Napoles is Cuba's greatest ever, not Gavilan - do you agree?

Howdy everyone, hope you're well.

Seems to me that, in general, Kid Gavilan often rates as Cuba's greatest ever professional fighter, and their best ever Welterweight too, with Jose Napoles usually trailing in second place. No doubt that both of them would have stood Mayweather on his head (sorry Truss, but I know you won't comment if I don't dangle some bait). Gavilan rated higher in Boxing News' 2013 list of the 100 greatest fighters of all time, the Ring Magazine's 2002 list of the 80 greatest fighters of the previous 80 years, the International Boxing Research Organization's list of the 25 best Welterweights ever etc. Even here on 606v2 we've gone along with the majority; in 2011, we collectively voted Gavilan as the fourth greatest Welterweight of all time, with Napoles lagging behind in seventh.

However, now I'm finding myself asking - have we got them the wrong way around? I've always enjoyed watching both men's fights and their contrasting styles, but have never really questioned Gavilan's supposed superiority until now.

Armando Muniz knows a thing or two about great Welterweights. A long-time contender himself in the seventies, he came within a whisker of dethroning Calos Palomino in their first 1977 thriller for the WBC title, and lost valiantly to Napoles (twice, the first in contentious circumstances no less) and then later on the modern day legend Sugar Ray Leonard. You might think that it can't really get any better at 147 lb than the second Sugar Ray, unless you go back a few decades to the original one. But in 2010, when asked who the best fighter he ever fought was, Muniz answered without hesitation, "Jose 'Mantequilla' Napoles." The reporter paused for a second, before asking, "You think Jose Napoles was better than Sugar Ray Leonard?" Muniz answered calmly, "Jose Napoles would have beaten Ray Leonard, yes. Oh yes, I'm very confident of that."

That comment spurred me to re-watch a few fights of 'Mantequilla' (meaning 'butter', as he was said to be as smooth as butter, with justification!) and also revisit Gavilan's bouts, to compare them like for like for the first time. Also comparing their records and going through them with a fine tooth comb leads me to believe that it may well be Mantequilla, rather than the Cuban Hawk, who has the marginally supeior record.

Gavilan gave the greatest Welter of the lot, Ray Robinson, two seriously stern examinaions ("To hell with this, I'm boxing this guy from now on" is what Robinson claimed to have said to himself after hitting the iron-chinned Gavilan with his most mighty combination only to see the Cuban just keep on coming) before finally lifting the title in 1951 from Johnny Bratton. He compiled seven successful defences before losing a bitterly disputed verdict against Johnny Saxton, a fighter whose name was consistently linked with mobster and prized fight fixer Blinkey Palermo and who also was the beneficiary of many other controversial decisions. Amongst his victims as champion were future Welterweight king (and a Middleweight one as well, no less) Carmen Basilio, against whom Gavilan had to survive a heavy knockdown to grind out a decision), Billy Graham, who decisioned Gavilan in a non-title fight and is generally regarded as one of the best Welters to have never won the title and also Gil Turner, the unbeaten and hard-hitting number one contender who finally capitulated in eleven brutal rounds.

Napoles' reign as the king at 147 doesn't read too badly, either. He became champion for the first time in 1969, systematically breaking Curtis Cokes down with a display of jaw-dropping quality. If anyone hasn’t seen it and wants to know how good Napoles was, that fight should be one of your first ports of call. Carrying the fight constantly to Cokes but at the same time effortlessly slipping shots by mere inches and countering with his silky-smooth jab, Napoles showed fantastic ring generalship, combination punching and accuracy enroute to a thirteenth round TKO, Cokes’ eyes now reduced to bloody slits. “I spread Mantequilla over him” was Napoles’ explanation of how the fight unfolded.

Three defences later, he was stopped on cuts against the southpaw Billy Backus – vulnerable skin around the eyes was maybe Napoles’ biggest flaw, which says a lot about his technical qualities. However, he turned the tables in the rematch, hammering Backus inside eight rounds before, this time, Backus was on the end of a painful cuts loss, and then followed a run of ten successful defences, including a pair of wins over the one-time NYSAC champion Hedgemon Lewis, British banger Ralph Charles, a pound for pound Welter/Middle double champion Emile Griffith and the aforementioned Muniz on two occasions.

