Why is Hearns rated on ATG list that DLH is absent from?

[kg0208]

Not just by experts, but here by posters as well. Now don't get me wrong, Hearns is an ATG. But he is often given credit for fighting great fighters and losing. DLH fought alot of great fighters and lost a few, won a few, and seems to have credit taken from him for this in a reversal of fortune? Why is this?

(No Jack, I don't care what DLH did to you....your response is duly noted before it's typed)

[MrSmall]

Are you saying DLH can whoop Hearns? Probably not what you saying, but ask yourself that.

[kg0208]

Are you saying DLH can whoop Hearns? Probably not what you saying, but ask yourself that.
Nope, though Hearns wouldn't blow him out at 147 IMO. I also never said I would rank DLH ahead of Hearns. I asked why Hearns is rated on alot of lists by posters where DLH is completely absent. One seems to be given credit for fighting great competition and losing (and to some not so great competition) while DLH is viewed the exact opposite manner. Many actually use that against him, including myself at one point.

[Asterion]

Oscar is a little lower than Hearns in my list, but they are close. Both are above Benitez.

[smokin joe]

hearns is better then dlh, but i do feel hearns is given to much credit for the leanord and hagler fights he got koed both times losing aint the same as winning even if it is a great fight

[kg0208]

Come on DLH lost against a one-dimensional Tito @147, Sugar Mosley @147, Mayweather @154 and a 100year onld Hopkins @160. Can't compare this to real greats like SRL or a prime-Hagler. Also Hearns beat Duran, which was a big impressive win against a great fighter. Also Benitez. Oscar hasn't won one of his big-fights.
Also Head-to-head Hearns is far more impressive.

DLH lost to ATG's, no matter your opinion of him or them. So did Hearns (and he also lost to some NOT ATG like Barkley).

DLH also beat Whitaker and Chavez. Both were past it, but Hearns beating Duran at 154 is no better IMO. DLH also beat some other very good boxers like Vargas.

Your answer doesn't answer my question really.

[kg0208]

Guys, I am not asking why Hearns is rated HIGHER. I know the answer already on that. I am asking how he can be rated and DLH NOT be rated on some lists when using the same criteria.:thumbsup

[Thread Stealer]

Come on DLH lost against a one-dimensional Tito @147, Sugar Mosley @147, Mayweather @154 and a 100year onld Hopkins @160. Can't compare this to real greats like SRL or a prime-Hagler. Also Hearns beat Duran, which was a big impressive win against a great fighter. Also Benitez. Oscar hasn't won one of his big-fights.
Also Head-to-head Hearns is far more impressive.

Chavez, Hernandez, Ruelas, Vargas, Whitaker, and Quartey were all big fights at the time.

While the wins over Ike and Whitaker were controversial, so was his loss to Trinidad.

[MrSmall]

Well, in my opinion Hearns would put a clinic on DLH, at 147.

Hearns lost in VERY competitive fashion to Sugar Ray Leonard, arguably a top10 p4p'er. He lost in quick and semi-competitive fashion to Hagler, who was just wrong for him at 160, fair enough. He blew out Duran and beat Benitez. And he beat a bunch of other dudes previously who I forget, sadly.

His losses to Barkley were a fair whack past his prime, and away from his best weight in my humble opinion.

DLH, on the other hand. Lost to Trinidad (controversial), Mosley (once, really, but it's down as twice), and Bhop (far away from his best weight, for certain), and against a very fast, younger, p4p number 1 in Floyd.

So it's basically Trinidad, Mosley, Bhop, PBF vs Hagler, SRL, Barkley losses.

After typing up that bollocks, I feel that Hearns resume edges it. Trinidad and Mosley aren't ATG's, PBF is getting there, B-hop is nearly there or there. SRL and Hagler are sure fire players in anyone's ATG list. Barkley was a less than stellar result, admittedly.

[the_what]

I think Hearns would have beaten most of DLH's opponents. I cant say the same for DLH with Hearns opponents though.

[kg0208]

I personally feel that DLH should be rated on an ATG list despite his losses if Hearns is rated given his losses. Rated higher than Hearns? No, and for all the reasons listed. Hearns lost to better fighters. But that isn't DLH's fault, because he lost to the best fighters available. But Hearns is given immense respect for those losses. DLH seems to lose respect because of his. I don't see that as being consistant.

[bill poster]

Better resume than DLH
Hearns was the first to have 4 world titles at different weights; he beat Benetez, Duran, Pipino, Dewitt, Virgil Hill and plenty of other top fighters..should have got decision against Leonard II

[kg0208]

I think it was his lost to Sturm.

Well I am not going to get into his wins that should have been losses and vice versa. If that is the case, then a good case can be made that he beat Mosley the 2nd time, and a great case can be made that he beat Trinidad.

[PATSYS]

Not just by experts, but here by posters as well. Now don't get me wrong, Hearns is an ATG. But he is often given credit for fighting great fighters and losing. DLH fought alot of great fighters and lost a few, won a few, and seems to have credit taken from him for this in a reversal of fortune? Why is this?

(No Jack, I don't care what DLH did to you....your response is duly noted before it's typed)

That's because Hearns is part of the older generation of fighters and it is proven that a fighter's legacy increases exponentially over time.

[pugilistspecialist]

Hearns ranks higher. Hearns lost to all-time greats while in his prime, only SRL and Hagler. Should be 1-1 against SRL. Hearns moved from welterweight-lightheavyweight and fought at a world class level and won titles at 147,154, 160, and 175. He didnt lose to all the great fighters he fought close or near there prime Hearns beat ATG Benitez and Duran. ODLH did beat Whitaker, G. Hernandez, and J.C.C. but they arent equivalent to Hearns' wins over Duran and Benitez. ODLH is an ATG as well but he ranks slightly lower

[kg0208]

Hearns ranks higher. Hearns lost to all-time greats while in his prime, only SRL and Hagler. Should be 1-1 against SRL. Hearns moved from welterweight-lightheavyweight and fought at a world class level and won titles at 147,154, 160, and 175. He didnt lose to all the great fighters he fought close or near there prime Hearns beat ATG Benitez and Duran. ODLH did beat Whitaker, G. Hernandez, and J.C.C. but they arent equivalent to Hearns' wins over Duran and Benitez. ODLH is an ATG as well but he ranks slightly lower

Right...not disputing that. Just wondering why DLH isn't rated on some people's lists, but Hearns is. DLH fought great competition and lost more than he won. Hearns did the same.

I do think beating a 147 Whitaker is as good as beating a 154 Duran however.

[Thread Stealer]

Right...not disputing that. Just wondering why DLH isn't rated on some people's lists, but Hearns is. DLH fought great competition and lost more than he won. Hearns did the same.

I do think beating a 147 Whitaker is as good as beating a 154 Duran however.

It's also how he won, though.

De La Hoya won a controversial decision. Nothing clear about it, and no rematch. Hearns almost took Roberto's head off in 4 minutes.

If Oscar had at least won the Whitaker fight clearly, then it'd be different.

The questionable decisions of so many of his fights (Whitaker, Trinidad, Quartey, Mosley 2) makes him rather tough to rank.

[kg0208]

It's also how he won, though.

De La Hoya won a controversial decision. Nothing clear about it, and no rematch. Hearns almost took Roberto's head off in 4 minutes.

If Oscar had at least won the Whitaker fight clearly, then it'd be different.

The questionable decisions of so many of his fights (Whitaker, Trinidad, Quartey, Mosley 2) makes him rather tough to rank.

I can agree with that.

[PacDbest]

Not just by experts, but here by posters as well. Now don't get me wrong, Hearns is an ATG. But he is often given credit for fighting great fighters and losing. DLH fought alot of great fighters and lost a few, won a few, and seems to have credit taken from him for this in a reversal of fortune? Why is this?

(No Jack, I don't care what DLH did to you....your response is duly noted before it's typed)

See how I enlighten you guys??? Now you have question in your mind that Hearns are slighly overrated. Hearns are just riding on his win against a smaller & Older Duran. And also for being competitve to the Great fighters of his era. Being a Spectacular KO artist helps a lot too.

If you look at DLH's record, You'll put DLH ahead of Hearns. But If you look at the Fight footage, Hearns you'll say will be ahead. DLH has the benefit if lesser quality opposition than Hearns. If you imagine a fight between them, you'll definitely Pick Hearns. I still rate Hearns ahead of DLH because of this.

Now let me insert a Pacquiao Comparison. Pac is so impressive against the ATGs of his time MAB & EM. Winning by KO on both in a Spectacular show. Hearns was rated High because of his Spectacular fights & KO reels against Good competition. But he also has a lot of KO loses in the elite competition. Pac has none so far in the elite level. If you look at Pac head to head match up against top 10 Featherweight ATGs, Pac style definitely has a Chance to win against everybody on the list.

This is the Reason I already rate Pac in the Company of SRL & Hearns. All of these Greats shows Spectacular Speed, Power, & already shown they can be competitive against the best of the Best In Boxing History. I can't say the same to DLH. Can DLH be competitive against Duran, Hearns, SRL & Hagler??? I don't think so.

[Dorfmeister]

Because if OScar got the help of Bernard Hopkins, AKA "Hoke" Sugar Shane Elmo, and Marco Antonio Windowasher, and Joel and his brother, and Richard Schaefer, he might ALMOST be able to bear the weight of Tommy Hearn's soaking wet and still warm jockstrap. :good


Even though I love B-Hop, MAB and Shane for real, there's no reason to say that they have not kissed your Oscarliness behind, specially as they had no doubts whatsoever that Oscar did win against PBF in the Garden, that night that the whole world awaited... Yes, Tommy and Oscar are levelled, both six division world champs and Oscar should get a shot at Cintron's welter title right away, make it NOW so that the year 2007 can still be a good year for boxing...

