I think Sal was better as he was a bit more talented/well-rounded, but greater could be more debatable due to Sal's abbreviated career.
I think Sal has the two better high-end wins. The versions of Gomez and Nelson that Sal beat are more impressive than the version of Griffith that Napoles beat. Thing is, though; that's more or less all that Sanchez has in a greatness comparison. Sure, he has a few nice wins like Castillo, Laporte, Ford, and obviously Lopez twice (albeit old ones) but it's just not enough to compete with Napoles' entire career. No fault of Sal's own here, as he accomplished a fucking right lot in his brief few years, but it just doesn't compare with Napoles' much longer career IMO. Napoles' wins over Muniz, Lewis, Grey, Lopez, Espinoza, Pruitt, Urbina and Morgan is a very, very impressive foundation for a résumé. Getting into his top five wins - those being Perkins, Griffith, Hernandez and Cokes 2x - it's just a more impressive collection than Sanchez's IMO, although Sal has the better top two wins. In terms of all-time rankings, Sanchez probably rates higher at featherweight than Napoles does at welter - although it's perfectly fine to have them in similar regions - but that's pretty irrelevant because welterweight is arguably the best division ever and featherweight is the second worst after heavy. Not to mention Napoles having a great career south of welter as well as being an all-time great at 147. Can't see a case for Sanchez greatness wise.
I think better is an interesting argument. Sanchez had perfect movement in all ways but forward, and was so good at getting out of range. He had a very unique guard which he could slide into position as he stepped out of position and down into his crouch. Almost Moore-esque in terms of it seems like a unique spin on the original forearm guard. It was a like a defensive shell, and because he'd turn with the punches, it allowed for massive leverage on his overhands and lead-hooks. The issue I have with Sanchez's defence is that his head-movement was good at arm's length because he could see what was coming and deal with it appropriately, but when he stepped in the pocket, he was got hit an awful lot. Even vs Lopez, who by that point was slow as molasses, Danny landed more than his fair share, and that's Sal at his absolute best. In short, he has a good defence and a brilliant guard, but he's no Hilario Zapata, in terms of head-movement. Normally a pure counter-puncher who isn't particularly adept at ring-cutting has a specific stylistic foil against fighters who don't come at him and have a better jab. Sanchez rectified this with a brilliant ability that I can't recall seeing another fighter doing, he could go from a deep crouch in his shell-guard to an upright stance in about half a second with the added bonus that the momentum put him in an easy situation to start moving laterally. It also lulled people into stepping in, which is exactly what Sanchez wanted. I didn't really work vs taller guys, but that's more an issue of range than class. As a counter-puncher, he was just brilliant. He had weird technique, but in the same way that I think about Spinks, I don't really mind, given that he can slot the punches in wherever they're needed, doesn't get countered and puts as much power as he can in them. Even still, he has an excellent roster of punches. Good double left hook, wicked cross-counter, and a coercing jab that he used to set people up. He's pretty quick, pretty heavy-handed and one of the toughest featherweights ever but the physical aspects that really set him apart IMO, are his coordination and his ability to stay calm in dangerous situations. They go hand in hand and it creates a fighter who essentially is impossible to swarm. In terms of footwork, Napoles is right up there with some of the best ever. His small steps and shuffles positioned him to be in range and position to throw the most effective punch in the most effective way. In that respect, he's almost Louis/Arguello-esque, except Napoles was way better at cutting off the ring while maintaining what they did. Nap's angled, shifting footwork pressured his opponents to retreating. He covered distance well with his leaping left hook, as well. He'd use to follow up on guys with from a crouch. Nap moved out and then pivoted to turn off and move laterally, and he's extremely fluid in doing so. It also set up his jab, which is a great one. Because he fought with his back foot unpinned, he leant on his left leg. Normally, that'd fuck up using the cross and create an overreliance on your lead hand, but I don't think I've ever seen a better fighter (short of Robinson in full flow) who could shift their weight between legs as fluidly as Napoles, and Napoles could do it back and forth while throwing combos as well. In fact, that's a pretty good segway to feints and set-ups. They were so intertwined in his style that he even wove them into his footwork. When he shifted his weight to and from his front and back feet, it had the added effects of building a very easily breakable rhythm, added an entirely new movement which acted as a feint in and of itselt and drew leads from the opponent. The simple, back and forth, one-two tick rhythm was so easy to follow, and because the movement lends itself to punching so well, it makes it so that Napoles can stick punches onto the forward shift - like a jab, for instance - it makes the opponent second guess and question whether or not a punch is coming with each shift. Meaning that essentially doubles as the set-up, or the feint. And this pattern occurs every second or so. It's so enticing to try and step in with a punch if you think you know exactly what they're doing, and most fighters see a rhythm that perfect and think they can easily time it. Just watching how Ernie Lopez steps in with the cross to try and catch Napoles after a flurry, as he moved back out of range. He looks throws the cross as Napoles moves back forward, hoping he'll walk straight onto it and instead, gets absolutely sparkled by that uppercut. He had excellent combinations, and had an excellent countering-game. He was very creative. He often paired a right hook with a left uppercut, or a right hook to the head with a left to the body. Mantequilla had a great defence; definitely better than Sanchez's IMO. He's way better at slipping underneath shots in the pocket, and his jab-and-roll, bob-and-weave style aggressive defence is perfect for weaving counters into an opponent's combinations. I love how he jabs, and in anticipation of one coming back, he ducks down and comes back up with a hook to split the jab and set up either a cross or another hook depending on which foot he had his weight lent on. Or when he baits someone into stepping forward as he pulls back, he just nails them with the cross-counter. Hell, even how he walked people into the uppercut is brilliant. Napoles was also great at slipping punches on the way out, moving backwards or while applying pressure. He was just a slippery muthafucker. Physically, he impresses me way more as a talent than Sanchez; he's much quicker on a pound-for-pound style, hits way harder, is just as well coordinated and well balanced, and also has an iron jaw of his own. His only physical weaknesses are that he's small for the weight he's best known for and his skin cut at the threat of a stern warning. Both of them are in that upper tier of all-time greats, but I suppose the best way of putting how I feel about them is that I can see a case for Napoles being in the ten best fighters ever. I can't for Sanchez.
