Was Ali a better fighter P4P than Duran (1970s)?

[Vanboxingfan]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

Ali's opposition was much much better in the 1970s. How can anyone say different. When Duran moved up in competition is when he moved up in weight, so he gets excuses for losing to greats fighters regardless that he was moving up in level of fighters.

Most of what you say makes no sense and this is another example. For starters it's a P4P question, so if Duran fought in higher weight classes and won, that's a huge, huge advantage.

Secondly, Duran didn't fight much out of lightweight in the 70's, most of the fights in the higher weights were in the 80's.

Thirdly, Ali was bigger than most of his comp. He towered over Frazier and was constantly pushing his head down. He was also 6 3" so many of the guys he fought were smaller than he was. He was 40lbs heavier than Foster (who was a light heavyeight) when they fought, so that hurts Ali on a P4P list.

As for quality of oppostion they aren't that much different. De Jesus was a hell of a good fighter, as was Palomino and Buchanan just to name a few.

And it was in the 70's that Ali lost to Spinks.

Now if one wants to make an argument about Ali of the 60's being better p4p than Duran in the 70's then that's a different story, but in the 70's there's really no argument given his size advantage and his loss to Spinks who he outweighed by about 30lbs.

So if you're going to continue to hate Duran, at least do so objectively.

[Abdullah]

Not in the 70's. Duran was better.

[the cobra]

Not in the 70's, no. Ali may well have been better peak for peak though. Maybe.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by Hands of Iron

It only counts when he won. Deal with it.

Then lets say Virgil Hill is greater than Roberto Duran since he had more than 10 more title defenses than Duran (if opposition does not mean anything). Virgil Hill had something like 25 title defenses and does not get credit because some think his defenses were not against top guys, and when he lost he lost to Hearns and Jones.

[Asterion]

Duran had a great career, beating a lot of contenders in the 135 and 140 divisions. This epic campaign was continued with his win over Sugar Ray Leonard in 1980.

Ali was an amazing story, but his loses in the 70s, plus the controversial decisions, plus his boring fights while past his prime post-1974, puts him a step below Duran.

To be fair, lets remember that Duran was starting his career, while Ali was arguably past his best the whole decade.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by Vanboxingfan

Most of what you say makes no sense and this is another example. For starters it's a P4P question, so if Duran fought in higher weight classes and won, that's a huge, huge advantage.

Secondly, Duran didn't fight much out of lightweight in the 70's, most of the fights in the higher weights were in the 80's.

Thirdly, Ali was bigger than most of his comp. He towered over Frazier and was constantly pushing his head down. He was also 6 3" so many of the guys he fought were smaller than he was. He was 40lbs heavier than Foster (who was a light heavyeight) when they fought, so that hurts Ali on a P4P list.

As for quality of oppostion they aren't that much different. De Jesus was a hell of a good fighter, as was Palomino and Buchanan just to name a few.

And it was in the 70's that Ali lost to Spinks.

Now if one wants to make an argument about Ali of the 60's being better p4p than Duran in the 70's then that's a different story, but in the 70's there's really no argument given his size advantage and his loss to Spinks who he outweighed by about 30lbs.

So if you're going to continue to hate Duran, at least do so objectively.

you could say Duran was bigger than most guys he fought if you look at where he ended up in weight. Ali's opposition in the 1970s was better than Duran's. There is no doubt. Dejesus, Buchanan and Palomino do not add up to Frazier,Foreman and Norton.
Now if you look at all time Duran made up for that fighting Hearns,Benitez,Leonard,Hagler in the 1980s, but we are talking about the 1970s and Duran's lightweight reign here. Duran actually fought as high as 154 as early as 1978.

Originally Posted by SugarShane_24

The best fighter of the 70's is a toss-up between Duran and Carlos Monzon.

Both guys are legendary and decimated their respective divisions.

[Vanboxingfan]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

you could say Duran was bigger than most guys he fought if you look at where he ended up in weight. Ali's opposition in the 1970s was better than Duran's. There is no doubt. Dejesus, Buchanan and Palomino do not add up to Frazier,Foreman and Norton.
Now if you look at all time Duran made up for that fighting Hearns,Benitez,Leonard,Hagler in the 1980s, but we are talking about the 1970s and Duran's lightweight reign here. Duran actually fought as high as 154 as early as 1978.

We're obviously talking about fight night weights. Most of Duran's opponents weighed within 2-3 lbs of him. Ali had 40lbs on Foster. And it's pretty hard to argue the fact that Ali wasn't bigger than Frazier. The was taller, had a longer reach, and outweighed him by 10-20lbs. (depending which fight, you're focusing on). And like it or not, you do have to take into account Ali's loss to Leon Spinks, who is, by far, the worst opponent either of them fought.

[KERRIGAN]

Originally Posted by Vanboxingfan

We're obviously talking about fight night weights. Most of Duran's opponents weighed within 2-3 lbs of him. Ali had 40lbs on Foster. And it's pretty hard to argue the fact that Ali wasn't bigger than Frazier. The was taller, had a longer reach, and outweighed him by 10-20lbs. (depending which fight, you're focusing on). And like it or not, you do have to take into account Ali's loss to Leon Spinks, who is, by far, the worst opponent either of them fought.

I think you need to consider that Mag1965 is a seriously stupid individual who can't grasp any of boxing's basics, let alone its subtleties.