De La Hoya: Big fights

[Autobarn]

I think to be fair to Oscar, it's not really been possible for him to emulate the likes of Leonard (not that he is as good however), because the competition hasn't been there for him. It's such a rarity to have four such amazing fighters around near enough each others weight to make for competitive fights.

Hearns was a real freak, a lightweight amateur who won a title at cruiserweight late in his career!

yeah a fringe title from Nate Miller, who wouldn't fight, if I remember rightly.

I give Hearns a lot of credit for beating Hill at light heavy, though.

[Poncey]

I think to be fair to Oscar, it's not really been possible for him to emulate the likes of Leonard (not that he is as good however), because the competition hasn't been there for him. It's such a rarity to have four such amazing fighters around near enough each others weight to make for competitive fights.

Hearns was a real freak, a lightweight amateur who won a title at cruiserweight late in his career!

yeah a fringe title from Nate Miller, who wouldn't fight, if I remember rightly.

I give Hearns a lot of credit for beating Hill at light heavy, though.

It was WBU or IBO I think.

[ArtOfWar]

Hagler fought Hearns, Duran and Leonard. Leonard fought Hagler, Hearns, Benitez, Duran and others. Hearns fought Hagler, Leonard and Duran.

Duran, Hagler, Leonard and Hearns are better than any of the fighters on Oscar's resume, except maybe, and it is a big maybe, Floyd.

Tito and the like are very good fighters, but they are not legends. The above four legends all tussled with one another for huge prizes. Oscar may have fought those guys had he lived in that era, but the result would have been a bunch of losses.

Yeah, but none of those guy's have the quantity of big names on their records that DLH has. DLH has a better resume than anyone in the last 50 or so years, he just hasn't won enough of those big fights to be ranked as highly as those guy's.

Both you and Stu miss the point. Oscar lost to Shane, Hopkins and Tito. The wins on his record are quite big, but they are not over guys of that ilk. There is not a single win comparable to Hagler's over Hearn's, or Leonard's over Hagler.

He has not got the best resume of the last 50 years. That is nonsensical. Unless you think that the likes of Shane are all time greats, I do not.

The names I mentioned all have a shout at being recognised, if not the best, as amongst the very elite in their divisions, Oscar does not. A lot of fights, some good foes, but he lost to the best guys he fought, and those guys were not on a par with the Famous Four. Now Oscar is taking on a guy far smaller than him in order to, finally, nail that P4P slot, and by default also.

It's you who missed the point. I said Oscar has the best resume in terms of the quantity of elite opponants he's fought, which he does. His overall resume is not the best, because he has lost most of his biggest fights.

[Autobarn]

When considering DLH and the term "all time" you have to be careful. In earlier eras, could Oscar have coped in 15-rounders vs top guys? When he's been known to fade quite badly after 8 in many major outings.

Obviously the flipside is, in a 12 round era - when you have to start earlier, the action much more compressed - could he have scraped home vs some of the legends?

Either way I don't like his chances that much. Never ever have I been excited about a DLH fight. If he fights Hatton, it'll be the most interested I'll have been due to British interest. Can't knock Oscar as a massively successful guy, but I find neither his fights nor his personality interesting.

[jamesmcdonnell]

In the days before delay weigh ins, Oscar would probably never nave fought below Junior Welterweight - he would have had almighty struggles to get lower. He would have been in with some real killers, but Oscar has underrated toughness too.

I don't see him beating Duran at any weight, or Leonard or Hagler, or Hearns - but then, these guys are pretty unbelievable fighters.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Hearns was a freak, but also a freak who lost to fighters that DLH wouldn't have lost to. Whose best wins came against a hoplessly outsized Duran and a faded Benitez.

I always have Hagler and Leonard significantly above Hearns, due to the fact that he lost to Hagler (emphatically, I might add) and got KO'D by Leonard when both were in their primes.

I think if DLH shouldn't be considered an ATG - then neither should Hearns.... Benitez was a mater boxer, but accomplished more than Mosley.... I think not.