[kg0208]

See how I enlighten you guys??? Now you have question in your mind that Hearns are slighly overrated. Hearns are just riding on his win against a smaller & Older Duran. And also for being competitve to the Great fighters of his era. Being a Spectacular KO artist helps a lot too.

If you look at DLH's record, You'll put DLH ahead of Hearns. But If you look at the Fight footage, Hearns you'll say will be ahead. DLH has the benefit if lesser quality opposition than Hearns. If you imagine a fight between them, you'll definitely Pick Hearns. I still rate Hearns ahead of DLH because of this.

Now let me insert a Pacquiao Comparison. Pac is so impressive against the ATGs of his time MAB & EM. Winning by KO on both in a Spectacular show. Hearns was rated High because of his Spectacular fights & KO reels against Good competition. But he also has a lot of KO loses in the elite competition. Pac has none to far in the elite level. If you look at Pac head to head match up against top 10 Featherweight ATGs, Pac style definitely has a Chance to win against everybody on the list.

This is the Reason I already rate Pac in the Company of SRL & Hearns. All of these Greats shows Spectacular Speed, Power, & already shown they can be competitive against the best of the Best In Boxing History. I can't say the same to DLH. Can DLH be competitive against Duran, Hearns, SRL & Hagler??? I don't think so.
You didn't enlighten me. I haven't questioned Hearns ranking...I am questioning DLH's lack of ranking. :deal

You will be enlightened someday that there are other fighters besides Pacquiao. (You mention Hearns losing by KO to elite competition....Pacquiao lost by KO to NON ELITE competition) This thread has nothing to do with him, so find somewhere else to spew the propoganda and logic twisting.

[chimba]

I think Hearns is ranked higher by most because of what could have been and his potential...Had he possessed an above average chin..(not great) he would have been talked about in the same breath as SRR. I think this is why

[brooklyn1550]

I have said in the past that De La Hoya is not an ATG, but after re-examining his resume and quality of opposition, I think he definitely is. Hearns is given more credit because he lost to Leonard and Hagler in absolute wars. De La Hoya lost to Trinidad trying not to make it a fight. He also lost to ATGs in Mosley and Mayweather but neither are as highly regarded as Leonard. The Hopkins loss is one where he gets a lot of criticism, but that was a perfectly placed body shot - like Hearns with Hagler, no shame is losing to either of them. But fans remember the manner in which both of them lost. Is this fair? I'll let others argue over that...

[kg0208]

I think Hearns is ranked higher by most because of what could have been and his potential...Had he possessed an above average chin..(not great) he would have been talked about in the same breath as SRR. I think this is why

I know why he is rated higher. My question is why he gets respect for his losses to elite comp, but DLH doesn't. DLH doesn't appear on some people's lists, and to his credit, he lost close fights to great competition. I used to penalize DLH as well, but realize that it wasn't consistant with my views on Hearns. No doubt Hearns is the better fighter.

[kg0208]

I have said in the past that De La Hoya is not an ATG, but after re-examining his resume and quality of opposition, I think he definitely is. Hearns is given more credit because he lost to Leonard and Hagler in absolute wars. De La Hoya lost to Trinidad trying not to make it a fight. He also lost to ATGs in Mosley and Mayweather but neither are as highly regarded as Leonard. The Hopkins loss is one where he gets a lot of criticism, but that was a perfectly placed body shot - like Hearns with Hagler, no shame is losing to either of them. But fans remember the manner in which both of them lost. Is this fair? I'll let others argue over that...

It's fair to a point. Remember, DLH lost to Trinidad by not trying to make it a war, but basically outboxed him badly prior to that. Mayweather in turn may be remembered very highly depending on how he finishes his career.

I get what you're saying, but that to me is a styles thing. Should we be judging based on styles?

[kg0208]

I have said in the past that De La Hoya is not an ATG, but after re-examining his resume and quality of opposition, I think he definitely is. Hearns is given more credit because he lost to Leonard and Hagler in absolute wars. De La Hoya lost to Trinidad trying not to make it a fight. He also lost to ATGs in Mosley and Mayweather but neither are as highly regarded as Leonard. The Hopkins loss is one where he gets a lot of criticism, but that was a perfectly placed body shot - like Hearns with Hagler, no shame is losing to either of them. But fans remember the manner in which both of them lost. Is this fair? I'll let others argue over that...

It's fair to a point. Remember, DLH lost to Trinidad by not trying to make it a war, but basically outboxed him badly prior to that. Mayweather in turn may be remembered very highly depending on how he finishes his career.

I get what you're saying, but that to me is a styles thing. Should we be judging based on styles? In reality, Hearns could have beaten Leonard AND Hagler if he stuck to boxing IMO. His tendency to war may have cost him.

[kg0208]

You can say that again. That might be the only intelligent thing you've ever said on ESB.

I don't really think you can be an authority on intelligence....

[pugilistspecialist]

Right...not disputing that. Just wondering why DLH isn't rated on some people's lists, but Hearns is. DLH fought great competition and lost more than he won. Hearns did the same.

I do think beating a 147 Whitaker is as good as beating a 154 Duran however.

I agree with that Whitaker at 147=Duran @ 154 but that is where it ends. J.C.C. or Genero Hernandez isnt equal to a win over Benitez so thats why Hearns ranks higher IMO.

[kg0208]

I agree with that Whitaker at 147=Duran @ 154 but that is where it ends. J.C.C. or Genero Hernandez isnt equal to a win over Benitez so thats why Hearns ranks higher IMO.'

:goodAgreed.

What of their 2nd tier good wins. Elite boxers of their time who were not ATG's. I don't think DLH should be rated higher than Hearns. Quite the opposite. But again, Hearns is rated on every list where as DLH is not. If losing to great competition doesn't drop Hearns much, in fact he is revered for fighting the fighters he did, DLH should be viewed much the same way.

[dangerousity]

He shouldnt be, ODLH is underrated by many here...maybe cos he has many losses which seems to be overshadowing his wins and close fights.

Hearns beat Benitez, Duran, SRL, Virgil Hill(very impressive considering Hearns age and weight) & Cuevas.

ODLH beat Chavez, Whitaker, Tito, Genaro, quartey & Vargas.

Clearly Hearns is ahead IMO but ODLH is not far behind.

[kg0208]

He shouldnt be, ODLH is underrated by many here...maybe cos he has many losses which seems to be overshadowing his wins and close fights.

Hearns beat Benitez, Duran, SRL, Virgil Hill(very impressive considering Hearns age and weight) & Cuevas.

ODLH beat Chavez, Whitaker, Tito, Genaro, quartey & Vargas.

Clearly Hearns is ahead IMO but ODLH is not far behind.

The Virgil Hill win is often overlooked. At the time of the win, Hill had defended his title something like 10 times and was viewed as the best LHW in the world.

[pugilistspecialist]

'

:goodAgreed.

What of their 2nd tier good wins. Elite boxers of their time who were not ATG's. I don't think DLH should be rated higher than Hearns. Quite the opposite. But again, Hearns is rated on every list where as DLH is not. If losing to great competition doesn't drop Hearns much, in fact he is revered for fighting the fighters he did, DLH should be viewed much the same way.
In my eyes I revere DLH to that regard. He fought the best, was never dominated. Only ever stopped once by a ATG and hall of famer wo dwarfed him. Other than that in all his losses the fight could have easily went in his favor, especially the Trinidad fight and the 2nd Mosley fights(2 fights I had DLH winning by 2 rounds). He always held his own and never shyed away from the best. ODLH is an ATG.

As far as their 2nd tier competition they are close....
ODLH: John-John Molina, Ike Quartey, Fernando Vargas, Rafael Ruelas, and Miguel Angel Gonzalez all former champions.


Hearns: Dennis Andries, Virgil Hill, Michael Olajide, Pipino Cuevas, and Bruce Curry all title challenger and champions but ODLH had the edge 2nd tier.

[Amsterdam]

Nope, though Hearns wouldn't blow him out at 147 IMO. I also never said I would rank DLH ahead of Hearns. I asked why Hearns is rated on alot of lists by posters where DLH is completely absent. One seems to be given credit for fighting great competition and losing (and to some not so great competition) while DLH is viewed the exact opposite manner. Many actually use that against him, including myself at one point.

Hearns WOULD blow DLH out at 147. DLH is the most overrated fighter ever, he's technically gifted and was fast with great timing, but he lacked other intangibles and always came up short against a lower class of fighter than the ones Hearns lost to.

DLH could have easily lost to a shot Pea and Quartey, Pea is in the class of Leonard for example, but Ike is 2 steps down IMO.

Hearns also had greater longevity, is far superior H2H and is just an all around better fighter.

Hearns and DLH aren't comparable, not in the slightest. DLH can be considered an ATG, but barely.

[Amsterdam]

The Virgil Hill win is often overlooked. At the time of the win, Hill had defended his title something like 10 times and was viewed as the best LHW in the world.

Exactly, why is the Hill win overlooked? Was at LHW, against Hill, who was an elite level LHW. Hearns started at WW, DLH could have never dreamed of defeating an elite MW that late in his career for example.

Hell, he couldn't even beat Sturm clearly, couldn't come up to the plate against Floyd with TONS of stipulations that favoured him, such as tiny ring and type of gloves, PROBABLY even some contractual elements that made Floyd hold himself back some.:rofl

I am no DLH hater, but how he is rated so highly is just absurd.

[bigtime9]

Not just by experts, but here by posters as well. Now don't get me wrong, Hearns is an ATG. But he is often given credit for fighting great fighters and losing. DLH fought alot of great fighters and lost a few, won a few, and seems to have credit taken from him for this in a reversal of fortune? Why is this?


the real question is why is duran on ATG lists and oscar isn't and Oscar has beaten more ATG's

duran was 1-4 against ATG and had 12 title Defenses in his career

Hoya was 2-6 against ATG and had over 17 title defenses

Hearns 2-4 against ATG and 8 title defenses

[Amsterdam]

thanks for admitting that he isnt overrated and you just dont like him

if he was over rated then he would be on that ATG list, you pole nose

Ah, Carlito, you disgusting cunt.