I'd be more inclined to favour Napoles' title run over Gavilan's, personally, yet going on the evidence given at the start of the article, that seems to put me in a minority. One possible explanation of this was the respective styles of each man. Despite Napoles being the more venemous puncher of the two, it was Gavilan who had the more crowd-pleasing style. Gavilan's title peak came about two decades before Napoles' but, oddly enough, you could argue that this worked against Napoles. By the seventies, other sports in the USA (where both men had plenty of success, albeit it was much more 'home' to Gavilan than it was Napoles) had claimed a much larger percentage of TV time than they had been doing in Gavilan's day. In the fifties, a single recording camera, its images transmitted to primitive black and white, fuzzy screens, wasn't too well equipped to cover sports played across larger areas where the focus shifted constantly from end to end, such as the NFL or baseball. Boxing, with its two combatants confined to a much smaller place and not requiring the camera in question to chase after the action, fitted television in its first couple of decades perfectly. Gillette-sponsored fights on Friday nights in the States commanded a share of the viewing audience that was unimaginable for the great fighters of Napoles' time - unless their name was Muhamma Ali or Joe Frazier, in fairness.

In Gavilan's peak, the famed Kefauver Investigation results were still a few years away - the cynicism and shock which came with the investigation, and the resulting closure of many small halls / gyms and reluctance on the part of TV networks to invest money in a sport now exposed as being riddled with corruption and mob influence, had not yet descended over the fight game. The enthusiasm for Gavilan's time which had eroded a little by Napoles', combined with Gavilan's all-action, 100 mph style has possibly blurred the edges around each man's achievements and resulted in Gavilan perhaps being given the advantage for not totally fair reasons - anyone agree on that front?

It should be noted, of course, that neither of these fighters' notable wins and achievements are confined purely to title fights. Away from them, Gavilan tallied wins against men of the stature of Eduardo Lausse, regarded by some for a while as an uncrowned Middleweight champion, as well as Lightweight greats Ike Williams and Beau Jack. On the other hand, Napoles scored wins over men such as Eddie Perkins, a former Light-Welterweight champion, and also Carlos Hernandez, a future double champion at 140.

And there's the rub - it sometimes gets forgotten that Napoles wasn't really a genuine Welter, and yet he still dominated the weight class for six years. He commanded a high rank for years at 140, but couldn't secure a title shot; his victory over Hernandez was billed as the 'Battle of the Uncrowned Champions.' Aged 29, he finally stepped up to Welter to challenge Cokes only because a title shot at Light-Welter, where he was clearly the best fighter, just wasn't on the horizon.

With that in mind, Napoles' feats of defending the Welterweight title more than anyone else aside from Henry Armstrong deserve special commendation, for me. Was he the man to back in a head to head against Gavilan as well? That one's open to interpretation and opinion, of course. But there's no doubt in my mind that Napoles was definitely the better all-round boxer and technician of the pair.

Gavilan was a sensational fighter to watch - take a look at the aforementioned scrap with Gil Turner, who was like a Meldrick Taylor of his day; super fast hands, tremendous engine and a stunningly fluid combination puncher. Gavilan showcased his remarkable chin and own excellent work rate in sucking up everything Turner threw at him and outlasting him, stopping him with some sickening shots in the eleventh which Turner, not being afforded anything like proper protection from the referee, shouldn't really have taken. Though not a concussive hitter, he was extremely aggressive with the shots he did let go. His third fight with Bratton, in which at one stage Bratton was so badly hammered and dazed that he had to be turned around and lead back to the right corner by a merciful Gavilan himself, demonstrated his ability to pour it on without a moment's pause for the full fifteen rounds, completely overwhelming a good fighter with his flashy short hooks and bolo punches inside.

But did Gavilan always fight the right fight, or to his strengths? Debatable. He was a tall, rangy Welterweight with a great jab, and could look immense using it to dictate range and flow of a fight. But he got hit a lot, trading on his chin and often being drawn in to wars fought inside. Napoles, on the other hand, seemed to have unshakable focus and ability to keep a cool head. Watching him against Cokes, as well as against Hedgemon Lewis (the first fight), it amazes me how he's able to stay on the front foot applying subtle pressure, but at the same time gently slip shots while hardly even blinking or changing expression. While Gavilan went for quantity, Napoles always concentrated on quality - every shot was thrown for a reason, with hardly anything wasted. Speed of hand I'm willing to call even, or perhaps an edge to Gavilan, but to counter that Napoles was lighter on his feet, compared to Gavilan whose footwork was a bit more akin to someone like Joe Louis - economical, effective, but sometimes flat and cumbersome.

