The Top 100 Greatest Boxers Pound per Pound of All-Time

[Jaywheel]

Oscar De La Hoya defeat was more meaningful than winning a world title, says Jesse James Leija

https://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/1 ... ames-leija

Leija is most renowned for fighting the great Azumah Nelson four times over four years. The first meeting was a controversial draw in his maiden tilt at a world title. But in the rematch at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, Leija convincingly beat the Ghanaian to lift the WBC super featherweight title, becoming only the third world champion in history from San Antonio.

Many would think this would be the greatest moment of Leija's career, after all he lost the belt in his first defence, a decision defeat to Gabriel Ruelas.

Instead, it was that night against De La Hoya in December 1995 that he looks back on most fondly, despite the fact his corner threw in the towel after two rounds.

I fought so many good fighters. The strongest and the best would have to be De La Hoya. Just because he was the only one that stopped me in the way he did

.

[Ambling Alp II]

It does not matter how many titles Oscar won. Many guys has what he has done in the last 20 or 25 years and are not all-time greats.

To my knowledge The only other fighter to win titles in 6 weight classes is Pacquiao.

He is judge accordingly. If it were the 1970s or 80s decade, he probably would not pass the featherweight division, let alone do something at welter.

That comes to show how weak the last 2 decades of boxing has been.

Two decades ago? OK, well, 5 of De La Hoya's titles were won over two decades ago. Want to try again?

Does it have anything at all to do with you not liking the guy?

[Onetimeonly]

To my knowledge The only other fighter to win titles in 6 weight classes is Pacquiao.

He is judge accordingly. If it were the 1970s or 80s decade, he probably would not pass the featherweight division, let alone do something at welter.

That comes to show how weak the last 2 decades of boxing has been.

Two decades ago? OK, well, 5 of De La Hoya's titles were won over two decades ago. Want to try again?

Does it have anything at all to do with you not liking the guy?

I think you've cracked the case. Remember when pascual Perez won a gold medal mattered?

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Personal bias aside morales did not have an objectively better career than oscar

[Onetimeonly]

Personal bias aside morales did not have an objectively better career than oscar

I don't agree with that.

[elmersalsa]

To my knowledge The only other fighter to win titles in 6 weight classes is Pacquiao.

He is judge accordingly. If it were the 1970s or 80s decade, he probably would not pass the featherweight division, let alone do something at welter.

That comes to show how weak the last 2 decades of boxing has been.

Two decades ago? OK, well, 5 of De La Hoya's titles were won over two decades ago. Want to try again?

Does it have anything at all to do with you not liking the guy?

Yes, and he did win those titles in a weak era. Let's face it. Under the 122lbs limit, I can name you at least 10 guys that won 3 titles in 3 weight classes. Why? Too many divisions and two many champions per class.

Back in the day all the until the 80s decade, we had 1 or 2 champions per class. Now, there are so many titles available that you don't have to fight the best champion. You could take a short cut by beating the worst champion of the four.

Am I right?

[elmersalsa]

Personal bias aside morales did not have an objectively better career than oscar

I don't agree with that.

I finally agree with you in something. Here comes the laugh.

[elmersalsa]

To my knowledge The only other fighter to win titles in 6 weight classes is Pacquiao.

He is judge accordingly. If it were the 1970s or 80s decade, he probably would not pass the featherweight division, let alone do something at welter.

That comes to show how weak the last 2 decades of boxing has been.

Weak doesn't matter when it comes to the great Peter Jackson, Jimmy wilde or pascual Perez. Why penalize the great Oscar delahoya while drooling on those guys? Hypocritical bias? Yup, that's it. Case closed!

They fought in harder eras. There was only one champion per the original 8 divisions. That is why I rate those guys above Oscar De La Hoya.

[Onetimeonly]

Personal bias aside morales did not have an objectively better career than oscar

I don't agree with that.

I finally agree with you in something. Here comes the laugh.

Perhaps this is your first step out of perpetual mediocrity.

[Onetimeonly]

He is judge accordingly. If it were the 1970s or 80s decade, he probably would not pass the featherweight division, let alone do something at welter.

That comes to show how weak the last 2 decades of boxing has been.

Weak doesn't matter when it comes to the great Peter Jackson, Jimmy wilde or pascual Perez. Why penalize the great Oscar delahoya while drooling on those guys? Hypocritical bias? Yup, that's it. Case closed!

They fought in harder eras. There was only one champion per the original 8 divisions. That is why I rate those guys above Oscar De La Hoya.

They fought in miles worse eras in their weight classes. How can you even type that with a straight face?

[elmersalsa]

Weak doesn't matter when it comes to the great Peter Jackson, Jimmy wilde or pascual Perez. Why penalize the great Oscar delahoya while drooling on those guys? Hypocritical bias? Yup, that's it. Case closed!

