is Duran overrated as a lightweight? quality of opposition?

According to boxrec he was 3 months shy of his 34th birthday. Apples and oranges anyway. I am being fair. Duran was past his best when he fought Hearns and Benitez. And youre the only Duran detractor on this thread that has (just) mentioned that Duran was past his best when he fought Laing. Thanks for being honest about that. To the other poster, that doesnt seem to matter. All that matters to him is that Duran lost to them. And thats not the only thing ive brought up about Whitaker on this thread. I also mentioned Duran has a better lightweight resume than Whitaker. None of the Duran detractors here have touched upon that. So who's being unfair?

 

Fair enough as well. But 154 was a stretch for him. He even looked like he had no muscle tone when he was there. Plus even you have admitted that he was past his best at 154.

 

Cheers. Just for the record, I personally rate Pernell Whitaker very highly as well.

 

Agreed, and Whitaker I feel won that fight while past his prime and beat a Prime Oscar

 

Who's would be on it?

 

Still a pretty damn good one. Any resume with a prime Kenny and a terrific DeJesus on it is impressive.

 

And they are great ones.

 

I like Gil Clancy`s comment during Barkley/Duran...."Duran has once again proved he is one of the greatest fighters that ever lived". He hadn't even won that fight yet.

 

What about finding 10 or more ahead of him, strictly resume wise?

 

It was certainly outrageous. I just rewatched it the other night. It's one of those fights i could watch every so often. A lightweight doing over a big fully fledged middle - love it.