Quote Originally Posted by justaguy View Post
Fact is, we don't know.

Training looks a lot different now... different techniques, different philosophies, and different science to the sport. It is close to impossible to say who would have done what in what era.

When we look at boxing IQ and beating the man in front of you - which is all that a boxer can be asked to do - fighters today would have done just fine against fighters back in the day. The Klits would have held their own - they are HUGE compared to many of the ATG heavyweight champs. Those guys would have never seen the likes of them. But does that mean the innate skills are the same? No.

Fighters in Duran's day fought at least two to three times a year - most fought more. That's not the case anymore... if all of these guys fought more often and TRULY had to clear out a division, would they be undefeated? Doubtful. But I have no doubt that they would hold their own.
Agree 100% and this comment from 1 cell Duran should not surprise anybody. He said the same things about Leonard and Hearns. He never was the brightest bulb in the room. Personality is not pugilism and there is little doubt in my mind that Floyd hangs at the top in any era. Duran probably beats him at 135 because Floyd was a much different fighter early in career and was still developing.
The comment is just stupid. End of story.