DLH is on MOST people's top 50 ATG list. If he's going to be in there, I'd say he's top 75 at MAXIMUM.

The fact that he's top 50 on most and on some he's even top 30, which is just unbelievable, shows how overrated DLH is in general. Hearns however is damn well a lock for the top 25, DLH doesn't belong in the same region as Hearns, aside from Iran Barkley, Hearns only lost fights to HIGH RANKING ATG's, such as Leonard and Hagler.

DLH ought to have lost to Quartey, an old Whitaker, Sturm and the like, not impressive. Whitaker had just prior been behind on the cards against a B- level fighter and had to score a come from behind desperation KO to win.

Then he lost to Mosely at his peak, which Mosely is a great fighter, but not an 'ATG' fighter and then there is a list of fighters that DLH in fact avoided, because the type of numbers weren't there for him. Guys like Wright, Tszyu and Forrest could have all beaten him but the money was never there.

DLH was brought out on a red carpet ride, managed well and had the biggest name in all of boxing and while he made some very good fights and fought great competition, there was also a lot he missed on purpose. When you're in a position to make ANY match possible, which he is, and you MARKET yourself as a guy who 'fights the best' and then only take guys that match up well with you, then what does that say?

How about his contractual stipulations that favour him? Leonard did the same thing, I don't respect that type of shit, but Leonard is 2-3 levels above Oscar De La Hoya, has greater victories, WAY greater, so it's not comparable.

Whoever ranks DLH as a top 50 needs to re-assess what top 50 means.

[pugilistspecialist]

the real question is why is duran on ATG lists and oscar isn't and Oscar has beaten more ATG's

duran was 1-4 against ATG and had 12 title Defenses in his career

Hoya was 2-6 against ATG and had over 17 title defenses

Hearns 2-4 against ATG and 8 title defenses

Duran is greater becuase he had quality over quantity. Duran had 12 defenses of one title. DLH defenses are all of the belts he won and defended. Duran went over 70+ fights with only one loss and beat the guy 2 times after that.
ODLH never beat a fighter as great as Sugar Ray Leonard. Duran was inconsistent like ODLH once he got to 147 and up but did something Oscar could never do.....win a title at middleweight and at an advanced age, he was 36-37.

[Amsterdam]

the real question is why is duran on ATG lists and oscar isn't and Oscar has beaten more ATG's

duran was 1-4 against ATG and had 12 title Defenses in his career

Hoya was 2-6 against ATG and had over 17 title defenses

Hearns 2-4 against ATG and 8 title defenses

Here's a good question you Floyd sack swinging ignorant fuck -

What 'fresh' ATG's did DLH beat? None prime, we know this, but fresh?

Sweet Pea was shot, this is fact.

So DLH has defeated Chavez x2, he was 'fresh' in the first one, I'll agree to that and DLH would always beat Chavez. Not prime, but 'fresh' and still an elite level fighter.

Mosely isn't comparable to Leonard.

Another thing, for Roy Jones, being that he was nearly unbeatable at his best, some of the best like Eubank, Benn and the lost were NOT lining up to fight Roy, as Roy provides a certain lost.

Tszyu, Forrest, Winky were DYING to fight DLH. But stylistic troubles aren't going to happen.:yep :p

[kaygb]

Ah, Carlito, you disgusting cunt.

DLH is on MOST people's top 50 ATG list. If he's going to be in there, I'd say he's top 75 at MAXIMUM.

The fact that he's top 50 on most and on some he's even top 30, which is just unbelievable, shows how overrated DLH is in general. Hearns however is damn well a lock for the top 25, DLH doesn't belong in the same region as Hearns, aside from Iran Barkley, Hearns only lost fights to HIGH RANKING ATG's, such as Leonard and Hagler.

DLH ought to have lost to Quartey, an old Whitaker, Sturm and the like, not impressive. Whitaker had just prior been behind on the cards against a B- level fighter and had to score a come from behind desperation KO to win.

Then he lost to Mosely at his peak, which Mosely is a great fighter, but not an 'ATG' fighter and then there is a list of fighters that DLH in fact avoided, because the type of numbers weren't there for him. Guys like Wright, Tszyu and Forrest could have all beaten him but the money was never there.

DLH was brought out on a red carpet ride, managed well and had the biggest name in all of boxing and while he made some very good fights and fought great competition, there was also a lot he missed on purpose. When you're in a position to make ANY match possible, which he is, and you MARKET yourself as a guy who 'fights the best' and then only take guys that match up well with you, then what does that say?

How about his contractual stipulations that favour him? Leonard did the same thing, I don't respect that type of shit, but Leonard is 2-3 levels above Oscar De La Hoya, has greater victories, WAY greater, so it's not comparable.

Whoever ranks DLH as a top 50 needs to re-assess what top 50 means.

A great great post!! :good Arum deserves a lot of credit for the earlier part of Oscars hand-picked career. When Oscar got rid of Arum and said "i really put one over on that New york jew", after all that Arum did for him, my dislike went from an 8 out of a possible 10, 10 being not liked at all, to an 11.
The fish nets made my year!!

[kg0208]

Hearns WOULD blow DLH out at 147. DLH is the most overrated fighter ever, he's technically gifted and was fast with great timing, but he lacked other intangibles and always came up short against a lower class of fighter than the ones Hearns lost to.

DLH could have easily lost to a shot Pea and Quartey, Pea is in the class of Leonard for example, but Ike is 2 steps down IMO.

Hearns also had greater longevity, is far superior H2H and is just an all around better fighter.

Hearns and DLH aren't comparable, not in the slightest. DLH can be considered an ATG, but barely.

DLH was never blown out, and I doubt Hearns would blow him out either.

DLH is an atg, and it shouldn't be barely. Either way, I wasn't comparing him to Hearns, but the circumstances under which they are judged. DLH fought the best his entire career.

BTW, Hearns is one of the largest WW ever. His moving up isn't too much better than DLH challenging Hopkins at MW, who by the by, is better than Hill.

You are on the opposite end of the spectrum in rating him.

[PacDbest]

DLH was never blown out, and I doubt Hearns would blow him out either.

DLH is an atg, and it shouldn't be barely. Either way, I wasn't comparing him to Hearns, but the circumstances under which they are judged. DLH fought the best his entire career.

BTW, Hearns is one of the largest WW ever. His moving up isn't too much better than DLH challenging Hopkins at MW, who by the by, is better than Hill.

You are on the opposite end of the spectrum in rating him.

I agree with KG:good

[bigtime9]

Duran is greater becuase he had quality over quantity.

duran beat leonard, hoya beat sweet pea as far as I am concerned they are even .


Duran had 12 defenses of one title. DLH defenses are all of the belts he won and defended.

so based on your thinking all duran had to do was beat leonard and he gets ranked as an ATG. Duran could not make one successful defense of any title after 135. hoya has made at least 9 defenses after leaving 135:deal

Duran went over 70+ fights with only one loss and beat the guy 2 times after that.


duran didn't have an amateur record hence the bloated record of bums he beat. being 120-1 means nothing if you can't beat the elite fighters of your era.


ODLH never beat a fighter as great as Sugar Ray Leonard.

yes he did, he beat sweet pea:deal

Duran was inconsistent like ODLH once he got to 147 and up but did something Oscar could never do.....win a title at middleweight and at an advanced age, he was 36-37.

the fact that he could not win the middleweight title in his prime speaks volume's of duran's ability. like oscar he could win the big one but he was not dominant by any means against the elite's of his era, same boat oscar was in.

[rodney]

DLH not in Hearn's class.

[Amsterdam]

DLH was never blown out, and I doubt Hearns would blow him out either.

Long consitent pin point jab, great timing, height and reach and 1 punch KO power combined with technically perfect skills and good speed at WW isn't going to blow out the WW version of DLH?

Come on KG. Vernon Forrest would have likely beaten Hoya wide because of those factors. How much better is Hearns than Forrest?

DLH ducked Forrest for these reasons. I don't give a fuck if DLH was competitive with Mosely, Quartey, Trinidad and the rest, they are NOT Thomas Hearns, neither is Fernando Vargas or any other of DLH's competition.


DLH is an atg, and it shouldn't be barely. Either way, I wasn't comparing him to Hearns, but the circumstances under which they are judged.


It should be barely, about like people say James Toney is barely. I can live with both Toney and DLH being top 75, but no better. Their career's are somewhat comparable IMO.

But Toney rates better H2H also for MW-LHW. Hoya H2H is not as good, we saw that he was competitive with the highest elite's, but always came up short.

DLH fought the best his entire career.

DLH's competition is great, but it is an absolute fucking lie to say 'he fought the best his entire career', when he purposefully missed quite a few elite's that would have eaten him for lunch.

Hoya fought elite fighters consistently, but ones that made sense in the way of money, not just elite's out right.

However, it is rare when any fighter in the modern era truly 'fights the best always', extremely rare.

BTW, Hearns is one of the largest WW ever. His moving up isn't too much better than DLH challenging Hopkins at MW, who by the by, is better than Hill.

Yes, an aging Hopkins, one where there was contractual stipulations for DLH to be able to 'look good' early and not get blown out, a big money making worthless fight between future business partners. Hoya when he reached the height of his fame only fought where it benefitted him 100%. Not the case with Thomas Hearns, who really fought just about everyone.

Why no Winky Wright fight ever?:D


You are on the opposite end of the spectrum in rating him.


I am just realistic with him. I come across as a hater perhaps, but he is not anywhere near a top 50 ATG.

