Top 5 most overrated boxers of All Time

Sorry guys, i guess you could call this a troll post. The thing is i've been reading this forum for about a year now with intentions of gaining knowledge on past fighters i wasn't alive to witness the careers of. Time and time again i see these particular fighters praised and compared with fighters post-WWII who seem to get crapped on by many classic forum posters. I was baiting with this thread and i apologise, i just wanted to see your reaction and it was more respectable than i'd imagined.

Now, in my humble, opinion of limited knowledge, i will explain why i believe these fighters to be overrated. My opinions are based on articles that have been linked from here as well as (in some cases) limited fight and training footage i've seen of these fighters.

1. Roberto Duran - Looking at his numerically impressive record i can see why he might be so highly rated, however his notable wins were against Palomino and Cuevas, who were both beyond their primes and on their way out. This type of negativity is applied to (in some cases) all the big named wins of more recent fighters, but Duran seems to be immune to it. His other defining wins? He went 2-1 with De Jesus, won a SD against Barkley and ofcourse the exceptional victory over SRL. Every other career defining fight he lost...SRLx2(he even QUIT in a sorry fashion, which would be unforgiving for any other fighter, with Duran however the excuses hold strong), Hagler, Hearns, Benitez, (the followng are excusable but still big fights - Paz, Joppy, Camacho). In my opinion what it boils down to is his one victory over the universally bagged hated more than FMJ, SRL. And his tysonesque personna(minus the black skin and hood talk) which makes people hold him in such a high regard.

2,3,4. Dempsey, Langford, Ross. Even if you dig deep there is so little credible evidence to go on, unless you are all 100 years old and completely unbiased with these fighters you grew up watching. From what film there is, they do not appear to be on the level of any heavyweight superstar from 1940 onwards. Its the shoddy film that makes them appear poor? SRR looks great on film, Pep does, Moore does, Armstrong does, Patterson does. Yes you could say their records are what makes them great, but can you seriously say that Dempsey would stand half a chance of beating Louis, Ali, Holmes, Lennox, Holyfield?? And Calzaghe has a great record, FMJ does too, but you will pick their records apart all day...these ancient fighters only ever fought prime top contenders? only lost past their prime? Sam Langford for christ sake! theres like six pieces of footage! how can you possibly know his opponents were top notch? 300+ fights is great(although he either lost or drew a third of them) but how can you even rank him so high on merely hearsay??

I've been reading your threads for a year now. I beliee this forum to be vastly more educated than the general forum, but also vastly more biased, due to a mix of nostalgia and elitism. I'm just saying.