who was better in his era?! pac or duran?!

The REAL fab four are a lot better than the pseudo fab four you listed for Pac (not to say they weren't great fighters).

Plus Duran was significantly outweighed by the other three, who were legitimate WW's, JMW's and MW's.

Simple answer, Duran.

 

Pacquiao has a Leonard-esque 5-1-1(3KOs) record vs other members of his Fab Four (MAB, EM, JMM)

Duran had a 1-4 record (0KOs, KO'd once) vs SRL, Hagelr, Hearns

They say Duran was the greatest lightweight, and what he did beyond that was just gravy and his losses are excused. He did fight the greater fighters at the higher weights, beat an ATG in his prime, however he lost to most of his best opponents.

Pac beat greater fighters than Duran at the lower weights, but never established an ATG career at any of them. He was more consistently great as he moved up without having beaten a prime ATG (Mayweather keeps ducking and dodging).

Everyone will say Duran, but it shouldn't be so clear cut

 

Duran fought better competition but lose to most.

Pac fought lesser competition but won all of them(I know morales,marquez but at least he won in rematches and technically won marquez)

So Its just right to say pac was better in his era, his era was **** though compared to duran and no doubt duran would have done the same if he was in pac's era

 

Everyone who doesn't understand the question or take it in a different way would say that

 

Barrera, Morales, and Marquez past their prime and Manny lost one to Morales and arguably 2 or 1-1 with Marquez. Duran on the other hand beat a prime, bigger, stronger, faster Leonard who some consider the best WW other than Robinson. Manny does not have a win as significant as that one. Hed have to beat Floyd to come close to that one. Duran went 12 and busted up Hagler and beat Barkley to be MW champ. Pacman hasnt even fought Sergio whos really a jrmw as mw champ. Great wins by Pacman, greater ones by Duran.

 

I agree with all of the above except the bolded parts. Particularly in the case of Barrera. Morales and Marquez also enjoyed certain advantages over Pacquiao. The latter will always, regardless of age. If anything, one could also say Pac's prime was also not yet met at the time or that his percentile of prime "actualization" was lesser than it was at the pinnacle of his "primeness". Many aver that point to be around the Hatton-Cotto period.

Pac's prime, though, is ambiguous like B-Hop's. This is not to say, though, that Marquez's is easily pinpointed. He utilizes skills and timing which he doesn't seem to have lost even of a touch of yet as opposed to athleticism.

Additionally, if Marquez was past prime during the first two Pacquiao fights, as well, we must assume that he is simply shot now. It's been a while, and he is after all, as many on this forum love to say, "out of his comfortable weight". :deal

 

Duran was Fighter Of The Decade himself.

 

Well, "Duran's era" in actuality precedes the era of the rest of those three. His lightweight reign was where a good majority of his prime was spent, and where much his career's depth lies. The past-prime wins and efforts against the other 3 start after his win against SRL, and from there, a new era in his career begins to unfold as he goes up in weight and diminishes in physical ability. The overlap isn't as synchronized as it is with the other 3, so it's a hard question to ask.

 

I really dont think Marquez is shot, but hes been able to carry himself much better in his twilight of his career. Id say hes past his prime lost a step, but still very effective. Cant say the same about Barrera or Morales. But I do agree because Barrera always lacked a powerful right hed always struggle with Pacman. For me the rise of the new Pacman was already present by the rematch with Marquez. Only difference in the rubbermatch is Pacmans much stronger, but speed is about the same. Jmm always a bad.style matchup for Pacman. If Morales wasnt shot and you bring back the 126 version he beats Pacman too.

 

Pac. This bok calling them the four best by Hamill is stupid, but so is Hamill. Duran was at best in lighter division, and came along 10 years before other 3.

Duran was great lightweight, and may have been great welterweight if he did not fall apart after first Leonard win and go nuts partying. Guy had 8 million dollars and almost went broke, and it was not through bad investments.

 

This is how great duran was, the actual fab 4 (all top 50 atg's) was an afternote to his career.

He was the fighter of the decade in the 70's ruling the lightweight division with an iron fist losing just once at light welter, a loss he would twice over turn.

He then took a prime leonard's 0, in the best victory of the 80's. His legacy was set then.

Beating moore at 154, beating barkley at 160, pushing prime hagler the distance at 160, that's all gravy baby.

 

Duran was the greatest lightweight champion in the history of boxing!!!