-140. Guys like Duran and Nap would clearly beat him, but JCC is too good to get thrashed. Unless you mean 147. Nap thrashes hin at 147.
To be fair to Chavez, Frankie Randall, though an EXCELLENT fighter, would not have beaten the 89-90 Chavez.
This is really tough honestly. I'm more of the opinion that JCC was slightly greater while Napoles was better H2H. Both had great wins on their resumes. Napoles has wins over Griffith, Perkins, Cokes (x2), Lopez (x2), Backus. JCC has wins over Rosario, Camacho, Taylor, Castillo, Laporte, Mayweather, Martinez,, Lockridge, Haugen, Ramirez, Limon, Randall It's also worth noting that JCC gave 2 of the fastest boxers (Taylor, Camacho) and arguably the hardest puncher at LW (Rosario) a thorough beating. JCC edges this one in terms of resume but in a fight between the two Napoles would have beaten Chavez up.
i feel like jcc's toughest comp was at 130 and he was least impressive there. coincidence? point is, he very well could be thrashed by someone as great as napoles.
A "thrashing" is a severely one sided beating. I dont see anyone doing THAT to Chavez below welterweight. I think Napoles and Duran would beat JCC with room to spare, and they aren't the only two I would favor over Chavez, they're just the ones who would beat him the most comprehensively. But even in those matchups, Chavez would have his moments, though he'd be a step or two behind all night. He'd probably drop like a 10-5 or 11-4 decision to both of them - which is a comprehensive loss, but not a 15-0 thrashing.
Better? It is Napoles. And yes, he beats Chavez at 140 but Chavez would be Napoles's toughest fight at the weight. Napoles might even beat Duran at 140. Might.
I honestly think it would be a one sided beating. Might be close for a few rounds, but by the fifth, Napoles takes over and it's ugly until it's stopped.
Duran only had a few fights at 140, one was against Emiliano Villa, and he looked phenomenal. I have that full fight on VHS somewhere - YT only has a very brief version.
Yeah, I've seen the clip but not the fight. He also beat Saoul Mamby around 140 a short time before the Villa fight. I've no doubt Duran would have done some serious damage had he chosen to make light-welter his home but a fight against Antonio Cervantes would have really given us an insight into how good he could have been there. I see no reason why he wouldn't have dominated that division too, though. But a fight v Napoles at 140 would be amazing.
Duran vs Cervantes would have been awesome. Kid Pambele would have given a strong account of himself, but ultimately, Duran was just better.
I think it was Carlos Eleta who didn't want Duran to fight Cervantes. I'm sure Duran would have fought him in a heartbeat if Eleta had actively sought the match.
