Who was the fighter of the 70s?

Ali, Duran or Monzon?

We've had this thread before...time to bring it back.

Consider:

Duran won the( WBA) World Lightweight Title in 1972 from Ken Buchanan, lost to Esteban DeJesus in the same year and then proceeded to defend the Lightweight Title 13 times during a following winning streak of 36 fights to end the decade......including wins over Carlos Palomino and the only man to have defeated him up to that point, Esteban DeJesus. There were not that many notable names on his resume up to that point...but it was one hell of a run.


Monzon won the Undisputed Middleweight title in 1970 from Nino Benvenuti and proceeded to successfully defend it 14 times beating such names as Emile Griffith, Rodrigo Valdez, Benny Briscoe and Jose Napoles...in an unbeaten streak of 20 fights.

Ali started the decade in the fight of the century against Joe Frazier...in a battle of undefeated Heavyweight Champions. Regained the Title in 1974 against undefeated George Foreman, becoming only the 2nd man in history to regain the Heavyweight crown, then had twelve successful defenses before losing to Leon Spinks and then becoming the first man to win the title three times by beating Spinks in the rematch. During this period he fought the greatest level of opposition for any fighter in any decade with names like Joe Frazier, Earnie Shavers, Ken Norton, George Foreman, Jimmy Young, Ron Lyle, Jerry Quarry, George Chuvalo, and Oscar Bonavena and had beaten every man he had faced. He was involved in all of the high profile fights of the decade: "Fight of the Century", "Rumble in the Jungle", "Thriller in Manilla".

Who gets your vote?

 

Gee, stacking the deck a bit for Ali there? His synopsis is over twice as long as his rivals ::

Only joshing you, Sly. Ali gets my vote. One thing he has over the two fellas with him here is he endured the fights he did whilst out-of-prime --- the whole decade. That's a big edge there. Of course, there's more to it than that. Ali didn't get near the dominance or longevity as champion as Monzon & Duran, amidst other factors worth considering.

All-in-all, though? Ali gets the nod. You should create threads for other decades (or individual weightclasses) too!

 

I guess after reading RS's post....I too will say Ali.

But I woulda went with Duran if not for reading that.

 

Duran of the 70s was the best lightweight ever.

Ali was the fighter of the 60s, not 70s. Popularity/size of fights doesn't enter in, this is a boxing forum not a public relations forum.

 

If you're going by who was in the most high profile fights of a decade then heavyweights are 'fighter of the decade' every single decade since the 1800s.

 

Nonsense.

Read my post again.

Ali didn't JUST have the most high profile fights....relatively he consistently fought a much higher level of competition in that era than did Monzon or Duran. He also ACHIEVED winning teh Title for a second and third time...equaling and beating records at that time. Lastly...14 defenses of the title, post-prime, isn't too shabby....

 

Duran was a better lightweight in the 70s than Ali was a heavyweight, IMO. Pretty conclusively. For me that's the bottom line.

Ali was the fighter of the 60s.

 

Ali ahead of Jofre for Fighter Of The 60's!?

I mean, maybe you're saying Ali as a fighter was the best of that decade, which could be argued...but if we're placing emphasis on achievements, Jofre has Ali licked conclusively, & he's not the only one from that time to do so.

 

Oh fuck it, I dunno. Lets just agree they were all really, really good, ok?::

 

But yeah I think Ali was/is better & greater than Jofre and Ali was at his peak int he 60s. So yeah, Ali is the best fighter of the 60s.

Duran was better than Ali was in the 70s so Duran was fighter of the 70s.

That's what I think about that thing.

 

Sly, you conveniently glossed over the fact that Ali LOST the Fight of the Century and lost to a 6-fight novice in order to achieve the distinction of being the only man to hold the title three times by that point.

Additionally, when Ali fought Ellis and stopped him in 12, Ellis had been knocked out the previous year by Joe Frazier. Ali was The Greatest, but he had a fair amount of record padding in the 70s (Dunn, Evangelista, Coopman, Blin, Spinks). He also lost his title, near the end of the decade, to a fighter who had less than 10 pro fights. His historic 3rd win of the heavyweight title was against that relative novice. Also, he lost one bout to Norton and could have easily lost the other---it was that close.

Duran also had his record padding fights (in part because he was beginning his 3rd year as a pro in 1970), but he lost once in that decade to Esteban DeJesus. He had two more bouts with DeJesus in that decade, stopping him both times. He cleaned out the lightweight division, stopping both cans and respectable names.

Duran won the lightweight title in 1972. He kept it til 1978 and then moved up to fight at welterweight, beating Carlos Palomino among others.

Duran didn't fade during the 70s. He achieved one of his greatest feats in 1980, beating Ray Leonard. I'm not arguing about who was the better fighter between Duran and Ali overall, but Duran was better during the 70s.

Duran steadily rose to a peak during the 70s. Ali was great, but he didn't have the consistency or peak of Duran in that timeframe. Ali was robbed of the titles through his refusal to participate in Vietnam, but that caused inactivity and a loss of ability to a certain extent. Fair or not, Duran had no such hindrance.