And I, like Enzo Calzaghe, have Ray Leonard as the #1 boxer of all time, but I like to see non bias when it comes to comparing the generations. It seems like when we compare the class of 1980's with that of the 2000's - we seem to forget Leonard fought an over the hill Hagler with all those advantages.... yet Terry et al - will not even include the Chavez and Whittikar wins for debates. Chavez and Whittikar, probably the fighters with the greatest historical standing out of all of DLH's opponents....

So its alright to slag off Pacquiao for being too small, but not Duran... alright for Hagler being too old but not Chavez or Whittikar.

I just think when the likes of Barrera, Pacquiao, Hopkins, DLH, Mayweather etc have all LONG packed it in - we will remember them more favourably than some of us do now.

Benitez was a wonderful talent, but shouldn't be considered more significant than Mayweather, Mosley etc. Let alone Chavez, Whittikar.

Sorry but Delahoya isn't in Hearns league, skill and ability wise Hearns is simply on another level and would beat Oscar like a red haired step child. Before you start both started at lightweight but Delahoya had 36hour weigh ins, diuretics and sweat suits to keep him below Welter until the age of 24, on fight night he was still weighing 160 at Welter though. Lets not pretend Oscar is loads smaller

Secondly Hearns best win, is the robbery draw against Leonard that Leonard himself admitted Hearns won. This is the same Leonard who was coming off wins against Hagler and Lalonde. Then his loss to Leonard was late on when Hearns was way beyond on points, and some will argue it was premature.

Since when was Benitez faded when Hearns beat him? He was considered in his prime and number 1 at 154, with wins over Duran and Hope on 1 of his best runs of his career and favoured to beat Leonard in a rematch at the time. There was also talk of Benitez-Hagler at the time. Revisionism at its finest, Benitez is a massive win for Hearns. Would Delahoya beat Benitez? I don't think so

Duran was outsized but this is the same Duran who fought a closish fight with Hagler months before and ofcourse a couple of years earlier beat Leonard, not to mention the recent viscious wins against Moore. Would Delahoya beat any version of Duran? Duran is simply too great a fighter for Delahoya to cope with

Hearns may have fought men he was naturally bigger than (he was a physical freak) BUT he never purposely tried to make fights with men divisions smaller than him which Delahoya has made a career of doing.

Your also forgetting great wins over Virgil Hill, Roldan, Cuevas, Andrias. 2 of those wins were for the Light Heavyweight Title 6 weights up from Hearns start weight of Lightweight.

The thing about Hearns is his wins were completely dominant, Delahoya's wins over Whitaker, Quartey, Sturm are very controversal (as is his losses to Tito). Hearns also beat his great smaller men in Duran/Benitez where as Delahoya lose to Mayweather/Mosley. Hearns may have lost in his prime to Leonard and Hagler but Delahoya also lost in his prime to the lesser Mosley (twice) and Tito (I had him beating Tito and losing to Whitaker and Quartey).

[MightyWarrior]

Oscar would have a chance v Hearns, with that sweet left hook, but it could easily go other way of course. Leonard would have whipped him, and Hagler & Duran - forget it.

He's got an great looking record, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny against the big four's records: They all took on the most feared men of their generation, repeatedly. eg Leonard took on the most feared welter of his era, and the most feared middleweight of his era, and Duran the great.

Oscar's big wins where over faded fighters who'd shown major vunerability - Quartey, Vargas etc

Trinidad was the biggest fight he took on, and Hop, and he didn't cover himself in glory in either.

[stujones]

I think DLH vs Duran would have been dependant on the weight....... I think at lightweight Duran would have smashed him - Welter it would have been tough to call...... Light Middle - I'd favour Oscar.

Duran also had some defeats that Oscar never would have in his "prime" years also and Oscar never got tanked like Duran did.

[stujones]

Oscar would have a chance v Hearns, with that sweet left hook, but it could easily go other way of course. Leonard would have whipped him, and Hagler & Duran - forget it.

He's got an great looking record, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny against the big four's records: They all took on the most feared men of their generation, repeatedly. eg Leonard took on the most feared welter of his era, and the most feared middleweight of his era, and Duran the great.

Oscar's big wins where over faded fighters who'd shown major vunerability - Quartey, Vargas etc

Trinidad was the biggest fight he took on, and Hop, and he didn't cover himself in glory in either.

What about Mayweather?