[brooklyn1550]

duran beat leonard, hoya beat sweet pea as far as I am concerned they are even .

Duran beat Sugar Ray Leonard when Leonard was at or very close to his absolute peak. Leonard was coming off a win over undefeated Wilfred Benitez. Not to mention that Leonard was at 147 - or his best weight class.

De La Hoya beat Pernell Whitaker when Whitaker was well past his prime and was having drug problems. He struggled in his previous fight with Diosbelys Hurtado but came back to win by KO. Whitaker wasn't at his best weight either - 12 pounds above it.

No question in my mind that Duran's win over Leonard surpassed De La Hoya's win over Whitaker.

[DoumB]

wait till he retire for good, a 10 year after ppl will realize.

[Thread Stealer]

There's a big difference between a 1997 version of Pernell Whitaker and a 1980 version of Ray Leonard.

[joe the great]

Maybe because they aren't sure whether DLH is retired yet or not.

[gambleer]

Forrest is a bitch. He lost to Mayorga twice, and in the first one he was KTFO. Mayorga shut him up completely. Not mentioning Forrest robbed Quartey.

[thesandman]

Your right, he was no joke but lets not make him out to be this unbeatable fighter. He's got plenty of flaws. Namely his chin. Allot of you guys tend to underrate todays fighters and look at the older guys with rosy colored glasses. Like KG said Delahoya was never blown out except in the Hopkins fight. Anyway either guy could win the fight.

His chin wasn't awful. He just had a tendency at times to not bother about protecting it - big mistake when fighting top level, powerful guys. He was destroying Barkley until he got caught.

Look - Leonard stopped Hearns in what, the 14th round?

Oscar looks fucked after 8 rounds. Can you imagine how different his career would have been if he had 7 more rounds after that?

Hearns doesn't get looked at with rose coloured glassed IMO. In fact, this chin shit gets blown out of all proportion.

Hearns with a brain is a damn near unstoppable force at 154. He got drawn into fighting not boxing. But that's what made him even more exciting.

ODLH is/was an excellent fighter. But one that really never dominated a division, and got fed chumps for title fights (eg Mayorga).

Hearns never had that. He tried to unify. He took on the best he could. He showed just how good he was by going from being a killer at 147 - to winning a LHW title by boxing.

You can say that lightweight to middle (ODLH had 2 fights at middle, and really, lost them both), is the same as 147 to 175 - but my arse it is.

LHW's bang a lot harder than middleweights. And Hearns actually won legit world titles at LHW.

[kg0208]

DLH didnt outbox shit. The fight was close going into the championship rounds, before Oscar revealed his true nature.

Sure he didn't. And we should take you as fair and objective right?

You're theory is DLH wasn't scared the first 9 rounds, but was afraid the last 3? Mkes total sense.

[MSTR]

Oscar won the Trinidad fight clear as day. Should have beaten Mosley the 2nd fight IMO. Still beat Sturm, although it was much closer then anticipated. Whitaker was debatable. he has been surrounded by contraversial decisions his entire career, but has proved time and time again, that he can hang with the best, and be extremely competitive, winning some and losing some.

[Azania]

Look...We can say all we want about DLH...The guy has an amazing resume'...Even with those losses....Some,if not most,were very controversial.He lost to Whitaker IMO...lost X2 to Mosley(2nd was very close)...He still beat Chavez(albeit old),Trinidad(IMO),Ruelas,Vargas,Mayorga,Hernandez,Quartey etc...The fact that he went into these fights to begin with,is a huge thing for his legacy...an ATG for sure...

However,what it always comes down to for me,is..could DLH beat Hearns at any weight from 147 onwards?And the answer is hell no.Tommy was all wrong for Oscar....Technically or otherwise....And that's why I put Tommy(one of my all-time favourite BTW) ahead of DLH.

Oscar's not too far behind tho'.I say Tommy is a top 30,and DLH somewhere in the top 50.

Say what you...Oscar(and I hate the sucker) has earned his laurels.Period.

[kg0208]

Look...We can say all we want about DLH...The guy has an amazing resume'...Even with those losses....Some,if not most,were very controversial.He lost to Whitaker IMO...lost X2 to Mosley(2nd was very close)...He still beat Chavez(albeit old),Trinidad(IMO),Ruelas,Vargas,Mayorga,Hernandez,Quartey etc...The fact that he went into these fights to begin with,is a huge thing for his legacy...an ATG for sure...

However,what it always comes down to for me,is..could DLH beat Hearns at any weight from 147 onwards?And the answer is hell no.Tommy was all wrong for Oscar....Technically or otherwise....And that's why I put Tommy(one of my all-time favourite BTW) ahead of DLH.

Oscar's not too far behind tho'.I say Tommy is a top 30,and DLH somewhere in the top 50.

Say what you...Oscar(and I hate the sucker) has earned his laurels.Period.

But the question isn't about who should be rated higher. It's about why DLH is belittled for losing to elite competition and Hearns is given credit for it. Why the double standard?

[Vantage_West]

Right...not disputing that. Just wondering why DLH isn't rated on some people's lists, but Hearns is. DLH fought great competition and lost more than he won. Hearns did the same.

I do think beating a 147 Whitaker is as good as beating a 154 Duran however.duran is regarded as a pound 4 pound top 10 pernell as good as he was was never consistent when he got heavier.

and duran beat barkley for the middlewieght title and gave and was still winning fights and got a shot against joppy for the wba title almost 14 years later!!! he wasnt prime but he was far from done and finished with boxing.

pernell was shot beyond all belif. he was losing to hurtardo until he started throwing left after left (which at last caught him in the later rounds and made a highlight reel footage of a ko)

[Ambition_Def]

DLH should have lost to Whitaker. Where Hearns knocked Duran out early.

I'd say on that basis (with all other things considered equal) Hearns should be ranked a bit higher than DLH.

[bigtime-skills]

It's as simple as this..................

When Oscar Delahoya fights you don't say or think, this is one of the greatest fighters of ALL TIME, you just don't...

He's kinda like Sugar Ray in that he manipulates things because of his BEHIND THE SCENES POWER........

1. Picked on Mosley moving up from 135 and LOST(2):roll:
2. Ran from Tito for 3 rounds although ahead (ATG's don't do that):rofl
3. "VERY" questionable body shot against Hopkins (ATG's don't do that)
Lost to Floyd:hey

Beating a VERY SHOT Chavez and a SHOT Pernell Whitaker isn't going to get it

SEE some guys on here aren't old enough to remember the circumstances in which DLH fought these guys, and You my friend are trying to use these names for historical significance.....:fire

DLH is NOT an ATG and would lose to MOST of his contemporaries around his weight.......:deal

[Relentless]

It's as simple as this..................

When Oscar Delahoya fights you don't say or think, this is one of the greatest fighters of ALL TIME, you just don't...

He's kinda like Sugar Ray in that he manipulates things because of his BEHIND THE SCENES POWER........

1. Picked on Mosley moving up from 135 and LOST(2):roll:
2. Ran from Tito for 3 rounds although ahead (ATG's don't do that):rofl
3. "VERY" questionable body shot against Hopkins (ATG's don't do that)
Lost to Floyd:hey

Beating a VERY SHOT Chavez and a SHOT Pernell Whitaker isn't going to get it

SEE some guys on here aren't old enough to remember the circumstances in which DLH fought these guys, and You my friend are trying to use these names for historical significance.....:fire

DLH is NOT an ATG and would lose to MOST of his contemporaries around his weight.......:deal

this is another example of a floyd boy posting with so many emoticons like i was talking about.

[huki]

This thread makes me want to punch my screen. Debating whether Hearns should be rated lower than DLH or not only makes the retarded argument seem more valid to people. DLH is not in Hearns' league. Hearns is one of the top 20 greatest fighters ever in my opinion and DLH is at the bottom 20 of the top 100 at best.

Jack Prescott should have came in here and made this into a Oscar hate joke thread before this turned into a serious discussion.

[Bobby]

dlh will be appreciated when he retires and we look back and say "you know, that pretty boy could fight" , alot of fighters dont get respect till they retire

[PacDbest]

dlh will be appreciated when he retires and we look back and say "you know, that pretty boy could fight" , alot of fighters dont get respect till they retire

That's true. SRL was viewed as a Ducker to Hagler & the Hearns rematch & yet he was hailed as one of the best of all time.

[Asterion]

They are in the same league.

Both are not in the group of the really greatest greatest fighters of all time (like Pep, Langford, Ali, Hagler, Whitaker) but are below that, in the second group. They are great fighters, but not the greatest of all time.

They are in the same league, yes, but De la Hoya ranks a bit lower than Hearns.

[hitman_hatton1]

De La Hoya won a controversial decision. Nothing clear about it, and no rematch. Hearns almost took Roberto's head off in 4 minutes.

:yep

hearns was greater.

hearns should have gone 1-1 with leonard, beat duran, benitez, hill, cuevas etc.

oscar could have made it interesting against tommy though. with his tight defence and good quick combo punching.

i'd have favoured tommy to win though i think. :bbb

[Thread Stealer]

duran is regarded as a pound 4 pound top 10 pernell as good as he was was never consistent when he got heavier.

and duran beat barkley for the middlewieght title and gave and was still winning fights and got a shot against joppy for the wba title almost 14 years later!!! he wasnt prime but he was far from done and finished with boxing.

pernell was shot beyond all belif. he was losing to hurtardo until he started throwing left after left (which at last caught him in the later rounds and made a highlight reel footage of a ko)

Duran was not consistent above 135.

[standing 8]

Ah, Carlito, you disgusting cunt.

DLH is on MOST people's top 50 ATG list. If he's going to be in there, I'd say he's top 75 at MAXIMUM.

