Fighter of the Decade 1960s ?

[NChristo]

I don't really care for FOTD that much but I'd like to know what everyone here thinks.

Who really deserved it in the 60s, Muhammad Ali or Emile Griffith ?.

Griffith's has wins over Nino Benvenuti, **** Tiger, Joey Archer, Gaspar Ortega, Luis Rodriguez, Ralph Dupas, Denny Moyer, Fernandez, Jose Stable and Don Fullmer, imo that is more impressive then Ali's run over Liston, Moore, Patterson, Chuvalo, Folley, Williams, London, Jones, Terrel, also take in that Ali had 2 years of the decade of nothing happening.

Thoughts on this ?.


Realize I'm going to get flak from certain members for 'questioning' Ali, keep it civil please.

[Scott9945]

It has to be Ali. Griffith lost too many fights, including a first round KO loss.

[JAB5239]

I don't really care for FOTD that much but I'd like to know what everyone here thinks.

Who really deserved it in the 60s, Muhammad Ali or Emile Griffith ?.

Griffith's has wins over Nino Benvenuti, **** Tiger, Joey Archer, Gaspar Ortega, Luis Rodriguez, Ralph Dupas, Denny Moyer, Fernandez, Jose Stable and Don Fullmer, imo that is more impressive then Ali's run over Liston, Moore, Patterson, Chuvalo, Folley, Williams, London, Jones, Terrel, also take in that Ali had 2 years of the decade of nothing happening.

Thoughts on this ?.

Almost 3 as he only had 1 fight in 1967.

I agree with you. Griffith's run through the 60's wasn't as impressive or as popular as ali's, but it was tougher and had more substance.

Emile was either rated number 1 by The Ring or the champion for 6 of the 10 years. He was rated within the top 10 for the entire decade either at 147 or 160.

Ali was rated either 1 or the champ for 7 years by The Ring including the years he had no fights. Looking at it logically its understandable The Ring would take a stand against the wrongful stripping of Ali's title, but I personally give him credit for years he wasn't active. That isn't to say I don't think he would have been on top, but he simply was unable to put the work in to be labled "fighter of the decade" in my opinion.

[IronDanHamza]

Although Griffith had 10 loss' in the decade he did beat 6 of the people he lost to in that decade and the only people he didn't avenge his loss' to were Carter, Napoles and Fullmer. So i don't really think the loss' have too much effect on who deserved the FOTD.

In my opinion if you weigh up Griffths wins and weigh up Ali's wins in the 60's, Griffths are more impressive.

Griffth gets my vote.

[1SILVA]

Almost 3 as he only had 1 fight in 1967.

I agree with you. Griffith's run through the 60's wasn't as impressive or as popular as ali's, but it was tougher and had more substance.

Emile was either rated number 1 by The Ring or the champion for 6 of the 10 years. He was rated within the top 10 for the entire decade either at 147 or 160.

Ali was rated either 1 or the champ for 7 years by The Ring including the years he had no fights. Looking at it logically its understandable The Ring would take a stand against the wrongful stripping of Ali's title, but I personally give him credit for years he wasn't active. That isn't to say I don't think he would have been on top, but he simply was unable to put the work in to be labled "fighter of the decade" in my opinion.

Great point you made about Emile. No one in the 60's fought stiffer competition, yet Ali was so damn unbelievably talented that I'd have to give him fighter of the decade. Also, he would have fighter of the year in 1966, but The Ring decided that year just to keep it vacant instead of giving it to Ali because of his Anti-War beliefs. In 1990, Sugar Ray Leonard was voted fighter of the decade by several publications despite being inactive for over 5 years, a much longer period than Ali. Ali was the best fighter of the 60's, I think there was no question about that, and the fighter of the decade as well despite missing over 2 and a half years

[Steak]

what about Carlos Ortiz or **** Tiger? they were a bit more consistant than Griffith, and were very accomplished. not to mention they were at the top of the division the entire decade.

when it gets down to it, Ali was virtually only at the top of the division about 5 years of the 60s, if that. Im not going to count his annex.

[BennyST]

what about Carlos Ortiz or **** Tiger? they were a bit more consistant than Griffith, and were very accomplished. not to mention they were at the top of the division the entire decade.

when it gets down to it, Ali was virtually only at the top of the division about 5 years of the 60s, if that. Im not going to count his annex.

Yeah, right when I saw this I thought of Ortiz. He fought or beat; Duilo Loi, Joe Brown, Flash Elorde, Ismael Laguna, Nicholino Locche, Sugar Ramos, Johnny Bizarro, Kenny Lane, Battling Torres and Carlos 'Teo' Cruz. That isn't even taking into account guys like Maurice Cullen, Arthur Persley, Cisco Andrade and Teruo Kosaka who were all long time top contenders of their day in an era when that meant as much, and more in most cases, as being a paper titlist does today.

He lost three times in the decade, all by SD or MD. His losses were to Teo Cruz, Duilo Loi and Ismael Laguna. He also beat Duilo Loi and Ismael Laguna in rematches as the losses were very disputable.

When he finally lost to Teo Cruz it was at the end of his title reign and the end of his prime years. That is incredible.

Joe Brown
Duilo Loi
Ismael Laguna
Sugar Ramos
Flash Elorde
Johnny Bizzaro
Nicolino Locche

Wow is all I can say.

[joseph5620]

what about Carlos Ortiz or **** Tiger? they were a bit more consistant than Griffith, and were very accomplished. not to mention they were at the top of the division the entire decade.

when it gets down to it, Ali was virtually only at the top of the division about 5 years of the 60s, if that. Im not going to count his annex.

**** Tiger was also flattened by Bob Foster during the decade. You can't just ignore that like it never happened. Griffith was KO' d in one by an inconsistent fighter who I believe has been overrated over the years due to dramatic events in his life. Ali was the only fighter mentioned here unbeaten during the decade as the undisputed champion. If you can't credit him for years inactive you also can't hold them against him. I think the fighter of the decade should be the best fighter of that decade regardless of how many years they were on top. And to me Ali was unquestionably the best fighter and most dominant fighter from the 60's.

[Wild Blue Yonda]

I don't see it as particularly close. It's definitely Griffith's decade..

[Scott9945]

Yeah, right when I saw this I thought of Ortiz. He fought or beat; Duilo Loi, Joe Brown, Flash Elorde, Ismael Laguna, Nicholino Locche, Sugar Ramos, Johnny Bizarro, Kenny Lane, Battling Torres and Carlos 'Teo' Cruz. That isn't even taking into account guys like Maurice Cullen, Arthur Persley, Cisco Andrade and Teruo Kosaka who were all long time top contenders of their day in an era when that meant as much, and more in most cases, as being a paper titlist does today.

He lost three times in the decade, all by SD or MD. His losses were to Teo Cruz, Duilo Loi and Ismael Laguna. He also beat Duilo Loi and Ismael Laguna in rematches as the losses were very disputable.

When he finally lost to Teo Cruz it was at the end of his title reign and the end of his prime years. That is incredible.

Joe Brown
Duilo Loi
Ismael Laguna
Sugar Ramos
Flash Elorde
Johnny Bizzaro
Nicolino Locche

Wow is all I can say.

Ortiz was a hell of a fighter and is underrated on most all time lists. I wouldn't argue with him as a choice.