he started fighting at 16 years old in 1967, but he was not prime until 1977-1978. Which would make 10 years after his prime in 1987 and 1988.. 1980 was pretty close to Duran's prime, and how is fighting at welterweight after years at lightweight and not being able to make weight that high in weight to diminish him? Especially since he was a big enough lightweight. He fought great at welterweight against Palomino and Leonard the first time he did well although even an inexperienced Leonard fighting Duran's fight, Duran could not stop Ray., Duran just fought better guys when he lost in higher weights. and when Duran fought Hearns or Benitez, he was still young enough. If he lost it was not because of age or peak.. It was because of speed and those guys were good. I think his legacy is good just a bit overrated. He is overrated in my mind and always has been .Feet too wide apart. opponents at lightweight he should have beaten, I mean was there any doubt when he fought at lightweight that he was not better than his opponents? The real question was when he fought in the 80s. He had real challenges and did not come through.. He was 30 when he fought Benitez and 32 when he fought Hearns. And he later fought until he was 50 years old in 2001.. If he was a shot fighter he would have been beaten up by the late 1980s since that is how it works with washed up guys. They get beaten up and then it is easier to beat them and soon a guy 4-10 are beating them. I will say that after Leonard beat Duran in no mas in Nov. 1980, Duran had his invincibility stripped. That was the biggest damage to Duran not that his skills went down, just that the bully in him was tamed a little.. But if things went his way his attitude came and he would sneer and beat the guy into submission with combinations and power. If he had the person in front of him and they weren't moving he looked great even though his feet were so wide apart. When he had a boxer or fast guy like Leonard or Benitez or Hearns the tables turned. He quit like bullies do. Duran was a bully mentality anyway, and that is how it works with bullies.. It worked well with the lesser competition at lightweight, but when he moved up he was put to the test and sure he lost more and sure he has the excuse that he was old at 30 even though he fought 20 more years until the age of 50, and then he was fighting 2 divisions up when all the legends fought higher in weight yet didn't have the excuses. What great fighters did not move up usually? And most of them won. Robinson lost when he moved up and had excuses? Emile Griffith? Jones? Virgil Hill? Hearns moved up and fought at light heavyweight and won 2 titles there.. 30 pounds over his welt. division. When Tommy lost he was beaten badly, but if Duran lost the same way he had an excuse. I think what has to be reevaluated are Duran's opponents at lightweight.. And lets face it they were not the same quality as Leonard,Hearns,Hagler,Benitez. Who can say they were. Who will say Dejesus and Buchanan are the quality of Leonard and Hearns. We also have to reevaluated how washed up Duran was in 1980-1984.. 28-32 years old is washed up?? I know for a fact Duran has been given far too many excuses. And what backs my opinion up is his foot positioning. Anyone who fights that wide will punch hard but will not have mobility with a guy who can move. And if the guy is nailing Duran like Hearns did Duran cannot move to get out of there. Either way his positioning was bad. , and that same positioning was there at lightweight. Guys like Leonard and Benitez and Hearns would all beat a guy with that positioning. Pernell would have beaten Duran I have no doubt. Floyd?? Maybe, but Floyd gets roughed up more than Ray or Tommy would have. But stylewise he would have beaten Duran I think.