The fact that he's top 50 on most and on some he's even top 30, which is just unbelievable, shows how overrated DLH is in general. Hearns however is damn well a lock for the top 25, DLH doesn't belong in the same region as Hearns, aside from Iran Barkley, Hearns only lost fights to HIGH RANKING ATG's, such as Leonard and Hagler.

DLH ought to have lost to Quartey, an old Whitaker, Sturm and the like, not impressive. Whitaker had just prior been behind on the cards against a B- level fighter and had to score a come from behind desperation KO to win.

Then he lost to Mosely at his peak, which Mosely is a great fighter, but not an 'ATG' fighter and then there is a list of fighters that DLH in fact avoided, because the type of numbers weren't there for him. Guys like Wright, Tszyu and Forrest could have all beaten him but the money was never there.

DLH was brought out on a red carpet ride, managed well and had the biggest name in all of boxing and while he made some very good fights and fought great competition, there was also a lot he missed on purpose. When you're in a position to make ANY match possible, which he is, and you MARKET yourself as a guy who 'fights the best' and then only take guys that match up well with you, then what does that say?

How about his contractual stipulations that favour him? Leonard did the same thing, I don't respect that type of shit, but Leonard is 2-3 levels above Oscar De La Hoya, has greater victories, WAY greater, so it's not comparable.

Whoever ranks DLH as a top 50 needs to re-assess what top 50 means.

I totally agree with your statement. The main problem I've always had with De La hoya was that he almost always fought with that trying not to lose style when ever he faced an equal in the ring. Hearns always fought the same way reguardless of who he was fighting, and for me that's more than enough reason to rank him higher.

[kg0208]

This thread makes me want to punch my screen. Debating whether Hearns should be rated lower than DLH or not only makes the retarded argument seem more valid to people. DLH is not in Hearns' league. Hearns is one of the top 20 greatest fighters ever in my opinion and DLH is at the bottom 20 of the top 100 at best.

Jack Prescott should have came in here and made this into a Oscar hate joke thread before this turned into a serious discussion.
The learn to read. I made the thread. READ THE ORIGINAL POST. For the last time, this isn't about WHO IS GREATER or should be listed higher. Hearns is the answer to that question.

I didn't ask "Who is greater". We all know Hearns is greater. I asked why is Hearns rated on many ATG lists and with his ranking people will say "He fought great competition, though he didn't win most of those fights" and then DLH will be left off the same list and when asked for an explanation they will say "He faced great competition, but lost most of the big fights". It's the same explanation, but Hearns gets respect for it and DLH gets removed from the list.

[kg0208]

duran is regarded as a pound 4 pound top 10 pernell as good as he was was never consistent when he got heavier.

and duran beat barkley for the middlewieght title and gave and was still winning fights and got a shot against joppy for the wba title almost 14 years later!!! he wasnt prime but he was far from done and finished with boxing.

pernell was shot beyond all belif. he was losing to hurtardo until he started throwing left after left (which at last caught him in the later rounds and made a highlight reel footage of a ko)

Pernell was by no means shot when DLH beat him (and for the record, I don't think DLH beat him). He wasn't prime, but Duran was no where near prime at 154 when Hearns beat him. And Whitaker could also be considerd top 10 P4P all time...many have him in that range.

[kg0208]

The judging for Whitaker-DLH was a bigger joke than Oscar's reputation after the Fishnet Photos, and a bigger travesty than Jones Jr.-Frazier of the NYPD. :good

But not nearly the fiasco of ESB allowing you to write on the frontpage. Thanks for bringing that to my attention Jack :thumbsup

[kg0208]

You just gave me an idea for my next great article, on RJJ and the Golden Fishnets. Thanks!:good :hey

Great:good Glad I could give you an idea that will further submarine your integrity. The more you write, the more we can laugh at you.

[gambleer]

About DLH's controversial fights, IMO:
He bet:
Whitaker (7-5 for DLH, I had Pea landing jabs and DLH landing power punches)
Tito (7-5 for DLH, he ran in the last 4 rounds, but he won the 9th clearly)
Mosley II (I had 8-4 for DLH, I don't think the fight was even close. DLH landed much more shots than Mosley and even Shane's said Mosley needed a KO to win. I can't see Mosley winning more than 6 rounds.)
Lost to:
Mayweather (about 8-3-1 for Floyd)
Sturm (8-4, robbery)
Draw:
Quartey (not a robbery, I had 2-2-1 after 5 rounds, then Quartey won rounds 6, 7, 8 and 9, and DLH won the 10th, 11th and 12th)

[Thread Stealer]

About DLH's controversial fights, IMO:
He bet:
Whitaker (7-5 for DLH, I had Pea landing jabs and DLH landing power punches)
Tito (7-5 for DLH, he ran in the last 4 rounds, but he won the 9th clearly)
Mosley II (I had 8-4 for DLH, I don't think the fight was even close. DLH landed much more shots than Mosley and even Shane's said Mosley needed a KO to win. I can't see Mosley winning more than 6 rounds.)
Lost to:
Mayweather (about 8-3-1 for Floyd)
Sturm (8-4, robbery)
Draw:
Quartey (not a robbery, I had 2-2-1 after 5 rounds, then Quartey won rounds 6, 7, 8 and 9, and DLH won the 10th, 11th and 12th)

DLH 113 Whitaker 113
Quartey 114 DLH 113
DLH 115 Trinidad 114
DLH 115 Mosley 113 (rematch)
Sturm 116 DLH 112
Mayweather 116 DLH 112

[thesandman]

The learn to read. I made the thread. READ THE ORIGINAL POST. For the last time, this isn't about WHO IS GREATER or should be listed higher. Hearns is the answer to that question.

I didn't ask "Who is greater". We all know Hearns is greater. I asked why is Hearns rated on many ATG lists and with his ranking people will say "He fought great competition, though he didn't win most of those fights" and then DLH will be left off the same list and when asked for an explanation they will say "He faced great competition, but lost most of the big fights". It's the same explanation, but Hearns gets respect for it and DLH gets removed from the list.

To answer your question extremely specifically.

The ATG's Hearns lost to, were better than any ODLH lost to. And Hearns beat better fighters than ODLH lost to also.

Hearns may have lost, but in the Leonard fight, with the benefit of 12 rounders like ODLH has, Hearns wins. And he went from welter to middle, and went balls out against the undisputed middle champ.

Then compare ODLH's effort against the middleweight champ.


OK - so you say Oscars jump to middle was more than Tommys.
Tommy went to LHW, and WON the title there. Wasn't fat, and didn't roll around on the ring after a dubious looking KD.

The one exception of course is Barkley. At a high weight and advance age however.

And when Hearns did win, it was in a far more impressive fashion generally.

So that's it. The guys Hearns lost to were better, and he put up a better performance in losing.

[Thread Stealer]

the real question is why is duran on ATG lists and oscar isn't and Oscar has beaten more ATG's

duran was 1-4 against ATG and had 12 title Defenses in his career

Hoya was 2-6 against ATG and had over 17 title defenses

Hearns 2-4 against ATG and 8 title defenses

You'd be hard pressed to call Iran Barkley an ATG.

And what six losses did Hoya have against ATGs?

[thesandman]

Duran is simply in another league than Oscar you ask me.

He was a stone cold killer in his right weight class.

The very fact that he was fighting at welter and middle, competitively, against ATG's at that weight should tell you everything.

[Rise Above]

Oscar is deserving of being an ATG, but Hearns was the better fighter imo.

[chimba]

Wait a minute KG before I stop posting what ATG lists are you going by again...Not for nothing..Ive seen some lists and frankly I see some where DLH is quite high...Like the ESPN one for example

[kg0208]

Wait a minute KG before I stop posting what ATG lists are you going by again...Not for nothing..Ive seen some lists and frankly I see some where DLH is quite high...Like the ESPN one for example

I am actually referring to quite a bit of the lists I see here. Very few historians don't have him on their list.

[kg0208]

To answer your question extremely specifically.

The ATG's Hearns lost to, were better than any ODLH lost to. And Hearns beat better fighters than ODLH lost to also.

Hearns may have lost, but in the Leonard fight, with the benefit of 12 rounders like ODLH has, Hearns wins. And he went from welter to middle, and went balls out against the undisputed middle champ.

Then compare ODLH's effort against the middleweight champ.


OK - so you say Oscars jump to middle was more than Tommys.
Tommy went to LHW, and WON the title there. Wasn't fat, and didn't roll around on the ring after a dubious looking KD.

The one exception of course is Barkley. At a high weight and advance age however.

And when Hearns did win, it was in a far more impressive fashion generally.

So that's it. The guys Hearns lost to were better, and he put up a better performance in losing.

I don't actually think Hearns put up a better performance in losing. He may have been more EXCITING when losing lol. But DLH had Trinidad beat and fought Mosley well in losing. He actually was competitive with the much larger Hopkins as well.

Either way, specifically, it seems that even if Hearns lost to greater fighters, he is still given credit for fighting the best competition around, and that's why he is respected. DLH fought the best competition as well, and while not as good as Hearns, well, there aren't any fighters in his weight classes rated as high SRL, Duran, and Hagler in the Era. So DLH still fought the best competition available in his era, and it seems odd to me that he shouldn't be given the same respect.

[chimba]

I am actually referring to quite a bit of the lists I see here. Very few historians don't have him on their list.

KG KG you must know by now how many Hoya haters are in here... For ATG rankings..do rely on historians

[kg0208]

KG KG you must know by now how many Hoya haters are in here... For ATG rankings..do rely on historians

Well of course, every fighter has haters. Surely. But my question is steered towards their logic. I have actually seen people say "Hearns fought great competition, and while he lost many of his big fights, his competition level was great and I rate him highly because of this." Then when asked about DLH, they say "He fought alot of great fighters, but lost most of his big fights, and thats why I don't rate him" .....well that just makes no sense to me. I rate them both, with Hearns signifigantly higher based on talent.

