Duran and Monzon

makes it much tougher. my gut says duran but this bears some thought

 

My answer is predictable..and I'm sticking with it..Monzon. This surely will get some flack from Duran fans, but this is basically based on outward, superficial, aesthetic reasons. They don't get the same warm and fuzzy feelings with Monzon that they do with Duran. Monzon was both the superior fighter and champion. Ice triumphs over fire. Consistancy, poise, ring smarts, chin, all go to Monzon. There were some excellent things that Duran did, and in many ways better than Monzon, but they end up being inconsequential. The fact is, Monzon retired at the top, undefeated. He was a smarter fighter than Duran, though lacking in Durans' obviously superior athletic talent and natural gifts. In the end, a cold, calculating boxing brain, translated into superior ring generalship compensates for all that, and as a result, Monzon was never ko'ed, never "owned" as Duran was, and was ALWAYS the guy who called the tune. Monzon had a stronger mind than Duran and would have never quit a fight from being mocked and frustrated like in "No Mas". He wasn't ruled by his emotions like Duran, and stayed in control. His record speaks for itself.

 

Duran was a level above Monzon in ability and skillset

 

Horse****. You can appreciate certain things about Duran over Monzon, but he wasn't the better fighter, and certainly not "a level" better.Again, don't confuse aesthetics with hard, cold, grim reality.

 

H2H-wise, BTW, Monzon would have battered Duran, much like he did Napoles. He would have won the battle of the minds with ease and controlled Duran..in a much more efficient approach and result than Hagler, for instance.

 

Yes he was,

Monzon is a extremely great fighter and effective fighter, but he's not on the level of a Roberto Duran, nothing wrong with that, there's very few who are.

 

Nonsense.

 

Duran was a much more complete fighter, in his ability to slip punches and use that to get into position to counter hard left and rights, his footwork, body punching, inside fighting ability, parrying shots on another level to Monzon.

 

70s duran vs 70s monzon is extremely tough to seperate. adding in some of his early 80s career makes it a bit different

in the end, i give duran a slight edge in overall skill set but not necessarily efficiency. duran did more things well, but monzon did what he did masterfully. it's EXTREMELY hard to think of a style or fighter i'd favour at 160

 

Duran is indeed a level above Monzon, skills wise it isn't close. In terms of resume of the 60s/70s, I'd still go with Duran, his best wins were prime versions of Buchanan, DeJesus, Marcel fighting in their optimum weight class, where as Monzon beat past prime versions of Griffin, Bevenuti, Napoles fighting above their optimal weight class

 

no briscoe or valdez?

 

Good wins as was Mundine but I wouldn't consider them great fighters, Duran also beat of note Palomino, Ishimatsu and Saoul Mamby, not greats either but top fighters at the time

 

Monzon's title reign was better. I have Duran ahead p4p for what he did in addition to his own run at 135 having beat Marcel, Kobayashi and Palomino. They are my No. 1 and 2 for the 1970s.