[stujones]

Hearns and Duran have both suffered defeat which Oscar wouldn't have - both have been anhilated in fights - Oscar has never had that.

Duran I believe cause he was fighting well above his natural weight limit, Hearns because he had a vulnerable chin for a "super dooper" elite.

I cannot believe the Hearns "draw" with Leonard has been called his best win. Firstly, 1) Leonard had 1 fight in two years. 2)I didn't look like the "same" Leonard who upset Hagler that Struggled with Lalonde. 3) The Super Middleweight limit far suited Hearns 4) Hearns was on the verges of being stopped on two occasions 5) Had Leonard has Dundee and not Correra in his corner he would have won.... As Tommy didn't recover from the 5th round beating untill the 10th.... but Leonard wasted alot of rounds by focusing on the "ko" shot.

[stujones]

Duran got caught with a punch from hell when he fought Tommy Hearns, in his later fights he was both old and over the weight limit. Oscar was relatively fresh when Hopkins did him. Hopkins is hardly a Hearns when it comes to power, and he dinked Oscar.

Still got caught though... Oscar fresh when he fought Hopkins? He was in his 30's and as you've said was in semi retirement, but now he was "fresh" and he looked sloppy in his previous fight. Took Hopkins nine rounds to wear Oscar down.

And Oscar didn't lose to a Kirkland Laing standard opponent in his prime.

[stujones]

Hearns was a freak, but also a freak who lost to fighters that DLH wouldn't have lost to. Whose best wins came against a hoplessly outsized Duran and a faded Benitez.

I always have Hagler and Leonard significantly above Hearns, due to the fact that he lost to Hagler (emphatically, I might add) and got KO'D by Leonard when both were in their primes.

I think if DLH shouldn't be considered an ATG - then neither should Hearns.... Benitez was a mater boxer, but accomplished more than Mosley.... I think not.

And I, like Enzo Calzaghe, have Ray Leonard as the #1 boxer of all time, but I like to see non bias when it comes to comparing the generations. It seems like when we compare the class of 1980's with that of the 2000's - we seem to forget Leonard fought an over the hill Hagler with all those advantages.... yet Terry et al - will not even include the Chavez and Whittikar wins for debates. Chavez and Whittikar, probably the fighters with the greatest historical standing out of all of DLH's opponents....

So its alright to slag off Pacquiao for being too small, but not Duran... alright for Hagler being too old but not Chavez or Whittikar.

I just think when the likes of Barrera, Pacquiao, Hopkins, DLH, Mayweather etc have all LONG packed it in - we will remember them more favourably than some of us do now.

Benitez was a wonderful talent, but shouldn't be considered more significant than Mayweather, Mosley etc. Let alone Chavez, Whittikar.

Sorry but Delahoya isn't in Hearns league, skill and ability wise Hearns is simply on another level and would beat Oscar like a red haired step child. Before you start both started at lightweight but Delahoya had 36hour weigh ins, diuretics and sweat suits to keep him below Welter until the age of 24, on fight night he was still weighing 160 at Welter though. Lets not pretend Oscar is loads smaller

Secondly Hearns best win, is the robbery draw against Leonard that Leonard himself admitted Hearns won. This is the same Leonard who was coming off wins against Hagler and Lalonde. Then his loss to Leonard was late on when Hearns was way beyond on points, and some will argue it was premature.

Since when was Benitez faded when Hearns beat him? He was considered in his prime and number 1 at 154, with wins over Duran and Hope on 1 of his best runs of his career and favoured to beat Leonard in a rematch at the time. There was also talk of Benitez-Hagler at the time. Revisionism at its finest, Benitez is a massive win for Hearns. Would Delahoya beat Benitez? I don't think so

Duran was outsized but this is the same Duran who fought a closish fight with Hagler months before and ofcourse a couple of years earlier beat Leonard, not to mention the recent viscious wins against Moore. Would Delahoya beat any version of Duran? Duran is simply too great a fighter for Delahoya to cope with

Hearns may have fought men he was naturally bigger than (he was a physical freak) BUT he never purposely tried to make fights with men divisions smaller than him which Delahoya has made a career of doing.