They fought in harder eras. There was only one champion per the original 8 divisions. That is why I rate those guys above Oscar De La Hoya.

They fought in miles worse eras in their weight classes. How can you even type that with a straight face?

Still in their "worse era" if you want to call them that, they were the very best of the entire decade that they fought in.

Jimmy Wilde was the best fighter of the 1910s decade bar none. He beat guys that outweighed him over 20 pounds. Sometimes more. He beat excellent opposition at flyweight and bantamweight.

Peter Jackson after the great Bob Fitzsimmons, was by far the best fighter pound per pound of the 1880s decade. You can ask to any boxing historian who the Black Prince was. He was champion in every level of competition, except for the world title. In his prime, he only lost 3 times. He was denied a title shot by champion John L. Sullivan. Jackson beat the very best of his era and went 61 rounds with James J. Corbett in a NC.

Pascual Perez fought the very best of his era. Just look at the other fighters records that he beat. He was the absolute king of the flyweights for 7 years and 11 title defenses.

The problem is that NOBODY has searched the other guys records and what they did to get a title shot against Perez. I broke it to you before. And when Perez time comes in the ranking, we will know how special he was. Not because the fighters were not known in America means that they were not good. There area lot of great fighters past the Mexican border.

[elmersalsa]

I don't agree with that.

I finally agree with you in something. Here comes the laugh.

Perhaps this is your first step out of perpetual mediocrity.

It is just a difference of opinion. Your opinion is not the law.

[elmersalsa]

I don't agree with that.

I finally agree with you in something. Here comes the laugh.

Perhaps this is your first step out of perpetual mediocrity.

I am surprised I did not see the laughing face

[Onetimeonly]

I finally agree with you in something. Here comes the laugh.

Perhaps this is your first step out of perpetual mediocrity.

I am surprised I did not see the laughing face

Me too, it's rare you post something that isn't comical.

[Onetimeonly]

I finally agree with you in something. Here comes the laugh.

Perhaps this is your first step out of perpetual mediocrity.

It is just a difference of opinion. Your opinion is not the law.

[Ambling Alp II]

He is judge accordingly. If it were the 1970s or 80s decade, he probably would not pass the featherweight division, let alone do something at welter.

That comes to show how weak the last 2 decades of boxing has been.

Two decades ago? OK, well, 5 of De La Hoya's titles were won over two decades ago. Want to try again?

Does it have anything at all to do with you not liking the guy?

Yes, and he did win those titles in a weak era. Let's face it. Under the 122lbs limit, I can name you at least 10 guys that won 3 titles in 3 weight classes. Why? Too many divisions and two many champions per class.

Back in the day all the until the 80s decade, we had 1 or 2 champions per class. Now, there are so many titles available that you don't have to fight the best champion. You could take a short cut by beating the worst champion of the four.

Am I right?

No you are wrong. Like are almost all of the time.

When was back in the day when there were only 8 weight classes and only one champion per weight classes?
It was not the 1980s. Or even the 1970s. Or even the 1960s. There were more than 8 world champions back then as well.

You are changing the goalposts yet again.
With Ray Lampkin, it's a big deal that he won the NABF title. That isn't even a fragment of a world title. Yet it is a big deal to you because Duran beat him and you worship Duran and it makes Duran look better.

How about Emile Griffith? again, one of you favorites. You count him as a JR. Middleweight Champion. He didn't win the lineal title in that weight class. Didn't even win the WBA or the WBC title. Griffith won the Austrian Boxing Board of Control title. And you actually count that as being a world champion!
Not mention that the Jr. Middleweight title was not one of the original 8 weight classes.

You constantly overrate guys that you like and underrate guys that you don't.

You have no interest whatsover in rating boxers strictly on their merits and in the same way. Whether you like the guy or not is always a big factor for you. You give credit to fighters that you like when you don't for guys (like Del Hoya or Leonard) that you don't. You have crybaby excuses for guys that you like that you don't use for guys that you don't.

This is the main reason why everyone has always seen you as a joke.

[elmersalsa]

Two decades ago? OK, well, 5 of De La Hoya's titles were won over two decades ago. Want to try again?

Does it have anything at all to do with you not liking the guy?

Yes, and he did win those titles in a weak era. Let's face it. Under the 122lbs limit, I can name you at least 10 guys that won 3 titles in 3 weight classes. Why? Too many divisions and two many champions per class.

Back in the day all the until the 80s decade, we had 1 or 2 champions per class. Now, there are so many titles available that you don't have to fight the best champion. You could take a short cut by beating the worst champion of the four.

Am I right?

No you are wrong. Like are almost all of the time.

When was back in the day when there were only 8 weight classes and only one champion per weight classes?
It was not the 1980s. Or even the 1970s. Or even the 1960s. There were more than 8 world champions back then as well.

