I think the main problem with any discussion on quality of opposition is that very few people have original opinions based on watching boxing and doing research themselves. It's like with pretty much every topic in life: everyone is scared to death of looking ignorant so they just familiarize themselves with the "consensus" and "expert" opinions and perpetuate that until it becomes fact etched in stone.
Just like with public consensus on just about any topic, you're bound to find a ton of bullshit masquerading as fact.

People know how to quantify a Roberto Duran, a Ray Leonard, a Pacquiao, ect, but they have no idea how to quantify a guy like Reggie Johnson, who was an incredible fighter who would have chased some bonafide HOFers out of the ring, but because there is no consensus on him and people are generally too lazy to watch his fights, very few here would know how impressive it is to pitch a complete shutout against him.

Reggie who? Who'd he beat? Is he in the HOF?