Your also forgetting great wins over Virgil Hill, Roldan, Cuevas, Andrias. 2 of those wins were for the Light Heavyweight Title 6 weights up from Hearns start weight of Lightweight.

The thing about Hearns is his wins were completely dominant, Delahoya's wins over Whitaker, Quartey, Sturm are very controversal (as is his losses to Tito). Hearns also beat his great smaller men in Duran/Benitez where as Delahoya lose to Mayweather/Mosley. Hearns may have lost in his prime to Leonard and Hagler but Delahoya also lost in his prime to the lesser Mosley (twice) and Tito (I had him beating Tito and losing to Whitaker and Quartey).

Oscar start as a Super Feather actually.

[stujones]

If he arguebly lost to Sturm... then he argueably beat Trinidad, Mosley and Mayweather - you cannot have it both ways.

DLH boxed well against Hopkins before getting tagged - how come there are "legitimate" excuses for the 80's gen, but when Oscar came up short it is a sin. Thing is - Oscar wouldn't have got tagged against a Welterweight equivalent of Barkley and if he did, he probably wouldn't have got KO'd.

So its okay for Hagler to hold a massive grudge against the Leonard verdict - but not for DLH... and sorry, the Trinidad and Mosley rematches were far more "dodgy" than Leonard vs Hagler.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Oscar start as a Super Feather actually.

No he didn't, he fought his amateur career at lightweight like Hearns, fought all of his early career at lightweight except for 2 fights at 130. All of his fights from 130-147 he was putting massive amounts of weight and drastically outweighing opposition. It wasn't until he reached 154 he was weighing the same as his opponents on fight night.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

If he arguebly lost to Sturm... then he argueably beat Trinidad, Mosley and Mayweather - you cannot have it both ways. .

He didn't come close to beating Mayweather despite 15lbs fight night weight advantage and a small ring. And if he arguably beat Tito and Mosley (I've scored their second fights to both, I need to score it a 3rd time), he arguably lost to Quartey, Whitaker and Sturm (had him losing to all 3), you can't have it both ways D

[stujones]

Many people had him beating Mayweather including a judge. As I said before I think DLH would swap Mayweather, Tito and Mosley with Whittikar, Sturm and Quartey and still no DLH defeat was as desive as Duran's loss to Hearns, Hearn's loss to Barkley and only the Hopkins defeat was as comprehensive as Duran's loss to Laing and Hearns' second loss to Barkley.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Many people had him beating Mayweather including a judge. As I said before I think DLH would swap Mayweather, Tito and Mosley with Whittikar, Sturm and Quartey and still no DLH defeat was as desive as Duran's loss to Hearns, Hearn's loss to Barkley and only the Hopkins defeat was as comprehensive as Duran's loss to Laing and Hearns' second loss to Barkley.

Only people who are biased or can't score fights had FMJ losing to DLH, Mayweather outlanded Delahoya 2-1 and scored the bigger shots and won the last 4 rounds after Oscar went into a shell. I can't believe your claiming Duran was in his prime against Laing, Duran's prime ended before first Leonard fight.

Delahoya's Sturm performance is every bit as poor as HEarns's loss to Barkley

As for Delahoya head to head against the Fab 5, he loses to them all and it wouldn't be close. He simply isn't the same class as boxer and doesn't possess the same skills

[observer1]

How many big fights has this guy had?

It's truly amazing when you think about it. Yes, he's come up short oin almost all of them, but still...his record has some amazing fighters on it. I'm struggling to think of many pound for pound names from the last ten years that aren't on it. When you look at RJ, Hopkins, Mayweather, Toney etc...the guy has fought loads more fighters than those. Is it because he had less to lose than those guys? (Which he did, he was already financially secure from his first title, was a golden boy and not outspoken so he could always have a shot at redemption etc)

DLH may not have won all his big fights, but the reason why he gets respect from Boxing Experts and Fans is because he always goes against the Prime, even if he is a clear underdog. Something alot of other fighters have done once in their entire career.

I wonder if your boy Amir will ever fight a world class boxer...

rofl.

So i stick up for his lad, and he is my "boy" ?

Listen kid, go watch some Hatton compilations on YouTube or something.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Hearns and Duran have both suffered defeat which Oscar wouldn't have - both have been anhilated in fights - Oscar has never had that.