But I'm becoming convinced that Napoles would have decisioned the 'Keed' as time goes on. Take a look at Gavilan's third bout with Graham, a fight I thought he was slightly fortunate in. Graham was a natural mover, blessed with tight defence and ring smarts, albeit he was limited offensively. A lot Gavilan's best victims were top notch fighters, but not in a defensive aspect. Made me think that the really classy defenders (Robinson wasn't quite in that category, oddly enough) could find a way to undo him, as did his fight against Danny Womber, which is an interesting watch as well. Now, I thought Gavilan edged it and the decision was a shade unfair, but then again Womber wasn't a figher in the same class as Gavilan. Should it have been so close in the first place? Maybe not, but it was because Womber, like Graham, was able to take advantage of Gavilan's tendency to get too wrapped up in enetertaining the crowd rather than giving his opponent the consideration they warranted.

Could he afford to do that against Napoles? Mantequilla had the best of both worlds. A slick mover who was hard to pin down with a jab, even when attacking, who made you pay when you opened up and left your head exposed. He was also a busy inside fighter with a potent left hook, which Gavilan left himself pretty open to as he winged in that distinctive bolo punch all the way up from his knees at times. Despite his small stature for a Welter, Napoles also demonstrated remarkable physical strength and tenacity. Gavilan could do some damage in close, for sure, and those whipping shots of his could be the perfect way to take advantage of that tender skin around Napoles’ eyes, but there is a possibility that Gavilan may be the one conceding ground and backing up if he can’t keep Napoles honest with his own punches. Napoles chased Ralph Charles, a serious puncher at 147, practically out of the ring and never took a backwards step, and even had probably the greatest post-war Middleweight, Monzon, backing up and grabbing for four rounds before the Argentine’s right cross started doing damage in the fifth. Reflecting his Light-Welter / Welter background, Napoles only scaled 153 lb for that attempt at Monzon’s Middleweight crown, which highlights why that loss shouldn’t really be held against him too heavily.

Gavilan never stopped punching when at his best, of course, and could take the shots of even someone as spiteful as Napoles, but would that be Gavilan’s best, or maybe even only chance, to simply outwork Napoles? Hard to say, but for me Napoles has more to win a fight between the pair with, particularly from a tactical point of view, which perhaps explains why he dropped so few decisions in non-title fights compared to Gavilan.

I know there are a couple of big Gavilan fans on here, and it’s been a while since we delved back in history, so I’m putting it out there – has history got it wrong? Shouldn’t it be Napoles who is revered as Cuba’s greatest Welter and pound for pounder, instead of the more glamorised Gavilan? After a bit of thought, I’m going against old habits these days and placing Napoles at the top of this little pile, both on resume and head to head. But what about you fellas?

Any opinions welcome. Cheers lads.

I'll give an opinion of this thread being 5*, other than that I'm afraid I can't add anything. Informative read though, and has given me some fights to watch with is always welcome!

I'll keep it short but I do tend to think it boils down to the Ray Robinson factor, this isn't meant as a denigration of the great man but his opposition do get a bit over rated. The second fight with Gavilan was his defining moment amongst many fabulous moments granted and as such he's held in very high esteem because of it.

The best man to have fought Robinson and given him a good fight twice by all accounts must be pretty special but how special is the big question. He did fight in a fairly strong Welterweight era and was clearly the man after Robinson moved on so does deserve his reputation and my god what a chin he had.

On the flip side though he doesn't have a win like Griffith on his record, the closest being Basilio possibly and they're worlds apart ability wise. Gavilan has the better overall record but Napoles was more dominant during his reign so it becomes a toss up between what you prefer. Without doubt 4 and 5 on the all time Welterweight list so very little between them either way.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I'll give an opinion of this thread being 5*, other than that I'm afraid I can't add anything. Informative read though, and has given me some fights to watch with is always welcome!

Translates as: 'I'm sure it would have been interesting if I could be arsed to read it.'

I was always coloured in my view of napoles as the first time I watched him fight he lost to john h Stracey, which is not what you'd expect of an ATG. Gave his career a more thorough look a while back and its pretty damn impressive.

Gavilan is hard to be totally objective about, tainted to some degree by being the second best of his era, but then when the best is srr, you could be the second best ever.  I sometimes compare him to de Jesus on that front... A guy who gave a great all he could handle and beat everyone else. Gavilan seems to get cut more slack than de Jesus on that front... Maybe because robbo didn't stick around at the weight as long as duran, so the kid picked up the belt that de Jesus didn't.

Ultimately between gavilan and napoles it's just about perceptions, two great fighters and on records precious little to choose between them. On eyetest, napoles the better boxer, gavilan shipped a lot of leather but he could certainly take it. Its personal taste at the end if the day, and I err to the more rounded skills of napoles. Nothing in it though objectively.

