I don't think anyone has any trouble admitting that Leonard was better than Duran at 147 all-time, Hearns and Benitez were better than Duran at 154 all-time and that Hagler was better than Duran at 160 all-time.
Holyfield may have been a wrong example. Although he has some excuses for his losses, the value his legacy is not being exxagerated. When a sentence involves Toney, on the other hand, it is always followed by "if he was in shape", "if he was motivated", "if he didn't use steroids", etc etc. Many seem to forget that even his best fights, for instance Nunn and Jirov, the fights were very close on the scorecards going into the 12th... not to mention losses to lesser fighters (Thadzi) and a few gift/close decisions here and there (McCallum, Tiberi, Rahman, Griffin)..
In terms of ability/talent/skills and acomplishment. He is in or very near the top 10 Pound for pound. As far as head to head match ups goes he can be outboxed. At lightweight where so many of you "knlodgable" clasic posters fawn over him at. I would fell comfortable and safe betting on Benny Leonard, Pernell Whatiker, Ike Williams, Joe Gans and Floyd Mayweather over him. 10 out of 10 times. The only reason he beat Ray leonard is because Leonard fought Duran's fight. Leonard domanated the rematch, making Duran quit. If you argue that Duran was not propeerly trained. Whose fault was that. Even if he was he might not have quit but he was not going to win that fight or any fight with a better and more skilled boxer.
Cant answer the thread question because it depends on who`s doing the rating... no1 is overrating him... no15 is underrating him.... I have him at about no5.
I honestly think he is UNDERRATED at LW as many people see him losing classic matchups to fringe top 10ers when he was nearly unbeatable at this weight.
There seem to be a lot of unobjective posters claiming objective posters are biased. Odd and frustrating.
Mayweather beating Duran 10 out of 10? Good one. He barely beat Castillo and didn't exactly dominate him the second time around. Most of this stuff you wrote has been argued against by the most "knlodgable" posters, yet so many continue to spew this garbage. Frustrating, I tell ya.
I just did a quick thread in the General Forum that barely anybody gives a **** about in regards to Eddie M. Muhammad's "Porky" look at 175 pounds. And, I also think the same can be said about Roberto Duran when he fights at Middleweight or Super-Middleweight..... Anything above 154 pounds and Duran shows / displays a certain amount of pork in the strike-zone area of his body. I just taped Eddie M. Muhammad's wicked 1982 fourth round KO over Lottie Mwale off ESPN the other night, and while Muhammad made 175 pounds, he still had some soft spots in his girth and lower back.... MR.BILL
Has anyone here ever seen his fights from 72 to 78? Or are we just going to disregard his prime and judge him on the way down?
That's exactly what it is. Pachilles is obviously insecure about his Duran love conspiracy theory because he feels the need to state its so called existence in every one of his posts. I tell him every time, and explain it to him every time, to which he usually replies he hasn't seen much of lightweight Duran, or any Buchanan. So i'm not doing it this time, me, you, Sweet Pea etc have made it consistently clear, so let us ignore them consistently now. This forum has always been the god section, i don't want that to stop. Let's ignore trolling now lads.
Jesus, no one who hasn't even bothered to watch much of his lightweight fights should be holding much of an opinion either way on Duran.Talk about lacking credibility. IF you are going to p[ost time and time again, especially if it's laying into a fighter, at least watch the damn fights.