Duran I believe cause he was fighting well above his natural weight limit, Hearns because he had a vulnerable chin for a "super dooper" elite.

I cannot believe the Hearns "draw" with Leonard has been called his best win. Firstly, 1) Leonard had 1 fight in two years. 2)I didn't look like the "same" Leonard who upset Hagler that Struggled with Lalonde. 3) The Super Middleweight limit far suited Hearns 4) Hearns was on the verges of being stopped on two occasions 5) Had Leonard has Dundee and not Correra in his corner he would have won.... As Tommy didn't recover from the 5th round beating untill the 10th.... but Leonard wasted alot of rounds by focusing on the "ko" shot.

Hopkins took him out clean. What was that? A slip followed by a short period of contract renegotiation?

People say that Hearns lost to Leonard, and point to that as some kind of a black mark on Hearns, did you see that fight? He boxed sublimely for much of the bout. So did Leonard. It was bazzing (cheers Datsue), take away the finish, finish off either man, not just Hearns, and you have a great fight featuring some amazing boxing. Oscar has never shown that level of boxing.

In the big fights he lost in or around his prime Hearns was defeated in huge fights, by great men, who produced great performances, in his loss to Iran (who is not great) he was boxing like a dream before getting tagged. He then went all the way up, beyond middle, and handed Virgil Hill his first defeat. He was awesome.

Oscar blew rounds out of his arse in his big fights, bitched about the results, lost once again because of a lack or ring strategy, or stamina, and in the interim went up in weight and was hammered by Hopkins, who is no Hagler. Now he is battering a smaller man in order to sneak the P4P title.

If you cannot see the clear gap between the names thrown up today then the whole argument becomes moot.

'Oscar never lost to a Laing type'. Yep, that solves the whole riddle. Then again he arguably lost to Sturm, or was that a bad night when past his prime and natural weight class. Anything Duran did post-Laing was a minor miracle, or a sign that he couldn't half fight.

In fairness to Oscar, Middleweight was a bridge too far - but Duran was a far better boxer no doubt about it. Duran was able to hang with Hagler and even back him up, something Oscar couldn't do with Hopkins.

Hearns was one of the biggest punchers in Welterweight history, and a superlative boxer, a loss to Hearns is no disgrace for Duran, and Leonard had to show the form of his life in order to beat Hearns.

Hearns one achilles heel was his chin, or should that be achilles chin, he could be beaten by lesser men if they could find his chin and tag him. Had he had a better beard, he would have had a far less blemished career. He had a light heavyweights power but a lightweights chin. As he moved up the weights he learned to fight a different and more conservative style, and carried that inhuman power up with him. Everything bar his chin was absolutely legendary.

Duran, Hagler and Leonard all had absolutely anvil chins. Look at what Duran did against Barklay, a huge middleweight who could definetly dig. Leonard could be hurt, but was impossible to deter, and Hagler, well, hardly ever hurt.

[SticknMove]

The last of a great era in boxing indeed when Hagler, Hearns, Leonard and Duran were about. Someone posted that Leonard was the best of the lot - I agree. There has never been a better exponent of the sport that I have ever seen in my lifetime.

In the realms of pure boxing ability, speed, power and ring generalship he has few peers in the modern age (post late 70s). Unfortunately his career wasn't a substantial or continuous one. Having fought the wrong type of fight against Duran in their first meeting, he totally humiliated him in the second encounter. Having tasted the power and best that Hearns could considerably offer he still sensed his vulnerability backing him up switching body shots to head with the oncoming flak that many fighters could only dream about navigating to deliver the payoff. If Leonard wasn’t about then Hearns would have been talked up even more than he is today. He outfoxed the supreme counterpunching puncher in Benitez and backed up and destroyed a pretty hot kalule back then

For me ODLH doesn't come up for discussion in comparison to these guys. Duran probably the ATG LW, Hagler an ATG at MW, Leonard an ATG at WW (behind SRR no shame in that) Hearns was just a great great fighter who fell short because of the ATGs in front of him. ODLH falls behind him in that respect.