This is another one of those situations where the fame and popularity of a fighter is difficult to ignore when considering their relative merits, in this case Gavilan's star status as the most televised fighter of the era. Throw in the fact that he fought in through the peak era of American mobbed up boxing, casting suspicion over several contests, and you've got yourself a real conundrum. I'm going to agree with your argument based on three main points:

1. Best win. As Hammersmith harrier pointed out, it's pretty clear cut for Napoles with his victory over Griffith at Welter.

2. The eyeball test. Napoles is one of the smoothest movers and punchers I've ever seen, from any era. The Keed was more of a natural stylist (after all, his signature punch was based on a machete chopping sugar cane) but Napoles wins out for his blending of intuitive timing and technical prowess.

3. Gavilan once lost to Dennis Waterman's brother. Apparently it was a farce, but still.

My old boy sparred with peter waterman once. Couldn't lay a glove on him apparently, and waterman had the decency to not hit him... So more of a shadow box really.

The gavilan fight was by all accounts a shocking home towner.

Bit late getting back to them, but thanks for the replies, lads.

Interesting that Napoles' win over Griffith seems to make the difference to a couple of you as it seems to be a win that's been more warmly received with time. In 1969 a lot of people felt that Griffith was a little over the hill and that coming back down to 147 to fight Napoles after competing at Middle (albeit he was a small Middle) for the few years before had probably taken something out of him. It was only in subsequent years, where Griffith scored some good wins over guys like Tiger and Lopez and came pretty close to beating Monzon in their rematch, that people started to accept that Napoles hadn't just beaten a shell of Emile.

In Griffith, Napoles beat a man who, for my money, is a top ten Welter of all time who was a shade past his prime, whereas in Basilio the Kid beat a guy who would probably be just outside the top ten but who was just starting to hit his stride when they fought. Given that Gavilan was down and very nearly out in the second round against Basilio and then on wobbly legs once or twice after that, Napoles' win over Griffith was the more polished performance and as such I'd keep it as the better win, but maybe a bit closer than I might have first thought.

Rigo is cubas greatest boxer, napoles is cubas greatest professional. I hate it when people infer it's negative for professional s to have an amateur style. If it was possible to maintain an amateur style for 12 rounds all fighters woukd do it......and win!

If that were true Lomachenko would have beaten Salido but he didn't, the amateur game is too far removed from the pros now for that style to work over a prolonged period.

Rigo doesn't even come into the equation, his overall skill level isn't up there with Napoles nor does he have the resilience of Gavilan, unfortunately he's a very forgettable boxer.

Ok

Above my pay grade...Always thought Napoles was Mexican for some reason...

Good article though...You should be a Boxing journalist........

Love for the game and it's history is much deeper than mine...

Ta, Truss. Glad you enjoyed. Napoles became an adaopted Mexican - born and raised in Cuba and started his career in there but relocated to Mexico when Castro banned professional boxing. He ended up with dual citizenship but I just tend to take the simple route and regard him as Cuban.....Definitely fought a lot more like your typical Cuban boxer than your typical Mexican one, anyway!

As for the Rigondeaux point above....Well Rigondeaux might well be the most naturally talented of all Cubans if you're talking purely about his skills, but you cannae put him in that same bracket as Napoles and Gavilan for me, and having not turned professional until the age of 29 he might not have the time to get there. Phenomenal amateur achievements and he's already made a pretty decent mark as a pro, but at the end of the day the amateurs, even at the Olympics, isn't the peak of boxing like it is in other sports.

But I'm a massive fan of Rigondeaux's talent, though....Hope he can kick on in the next couple of years and clean out the Super-Bantams and Feathers.

If amateur boxers were included, I'd pick Félix Savón as Cuba's greatest. Happy to stick with Napoles as their best in the paid ranks though.

88Chris05 wrote:Ta, Truss. Glad you enjoyed. Napoles became an adaopted Mexican - born and raised in Cuba and started his career in there but relocated to Mexico when Castro banned professional boxing. He ended up with dual citizenship but I just tend to take the simple route and regard him as Cuban.....Definitely fought a lot more like your typical Cuban boxer than your typical Mexican one, anyway!

As for the Rigondeaux point above....Well Rigondeaux might well be the most naturally talented of all Cubans if you're talking purely about his skills, but you cannae put him in that same bracket as Napoles and Gavilan for me, and having not turned professional until the age of 29 he might not have the time to get there. Phenomenal amateur achievements and he's already made a pretty decent mark as a pro, but at the end of the day the amateurs, even at the Olympics, isn't the peak of boxing like it is in other sports.

But I'm a massive fan of Rigondeaux's talent, though....Hope he can kick on in the next couple of years and clean out the Super-Bantams and Feathers.

I hope Frampton chins him personally!