[thesandman]

I don't actually think Hearns put up a better performance in losing. He may have been more EXCITING when losing lol. But DLH had Trinidad beat and fought Mosley well in losing. He actually was competitive with the much larger Hopkins as well.

Either way, specifically, it seems that even if Hearns lost to greater fighters, he is still given credit for fighting the best competition around, and that's why he is respected. DLH fought the best competition as well, and while not as good as Hearns, well, there aren't any fighters in his weight classes rated as high SRL, Duran, and Hagler in the Era. So DLH still fought the best competition available in his era, and it seems odd to me that he shouldn't be given the same respect.

I guess we just disagree then, and there's no problem with that.

Hearns lost to SRL in the 14th round, in a fight where he outboxed one of the best boxers the welterweight division has seen. SRL finally got to Hearns in the 14th.

Again, I don't think you can underestimate the difference having to go 15 rounds would have made to ODLH, who is renowned for fading late in TWELVE round fights.

I don't think ODLH fought the best available at all. I think he fought some of them - whereas Hearns fought ALL of them.

I think Oscar fought guys EXACTLY at the best time for him, and the worst time for his opponent. the fight with PBF being the only exception, and even then you know how heavily the dice were loaded in his favour - and he still lost.

ODLH is IMO, the poster boy for division hopping, and picking and choosing who and when he fights. The total lack of desire to unify belts also grinds with me.

I don't hate ODLH, I think he's been very very good. But never IMO dared to take the steps to greatness. Hearns on the other hand, dared to through his whole career.

[chimba]

Well of course, every fighter has haters. Surely. But my question is steered towards their logic. I have actually seen people say "Hearns fought great competition, and while he lost many of his big fights, his competition level was great and I rate him highly because of this." Then when asked about DLH, they say "He fought alot of great fighters, but lost most of his big fights, and thats why I don't rate him" .....well that just makes no sense to me. I rate them both, with Hearns signifigantly higher based on talent.

and level of competition...Upon Closer look theres no SRL, Benitez, Hagler and Duran in Hoyas resume...unless you count the way obvious past prime JCC and Pernell... When Hearns fought these guys they are still legit even Duran who went on to destry Davey Moore.

In saying that I rank DLH as top 50

[kg0208]

I guess we just disagree then, and there's no problem with that.

Hearns lost to SRL in the 14th round, in a fight where he outboxed one of the best boxers the welterweight division has seen. SRL finally got to Hearns in the 14th.

Again, I don't think you can underestimate the difference having to go 15 rounds would have made to ODLH, who is renowned for fading late in TWELVE round fights.

I don't think ODLH fought the best available at all. I think he fought some of them - whereas Hearns fought ALL of them.

I think Oscar fought guys EXACTLY at the best time for him, and the worst time for his opponent. the fight with PBF being the only exception, and even then you know how heavily the dice were loaded in his favour - and he still lost.

ODLH is IMO, the poster boy for division hopping, and picking and choosing who and when he fights. The total lack of desire to unify belts also grinds with me.

I don't hate ODLH, I think he's been very very good. But never IMO dared to take the steps to greatness. Hearns on the other hand, dared to through his whole career.
Agreeing to disagree seems fair. I have never thought or felt fought the best fighters when it was best for him. Trinidad, Mosley, Quartey, etc seem like prime fighters to me who were just as well prepared as he was. Sure beating Chavez and Whitaker at advanced ages isn't a huge accomplishment, but they weren't easy fights for anyone. Either way, I get what you're saying, but I feel differently on the matter.

[Thread Stealer]

I guess we just disagree then, and there's no problem with that.

Hearns lost to SRL in the 14th round, in a fight where he outboxed one of the best boxers the welterweight division has seen. SRL finally got to Hearns in the 14th.

Again, I don't think you can underestimate the difference having to go 15 rounds would have made to ODLH, who is renowned for fading late in TWELVE round fights.

I don't think ODLH fought the best available at all. I think he fought some of them - whereas Hearns fought ALL of them.

I think Oscar fought guys EXACTLY at the best time for him, and the worst time for his opponent. the fight with PBF being the only exception, and even then you know how heavily the dice were loaded in his favour - and he still lost.

ODLH is IMO, the poster boy for division hopping, and picking and choosing who and when he fights. The total lack of desire to unify belts also grinds with me.

I don't hate ODLH, I think he's been very very good. But never IMO dared to take the steps to greatness. Hearns on the other hand, dared to through his whole career.

I agree to an extent.

While Oscar did fight quite a few guys at opportune times, hardly anyone is completely reckless in choosing their opposition. DLH still has had an excellent level of opposition regardless.

And Hearns had some top guys around his weight classes that he never faced. You can't face them all.

[Alo2006]

I think Hearns would have beaten most of DLH's opponents. I cant say the same for DLH with Hearns opponents though.

I agree to that :yep

[kg0208]

de la Hoya did not have Trinidad beat, you need to learn how to score a fight before posting.

Thanks:good

Really Jack? Why don't we do this....you find different sites and articles that scored the fight for Trinidad and I will find ones that scored the fight for De La Hoya. Lets see who comes up with more. If I win, you sport any avatar I choose with no alterations. If you win, I will do the same. If my scoring is so horrid, then I shouldn't be able to find many articles that agree with my horrid ablilties.

[BoxingKangaroo]

Well I am not going to get into his wins that should have been losses and vice versa. If that is the case, then a good case can be made that he beat Mosley the 2nd time, and a great case can be made that he beat Trinidad.

would have to agree with that statment, maye oscars questionable stamina could stop him being on the list......

[bigtime-skills]

Delahoya has a great chin and good power at 147. He could probably beat Hearns.

You my friend are on crack................

[bigtime-skills]

There's a big difference between a 1997 version of Pernell Whitaker and a 1980 version of Ray Leonard.

A "FREAKING" men....................

DLH is the most OVERRATED fighter in history...

He's not even top 15 in ANY weight category, maybe 140..

[Jbuz]

A "FREAKING" men....................

DLH is the most OVERRATED fighter in history...

He's not even top 15 in ANY weight category, maybe 140..

He is EASILY top 10 at 140, he is possibly top 15-20 at 135, same with 147.

In terms of head to head, he is a handful for anyone from 130 to 154.

[BewareofDawg]

A "FREAKING" men....................

DLH is the most OVERRATED fighter in history...

He's not even top 15 in ANY weight category, maybe 140..
Really? Most overrated in history?

You.....are........delusional :good

I'll just skip the resume argument, because if you have to be educated on the resume of Oscar maybe you should just stay as a creeper here and refrain from taking part in the discussions. He has been competitive and in position to win every single fight he's been in....except against one of the greatest middleweights of all time, who is now the ring champ at LT HEAVY. He's never been outclassed in the ring, arguably won Shane II, Tito and Floyd :hey .....which brings me to my next point, even in the twilight of his career fighting part time, he still took the P4P best to the brink of defeat.

Its ok though, he is 0-5 against top comp right :rofl :patsch :barf His fights with Chavez don't count, Vargas?, Quartey? Whitaker? Shall I go on......

[charlievint]

Not just by experts, but here by posters as well. Now don't get me wrong, Hearns is an ATG. But he is often given credit for fighting great fighters and losing. DLH fought alot of great fighters and lost a few, won a few, and seems to have credit taken from him for this in a reversal of fortune? Why is this?

(No Jack, I don't care what DLH did to you....your response is duly noted before it's typed)

Hearns is an ATG but he's been long retired.......If you would have asked experts and fans back when he was still an active fighter (I mean really an active fighter) most wouldn't have given him this highly regarded "Title" of ATG. DLH will be considered an ATG by most historians, experts and fans when he's called it a career. Most boxers aren't fully appreciated until they leave the sport they've given almost everything too.

[bigtime-skills]

He has been competitive and in position to win every single fight he's been in....except against one of the greatest middleweights of all time, who is now the ring champ at LT HEAVY. He's never been outclassed in the ring, arguably won Shane II, Tito and Floyd :hey .....which brings me to my next point, even in the twilight of his career fighting part time, he still took the P4P best to the brink of defeat.

Its ok though, he is 0-5 against top comp right :rofl :patsch :barf His fights with Chavez don't count, Vargas?, Quartey? Whitaker? Shall I go on......

ATGs aren't merely competitive.....There's ALWAYS an excuse when Oscar fights and loses or some kinda cloud and his fans are the worst..

I would NEVER endorse a fighter who avoids contact in the final 3rd of a fight:rofl

And YES, there are 5 fights in which he fought the best of the best and he lost ALL of them (Tito, SSM(2), Hopkins, and FMJr).......

DLH got more excuses than a ***** going to jail...
DLH's best wins of the past 5 years are against 2 guys that Tito "conveniently" GUTTED a fight or 2 before (Vargas and Mayorga), YET you DLH clowns still look at him as a major player.....Pathetic

[charlievint]

When he leaves the sport, his legacy will be the Final 4 rounds of the Fight of the Millenium, the 9th against Hopkins, and him on Entertainment Tonite begging his fans not to believe their own eyes, about the Fishnets Fiasco. :hi:

LOL! The fish nets will never be lived down...but his legacy will be well in tact. His ring accomplishments are cemented and he'll be consided an All time great....with a sketchy past time of wearing womens clothing unfortunately. That is one tough ass drag queen though.

[ironchamp]

Well, in my opinion Hearns would put a clinic on DLH, at 147.

Hearns lost in VERY competitive fashion to Sugar Ray Leonard, arguably a top10 p4p'er. He lost in quick and semi-competitive fashion to Hagler, who was just wrong for him at 160, fair enough. He blew out Duran and beat Benitez. And he beat a bunch of other dudes previously who I forget, sadly.

His losses to Barkley were a fair whack past his prime, and away from his best weight in my humble opinion.