[Autobarn]

I reckon Orzubek Nazarov would have ripped him a new one at lightweight. That man was a fvcking beast, until he went blind in one eye and lost his title away from home. Scary fighter, though he didn't have a long prime. Southpaw, strong, loads of pressure, good skills. With Oscar's weight draining at 135, and the resulting vulnerability as a fight goes late, i think he'd have been in trouble.

[Asterix]

I reckon Orzubek Nazarov would have ripped him a new one at lightweight. That man was a fvcking beast, until he went blind in one eye and lost his title away from home. Scary fighter, though he didn't have a long prime. Southpaw, strong, loads of pressure, good skills. With Oscar's weight draining at 135, and the resulting vulnerability as a fight goes late, i think he'd have been in trouble.

YouTube: Orzubek Nazarov vs Joey Gamache

[stujones]

To the poster who said that Duran was past his prime pre Leonard 1 - I agree, he wasn't nearly as effective as a Welterweight - let alone Light Middle (which for me Oscar achieved his best results, and few excellent performances).

I always think Duran the "ranking" of Duran the Welterweight and above is often inflated. Lost to Benitez, lost to Hearns, lost to Hagler, 2 losses to Leonard.

For me, he is the CLEAR greatest of all time Lightweight - he was a machine... so yes, he should be a clearly ahead of DLH in an All time ranking - but I do think if DLH fought Duran at Light Middle, DLH would win. I think a lack of big fight experience affected Leonard in the first meeting - and fighting the wrong fight, he still ran Duran fairly close. He would have been too quick for Duran 9 times out of 10 and I think so would have DLH been. He is more powerful than Leonard, he would have been too quick - Duran would have struggled to get into range.

I don't dispute that Hagler, Leonard and Duran at their prime weights should be greater than DLH and would have beaten him.... Hearns - I think should be in the same bracket at DLH and a fight between the two would have been close, cause of Hearns' chin and own stamina issues.

Did I read somewhere in this thread that now Hearns vs Leonard 1 was PREMATURELY stopped!!!! Wow - fight shouldn't have gone into the 14th... it was as if the ref was helping Hearns. He was completely f'd.

[stujones]

I reckon Orzubek Nazarov would have ripped him a new one at lightweight. That man was a fvcking beast, until he went blind in one eye and lost his title away from home. Scary fighter, though he didn't have a long prime. Southpaw, strong, loads of pressure, good skills. With Oscar's weight draining at 135, and the resulting vulnerability as a fight goes late, i think he'd have been in trouble.

Oscar had no problems making 140. Indeed he didn't go to 147 because of weight problems at 140 - he is actually, a bit rediclously, talking about fighting Ricky at 140 next year! It would have been a good fight, but I think Oscar's own speed and power would have been too much.

[Poncey]

From FN:

Sensing Oscar De La Hoya has been starving himself in training camp to make weight, even admitting that he would have to forego Thanksgiving dinner, Team Pacquiao has decided to make it a little harder for the Golden Boy. They have arranged for an 11.25-pound, 12-inch chocolate cheesecake from the world-famous Carnegie Deli in New York City to be delivered to Oscar today at Summit Camp in Big Bear Lake, Calif., where he is training. The following message is included: "Oscar -- Looking forward to serving you your just desserts on December 6. Happy Thanksgiving. From Team Pacquiao." De La Hoya has been claiming he's been walking around at 145 pounds (curiously the recent segment of "24/7" showed him weighing 155 pounds), as he prepares for his welterweight super fight against the Pacman.

This is interesting, but O/T:

Pacquiao thinking big!Although giving away four inches in height to Oscar De La Hoya, 5'6 WBC lightweight champion Manny Pacquiao is thinking big for their December 6 PPV 'Dream Match.' "I’m not that small," he told reporters this week. "I’m 149, 150 right now so I have two weeks more so easy to come down to 147." Pacman, who weighed 106 in his first pro fight, believes he'll be a fit in the welterweight division. "What we're doing in training right now is focusing on defense and head movement and strategies," he stated. "I understand he's very strong but I believe I can handle his power. I can handle that power." It may be unlikely Pacquiao will return to the 135lb division any time soon after his bout with the Golden Boy. "I think my plan right now [is] I’m going back to 140....I’m willing to fight Hatton but right now I’m just focused on this coming fight."