 

Deal. I meant to say Griffith, anyway. Was posting regarding Jofre on another forum ::

 

Regarding Ali & Duran specifically, Duran was the greater fighter as a talent in the 1970's, but Ali fought & bested the superior competition. It's a question of personal taste as to which you emphasise more.

What a shame Monzon has been left out in the cold to this point --- easily a top-three fighter for this decade.

 

Estaban De Jesus & Ken Buchanan are the equal of any Ali opponent not named 'Foreman' in the 70s.

 

A peak Frazier ranks ahead of those men for mine --- but, then, Ali's only encounter with a Frazier at the top of his game resulted in a loss, so...

 

Equal of Frazier?

 

They might count themselves as better than the Frazier Ali beat, in fairness. Buchanan & DeJesus are each top-30 all-time Lightweights, IMO. In what I consider to be the steepest division for legends in all of Boxing history, that's no mean feat!

 

Can you imagine De jesus being decimated in 2 rounds and knocked down 37 times in the process by ANY lightweight? Frazier was a terrific fighter, but no greater than De Jesus, relative to his weight. Less versatile against varied styles than de Jesus.

 

Has there really been a LW equivalent of George Foreman, though?

I mean, let's be fair to Frazier --- we would never have said it could've happened to him until it actually did.

I pick Frazier as an all-timer over either DeJesus or Buchanan, but those guys would not be very far behind him, despite having such drastically lower profiles. DeJesus especially is sold very short.

As I said before, too --- DeJesus & Buchanan at their peaks are probably better than the Frazier of 74-75 --- the one Ali beat.

 

Going on a purely boxing standpoint, the answer is Duran... and Sly's reference to level of opposition is highly suspect

Yes, Ali fought Frazier/Foreman/Norton, but also fought Wepner/Evangelista/Coopman and a bunch of other guys who had no business even getting a title shot

Which one of Duran's title defenses came against an opponent as porous and circumspect as those names? and Duran seldom even had a close fight... outside of DeJesus, who he wore down and butchered in the return bouts... he dominated opponent after opponent, there was no question whether or not he would win, there were no controversial decisions, the only question is whether or not the other guy would survive and usually they didnt

Ali was the biggest star of the decade (of all decades, really) but the best between the ropes in the 1970s was Roberto Duran

 

pretty much... I would rate Frazier a little higher because of his reign and beating Ali, but both Buchanan and DeJesus were truly remarkable fighters... Buchanan was a beautiful boxer, tireless and tougher than an anvil... DeJesus was a great technician and a superb puncher who, were it not for Duran, would be remembered as a legend at the weight

 

I can't personally see how Frazier is rated on the same level or below either Buchanan or DeJesus. Don't get me wrong, both very very, very good fighters indeed (DeJesus especially tends to get underrated a lot), but Frazier was better IMHO.

MTF

 

Yes but you forget to mention that Ali also fought Quarry, Shavers, Lyle, Young, Ellis, Bonavena...

Nothing "suspect" about that list.

Also don't act like Duran never fought his share of bums...his record at lightweight is padded.

 

to paraphrase Bernadette Devlin, "I would lay a pound to a penny" that you couldn't possibly critique his level of opposition with anything more than BoxRec guesswork

 

They're only so well known because they're heavyweights. That's what distorts people's perceptions slightly in these things. Say 'Young, Lyle, Bonavena', everyone knows who they are; say Viruet, Lampkin, Kobayashi, Bizzarro, Mamby nobody has a clue even though most those guys were actually world champions.

 

Yes, sly, Duran has a lot of softees on his early record. There's a reason for that: he turned pro at age 16. Two years into his pro career, he was 18 at the start of the 70s. Who the fuck was he supposed to fight? Number one contenders?::

 

I hear you --- as I say, Duran & Monzon both were more dominant & had greater longevity as champion during the era --- but, for me, it's a very big thing that Ali progressively faded throughout the 70's while those men were at the peak of their powers, & it serves to significantly lessen the controversies & less dominant performances.

 

Also....Ali beating Foreman trumps any single achievement either Monzon or Duran made in the 70s.

 

Laying on the ropes and taking a beating, waiting for the other fighter to tire out, is better than breaking down and stopping Esteban DeJesus? Really? It's a greater achievement to sucker someone into tiring themself out than it is to rise from a knockdown and take someone apart over 12 rounds? You and I have different definitions on trump cards.

I guess Jimmy Young is also a contender for fighter of the 70s. He knocked Foreman down as well even though he had 6 stoppages in 20 victories. What Young accomplished was even more amazing because his KO percentage was 30%.

 

:giggle: You are such an annoying twat!

Perhaps I'm giving you more credit for intelligence than you really deserve..but in giving you the benefit of the doubt...you KNOW that the point is ALi at 32, defeating the undefeated Foreman by knockout..the same Foreman who destroyed Frazier and Norton among others. The manner in which he used to achieve it is almost irrelevant...Stopping Foreman in 1974 is a greater achievement than Duran beating DeJesus!

How difficult is that to understand?