DLH, on the other hand. Lost to Trinidad (controversial), Mosley (once, really, but it's down as twice), and Bhop (far away from his best weight, for certain), and against a very fast, younger, p4p number 1 in Floyd.

So it's basically Trinidad, Mosley, Bhop, PBF vs Hagler, SRL, Barkley losses.

After typing up that bollocks, I feel that Hearns resume edges it. Trinidad and Mosley aren't ATG's, PBF is getting there, B-hop is nearly there or there. SRL and Hagler are sure fire players in anyone's ATG list. Barkley was a less than stellar result, admittedly.

Trinidad and Mosely aren't ATGs?

[Thread Stealer]

He is EASILY top 10 at 140, he is possibly top 15-20 at 135, same with 147.

In terms of head to head, he is a handful for anyone from 130 to 154.

Oscar only fought three times @ 140.

He can be top 10 in terms of head-to-head mythical matchups, but he's not top 10 in achievements there, which is what matters more. He didn't spend enough time there.

[BewareofDawg]

ATGs aren't merely competitive.....There's ALWAYS an excuse when Oscar fights and loses or some kinda cloud and his fans are the worst..

I would NEVER endorse a fighter who avoids contact in the final 3rd of a fight:rofl

And YES, there are 5 fights in which he fought the best of the best and he lost ALL of them (Tito, SSM(2), Hopkins, and FMJr).......

DLH got more excuses than a ***** going to jail...
DLH's best wins of the past 5 years are against 2 guys that Tito "conveniently" GUTTED a fight or 2 before (Vargas and Mayorga), YET you DLH clowns still look at him as a major player.....Pathetic
I posted a response to this....but for some reason it didn't post. My internet is fucking up I gues.

But I thoroughly rebutted every one of your points, ridiculed you to no end and proved not only am I more knowledgeable but logical as well :good So

[kaygb]

BeareofDawg .........

"Its ok though, he is 0-5 against top comp right His fights with Chavez don't count, Vargas?, Quartey? Whitaker? Shall I go on......

Again you are lost in Oscarsexual land. Chavez was past his prime. Vargas had been knocked down 5 times and sent to the hospital twice overnight he had been beaten up so bad in the 3 fights Vargas had before he fought Oscar. Think Oscar picked him at the right time :lol: :lol: Quartey had not fought in 17 months when Oscar chose him to fight. He was semi-retired and had no tune-up before he fought Oscar. Think Oscar chose to fight him at the right time :lol: :lol: Whitaker looked terrible in his two fights before Oscar chose to fight him. Hell Hurtado beat the hell out of Whitiker befor Pernell caught him in the 11th. He was way past his prime and it showed in those two previous fights. Think Oscar chose to fight him at the right time :lol: :lol:
Ding dong schools out. :smoke

Damn you're easy.

[Relentless]

BeareofDawg .........

"Its ok though, he is 0-5 against top comp right His fights with Chavez don't count, Vargas?, Quartey? Whitaker? Shall I go on......

Again you are lost in Oscarsexual land. Chavez was past his prime. Vargas had been knocked down 5 times and sent to the hospital twice overnight he had been beaten up so bad in the 3 fights Vargas had before he fought Oscar. Think Oscar picked him at the right time :lol: :lol: Quartey had not fought in 17 months when Oscar chose him to fight. He was semi-retired and had no tune-up before he fought Oscar. Think Oscar chose to fight him at the right time :lol: :lol: Whitaker looked terrible in his two fights before Oscar chose to fight him. Hell Hurtado beat the hell out of Whitiker befor Pernell caught him in the 11th. He was way past his prime and it showed in those two previous fights. Think Oscar chose to fight him at the right time :lol: :lol:
Ding dong schools out. :smoke

Damn you're easy.

:lol: :lol: damn you're stupid, if bewareofdawg replies to this post he is also an idiot.

:hi: :yep :hey :rofl :nut :patsch :think :twisted: :fire :nono :thumbsup :deal :good :smoke :smoke :smoke

[kg0208]

I have a better idea. Rather than counting on biased idiots like yourself who for some unforeseeable reason, hang off of the Golden Testicles with gusto, lets check out the 3 judges who scored the fight, and their scorecards. Thats what I thought. :good

Yes, decisions are never wrong in this sport. The great judges that gaves Whitaker-Chavez, Golota-Ruiz, etc have never proven to be incorrect:lol:

Call me what you like Jackie, but I laid out the challenge and you backed out like a bitch. And for the record, I dislike DLH. Unlike you however, I have the actual ability to reason and look past personal distastes. It's why I am even dealing with a laughable poster like yourself.

[BewareofDawg]

Again you are lost in Oscarsexual land. Chavez was past his prime. Vargas had been knocked down 5 times and sent to the hospital twice overnight he had been beaten up so bad in the 3 fights Vargas had before he fought Oscar. Think Oscar picked him at the right time :lol: :lol: Quartey had not fought in 17 months when Oscar chose him to fight. He was semi-retired and had no tune-up before he fought Oscar. Think Oscar chose to fight him at the right time :lol: :lol: Whitaker looked terrible in his two fights before Oscar chose to fight him. Hell Hurtado beat the hell out of Whitiker befor Pernell caught him in the 11th. He was way past his prime and it showed in those two previous fights. Think Oscar chose to fight him at the right time :lol: :lol:
Ding dong schools out. :smoke

Damn you're easy.
Vargas? Who cares how he did in his fights leading up? And who gives a shit when Oscar and why Oscar picked him? You are judging the Vargas in the HOya fight, by looking at Vargas in other fights. What you should do is watch the Delahoya/Vargas fight and then watch the Tito/Vargas fight, and then the Wright/Vargas fight and then the Quartey/Vargas fight and then some other Vargas fights. Then you come back here and give me specifics of Vargas's decline. What it was about him that was worse or deteriorated in the Hoya fight. I don't see any. I actually see a stronger fighter, just as fast, just as/if not more aggressive. But wait, he didn't do good in his fights leading up????? :patsch Ever think he wasn't motivated for those, he had just suffered a devastating defeat. Maybe he needed this one challenge to regain composure and motivation to train. Or maybe for this fight only, he got on the juice? It doesn't change how he fought Oscar and the caliber of opponent Oscar had to face. So you go do your homework and get back to me :good watch his reflexes, speed, power, footwork, aggression, stamina.....tell me what it is :deal

[BewareofDawg]

You replied to it. You Oscarsexual fags are drawn to KAYGB's and Jack's posts like Latinas to a 50 Cent concert.
Latinas to a 50 Cent concert??? :huh Like you should talk :lol: In my word association thread you responded 20 fucking times.....every time about Oscar :rofl :rofl :admin

Keep it up! I'll start 25 threads about Golden Boy in a span of 10 minutes, you'll be panting and wheezing frantically jumping from thread to thread with your tongue hanging out drooling all over keyboard :rofl :rofl :rofl

[kg0208]

What challenge, all you wanted to do was prove that there are more Oscarsexuals writers all over the web. Speaking of bitches, RJJ only as a couple of months left, and after he loses I'm going to be all over your ass like a Glencoffe Johnson right hand all over RJJ's chin.
You want to be on my ass? Sick Jackie, sick.

Challenge was simple. You declined because you know the outcome. Claiming that every professional writer that scored the fight for De La Hoya likes him is a cop out, especially when they scored against him in other close fights (Like Mosley, Whitaker, etc). So your theory, as usual, doesn't hold water.

[BewareofDawg]

I can give you specifics of Vargas' decline. Watch rounds 1, and 12 of Trinidad Vargas. Thanks. Just trying to help. Help me, help you!:good
Idiot. That doesn't answer my question.

[BewareofDawg]

I can give you specifics of Vargas' decline. Watch rounds 1, and 12 of Trinidad Vargas. Thanks. Just trying to help. Help me, help you!:good
So round 2 of Lewis/McCall I is evidence that Lewis was already in "decline" as a fighter according to your logic? :good

[kaygb]

BewareofDawg .........

"Ever think he wasn't motivated for those, he had just suffered a devastating defeat. Maybe he needed this one challenge to regain composure and motivation to train. Or maybe for this fight only, he got on the juice? It doesn't change how he fought Oscar and the caliber of opponent Oscar had to face. So you go do your homework and get back to me watch his reflexes, speed, power, footwork, aggression, stamina.....tell me what it is"


Maybe maybe, maybe ...... not enough Beware. The whole point here is Oscar said he would never ever fight Nando. He would never give him that payday. But after being destoyed by Trinidad he proved aftert that fight he was never
that good again. "Reflexes, speed, power, footwork, stamina .... who the hell are you refering to. Not Fernando that's for sure. Twice overnight in the hospital he was beaten up so bad then Oscar stands up and says in that faggy voice "I will fight Vargas."
I wonder what made him change his mind. By the way I have stated over and over Oscar is 0 and 5 against the very best of his era. How the hell can you put Vargas as one of the elite? Give it up Beware. You always lose.

[BewareofDawg]

BewareofDawg .........

"Ever think he wasn't motivated for those, he had just suffered a devastating defeat. Maybe he needed this one challenge to regain composure and motivation to train. Or maybe for this fight only, he got on the juice? It doesn't change how he fought Oscar and the caliber of opponent Oscar had to face. So you go do your homework and get back to me watch his reflexes, speed, power, footwork, aggression, stamina.....tell me what it is"


Maybe maybe, maybe ...... not enough Beware. The whole point here is Oscar said he would never ever fight Nando. He would never give him that payday. But after being destoyed by Trinidad he proved aftert that fight he was never
that good again. "Reflexes, speed, power, footwork, stamina .... who the hell are you refering to. Not Fernando that's for sure. Twice overnight in the hospital he was beaten up so bad then Oscar stands up and says in that faggy voice "I will fight Vargas."
I wonder what made him change his mind. By the way I have stated over and over Oscar is 0 and 5 against the very best of his era. How the hell can you put Vargas as one of the elite? Give it up Beware. You always lose.
You are badly missing something here dude. I concede on the point that Oscar probably gave him the fight thinking he was damaged and a beaten fighter, he might of thought he would have an easy time with him. Ok. :good

My point: He was wrong. He fought a Vargas that was just as sharp, quick, stronger actually, and motivated as the one that tore through the ranks and won the title. Do you dispute that? Any decline in Vargas physically was obviously countered by the roids because I certainly didn't see it.

