Originally Posted by Bokaj
P4p Duran is the best of the lot, but he's far from a great MW. What they did at lower weight doesn't matter much for me, it's what they did at MW. And there they seem pretty even to me.
He also have losses to everyone of those besides Graziano. The reason that he fought several fights against them is mainly that he lost the first fight. I do think it's impressive that he managed to stay a top MW in his late 30's, though.
And I don't see them as great MWs either. If they're remembered as such, it's because of they met Robinson.
You can say the same about just aboout any long reigning champion. Louis, Duran, Hagler - you name them.
Personally, I ALWAYS put great stock in dominating your division for a long period.
the difference for me is that most long reigning champions have a lot of filler competition with some great wins thrown in the mix.
louis has baer, walcott, conn, schmeling, etc.
duran has dejesus and buchanan (his 135 reign didn't have a ton of greats either)
hagler's reign has sibson, antefurmo, hamsho, and mugabi. add in hearns and duran and it's damn solid.
i would personally put most of hopkins competition a step behind hagler's but he has that consistency and as many have noted, being consistent for that long a period is EXTREMELY difficult and requires a long of skill. even against C+/B- competition, being undefeated for 20+ defenses is remarkable.
he just lacks true quality on his resume and the best middle he fought, jones, clearly beat him.
i guess i also just rate robinson's reign and his era much higher than you; difference of opinion and all