So your point is shit anyway, he beat an elite fighter....period.

[Thread Stealer]

Vargas? Who cares how he did in his fights leading up? And who gives a shit when Oscar and why Oscar picked him? You are judging the Vargas in the HOya fight, by looking at Vargas in other fights. What you should do is watch the Delahoya/Vargas fight and then watch the Tito/Vargas fight, and then the Wright/Vargas fight and then the Quartey/Vargas fight and then some other Vargas fights. Then you come back here and give me specifics of Vargas's decline. What it was about him that was worse or deteriorated in the Hoya fight. I don't see any. I actually see a stronger fighter, just as fast, just as/if not more aggressive. But wait, he didn't do good in his fights leading up????? :patsch Ever think he wasn't motivated for those, he had just suffered a devastating defeat. Maybe he needed this one challenge to regain composure and motivation to train. Or maybe for this fight only, he got on the juice? It doesn't change how he fought Oscar and the caliber of opponent Oscar had to face. So you go do your homework and get back to me :good watch his reflexes, speed, power, footwork, aggression, stamina.....tell me what it is :deal

Vargas's stamina didn't look good against De La Hoya. He got tired rather quickly. Oscar said he noticed that Nando was gassed by round 7 or so.

That was pretty different from the Vargas who showed remarkable stamina and workrate against Quartey and Wright.

[Chimponaut]

I like DLH, i do. Hes a solid fighter and seems like a great guy. But comparing him to Hearns is just silly.

[Thread Stealer]

Vargas wasn't shot when Osar beat him. Nando was still a very good fighter in 2002.

He just wasn't quite what he was before.

[kg0208]

I like DLH, i do. Hes a solid fighter and seems like a great guy. But comparing him to Hearns is just silly.

He isn't being compared to Hearns. Read the thread. I am comparing the contradiction in JUDGING the fighters and their accomplishments.

[kaygb]

no matter how you spin it the Vargas that fought Oscar was not the same vargas before the beatings he took. That Trinidad fight took away some of his talent. Being beaten up so bad you go to the hospital twice overnight is a sure sign you are not the fighter you were. That's why the Golden Fishnet decided to fight Vargas. Typical move by Oscar. Fighting a fighter on the way down. He's done that plenty in his career. That's one of the main reasons his ATG ranking is in question.

[BewareofDawg]

no matter how you spin it the Vargas that fought Oscar was not the same vargas before the beatings he took. That Trinidad fight took away some of his talent. Being beaten up so bad you go to the hospital twice overnight is a sure sign you are not the fighter you were. That's why the Golden Fishnet decided to fight Vargas. Typical move by Oscar. Fighting a fighter on the way down. He's done that plenty in his career. That's one of the main reasons his ATG ranking is in question.
Thanks for playing :good

[BewareofDawg]

Vargas's stamina didn't look good against De La Hoya. He got tired rather quickly. Oscar said he noticed that Nando was gassed by round 7 or so.

That was pretty different from the Vargas who showed remarkable stamina and workrate against Quartey and Wright.
Watch the 9th....he still looks pretty fresh :good

[Thread Stealer]

Watch the 9th....he still looks pretty fresh :good

That was his last gasp. Then he got tired again.

He was fatigued in the previous 2-3 rounds.

On the other hand, in previous fights, Vargas showed remarkable stamina and workrate.

Which is strange, because Stanazol is supposed to help increase you stamina.

[kg0208]

Oscar couldnt carry Tommy's jockstrap.

Neither could you, but I am sure you would love to try.

[Asterion]

Oscar was successful for 130 to 160. Hearns was successful from 147 to 175. Oscar beat a lot of contenders. Hearns beat a lot of contenders. Oscar lost big fights against PBF, Hopkins, etc. Hearns lost big fights against Leonard, Hagler, etc.

They are in the same league.

But Hearns ranks highers.

[thesandman]

Oscar was successful for 130 to 160. Hearns was successful from 147 to 175. Oscar beat a lot of contenders. Hearns beat a lot of contenders. Oscar lost big fights against PBF, Hopkins, etc. Hearns lost big fights against Leonard, Hagler, etc.

They are in the same league.

But Hearns ranks highers.

There is nothing untrue there.

The only thing is, you've left out some of Tommys wins over guys like Benitez, Duran etc. Those guys weren't contenders - they were excellent champions.

I would question Oscar being as successful at 160 as Tommy was at 175.
Hearns beat the undefeated Virgil Hill. He won a legit belt there. Oscar was gifted the WBOgus belt. That belt doesn't count IMO. It's a lower tier belt. Hearns only had the WBA or WBC.

ODLH won a very contentious decision against Sturm, and rolled over V Hopkins. No success there at all.

ODLH now fights infrequently for paydays. Hearns fought consistently because he was a fighter.

There's a huge difference between the 2 in my eyes.

[C Money]

Not just by experts, but here by posters as well. Now don't get me wrong, Hearns is an ATG. But he is often given credit for fighting great fighters and losing. DLH fought alot of great fighters and lost a few, won a few, and seems to have credit taken from him for this in a reversal of fortune? Why is this?

(No Jack, I don't care what DLH did to you....your response is duly noted before it's typed)

If I could choose which career I'd rather have??

I'd take Hearns. You can say DLH ha a better chin, but Hearns had better height, reach, skill, POWER!!

[Sister Sledge]

Hearns was a fighter who went out on his shield and was balls against the wall. ODLH was not. They are both ATG's, and they both beat great fighters. Hearns is a little better and ranks higher for what he has accomplished.

[BewareofDawg]

So round 2 of Lewis/McCall I is evidence that Lewis was already in "decline" as a fighter according to your logic? :good
And I own your ass Jack :good After this one you stopped trying to debate with me and picked you pom poms back up and started spelling out K-A-Y-G......with your feminine arms :lol:

Gaygb doesn't own shit, accept maybe 1/2 your possesions, and his bias and unyielding hate for Oscar blinds his judgement.

[BewareofDawg]

Kaygb owns your Presscotsexual ass, there Beware.
And since you dug this thread back up, maybe you and/or your goofball friend can answer my question. What was it about Vargas, IN THE DELAHOYA FIGHT, that makes you think he wasn't his best???? I honestly think he could've been suffering from back problems leading up and used the steroids as a result. But on that night, however much his back was hurting him, the roids were helping.....because he was a beast; Strong as ever, fast, ferocious.....and Oscar beat his ass :good

[gr8fight]

You have good logic. Hearns performed better. Against greater competition. But i get your point.

[JAM Killer]

Oscar is higher on my list. He performed better in his biggest fights.

[sugarngold]

What list are you talking about? The recent ESPN ranking of the top 50 boxers of all time included both Thomas Hearns and Oscar De La Hoya.

[stuistylee]

I think Hearns would have beaten most of DLH's opponents. I cant say the same for DLH with Hearns opponents though.spot on mate...i also think hearns would have landed the jab and the big right hand on delahoya...ko9:bbb

[kg0208]

What list are you talking about? The recent ESPN ranking of the top 50 boxers of all time included both Thomas Hearns and Oscar De La Hoya.
It was more of a general question, but most didn't seem to get it. I wasn't asking who should be rated higher, just why Hearns seems to get a high ranking on the same criteria that is used to criticize DLH : Fighting great competition but not winning against most of those fighters.

When ranking Hearns, people say he fought great comp, and even though he didn't win against Hearns or Leonard, he fought them and also had some other great wins over solid opposition.

When ranking DLH, you will see people say he fought great comp, but lost to most of them, and therefore doesn't deserve a high ranking, or to be ranked at all in some cases.

Same criteria, fought great fighters but didn't win most of those fights....but different outcomes on the opinion.

[Dostoevsky]

I think Hearns would have beaten most of DLH's opponents. I cant say the same for DLH with Hearns opponents though.

That pretty much sums it up.
My feelings exactly.

[kaygb]

Wow. I certainly hope he was number 50.

The list is pathetic Jack. Now get this. they have Oscar at #40 and Carlos Monson at #46. :lol: Even worse than that they have Whitaker at #45 and Mayweather at #49. Oscar ranked above those guys is mindboggling and tells you the list is only something you wipe your ass with.

[BewareofDawg]

The list is pathetic Jack. Now get this. they have Oscar at #40 and Carlos Monson at #46. :lol: Even worse than that they have Whitaker at #45 and Mayweather at #49. Oscar ranked above those guys is mindboggling and tells you the list is only something you wipe your ass with.
So post your list Bert Sugar, I'll make confetti out of it in a matter of seconds :good

[BewareofDawg]

Beware, if Kaygb has a severe case of diahrhea, and he shits some water, if you get a scientist to draw out a sample of the shit water, and he draws a single aomeba from it, that aomeba has more pure boxing knowledge, and understanding of the game than you have now, have ever had, or will ever have. And that includes you, your boyfriends Relentless and El Reina, and your Biological father, wherever he may be, including if it is actually me, and Jack is to Beware what Vader was to Luke Skywalker. :hi:
The only way Kaygbs shit has any boxing knowledge in it, is if he didn't completely fart out the present gave him in there last night.....for you are a true genious of the game Jack :roll: . Kaygb however is a shitstain in the underwear of the ignorant :deal Oh, so I'm the skywalker to your vader :rofl Ok?