You are changing the goalposts yet again.
With Ray Lampkin, it's a big deal that he won the NABF title. That isn't even a fragment of a world title. Yet it is a big deal to you because Duran beat him and you worship Duran and it makes Duran look better.

How about Emile Griffith? again, one of you favorites. You count him as a JR. Middleweight Champion. He didn't win the lineal title in that weight class. Didn't even win the WBA or the WBC title. Griffith won the Austrian Boxing Board of Control title. And you actually count that as being a world champion!
Not mention that the Jr. Middleweight title was not one of the original 8 weight classes.

You constantly overrate guys that you like and underrate guys that you don't.

You have no interest whatsover in rating boxers strictly on their merits and in the same way. Whether you like the guy or not is always a big factor for you. You give credit to fighters that you like when you don't for guys (like Del Hoya or Leonard) that you don't. You have crybaby excuses for guys that you like that you don't use for guys that you don't.

This is the main reason why everyone has always seen you as a joke.

I rate the guys as I see them. I am not super biased like you.

Everybody knows that boxing talent has been diluted for the last two decades in which a good fighter can EASILY WIN 4 world titles by using shortcuts.

I said that I can name AT LEAST 10 fighters under 122lbs that won 3 world titles. Should we look them up?

We know that boxing in Oscar's era had been diluted. Sometimes you can say that boxing is a BIG JOKE now. We really don't know who really is the real champion by weight class. There are 4 champions per class. Before, in the 70s decade there were less weight classes and less champions.

By the decades, starting in the late 80s decade, the prolifiretation of champions and weight classes have been a joke. That is what I am talking about.

Now, what Ray Lampkin got to do of what I am talking about. You went waaaaayyyy to the left on that one. I don't get it.

Oscar De La Hoya in another era would have never won so many belts. Probably would have not been a champ in the 50s or 60s decade. Maybe never in the 70s and 80s. Why? He was not good enough. That's why. Not good enough.

He was a blown out of proportion overrated good-looking boy that was helped by the American media just because he won a gold medal. They tried to make him up to be just like the great Sugar Ray Leonard. And guess what? He had a lot of help. His career was calculated to the maximum beating second rate champions that also would have never win a chip.

That I underrate guys that I don't like? No. That is not true. I don't like and never liked the great Wilfred Benitez in his prime. But, was he great? Absolutely! Oscar is NOT A GREAT FIGHTER. He was an American boxing superstar.

Felix "Tito" Trinidad was not a great fighter. He was a boxing superstar. The same could be said of Shane Mosley and Miguel Cotto. They are not great fighters. Neither are GGG nor Canelo.

Emile Griffith was THE FIRST WORLD CHAMPION of the 154lbs class. It is written in many books. He is a triple crown division champ. He just relinquished the 154lbs crown after he won it to concentrate on his welterweight crown.

There are too many great fighters that deserve to be on top of Oscar De LaHoya in the top 100 greatest ever. I searched them out, I was very impressed with their records but simply did not make the cut. In my view, they were not great enough. And Oscar is one of them.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

So oscar rivas will be on the list since HE WILL BE THE FIRST BRIDGERWEIGHT CHAMP

Oscar beat whitaker, beat camacho, knocked out chavez (shopworn sure), whooped genaro, won a gold medal, won titles in 6 weight classes, fought everyone, had some questionable decisions (sturm) lost some questionable decisions (trinidad and mosley 2)

He was 20-6 against title holders

I hated oscar and thought he was an overrated pretty boy. But the man could fight

You give old morales props for losing close to maidana.... old oscar lost by a round to a prime floyd effin Mayweather !!!

[Ambling Alp II]

I have been having some fun with this. I know elmer hates DLH so he automatically rates him lower than he should.

Personally, I don't care how many WBS titles a guy has won. I just like to point out how elmer likes to use the WBS when it favors his guys but then acts like it doesn't mean anything when it pertains to someone he hates.
Have never heard anyone call Emile Griffith a Jr. midleweight champion. Everyone record book I checked does not count it. However elmer does count it, but refuses to count DLH whose claims are obviously stronger.
the reason is obvious, elmer likes Griffith. He hates DLH.

The wins over guys who were well past don't really count for much. To be fair, the wins over Whitaker, Camacho, and Chavez should not be counted for him and the losses to Mayweather and Pac should not count against him.

He fought the best competition of his era. Sometimes he did well, sometimes not. Should he be in the Top 100? Probably.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

I understand

Thats my point too - if a close loss to maidana for morales is great a close loss to floyd should be rated 10 times that

[elmersalsa]

I understand

Thats my point too - if a close loss to maidana for morales is great a close loss to floyd should be rated 10 times that

He was bigger, taller and stronger than Floyd at 154lbs. He should have stopped Floyd out. Big time. But he lost.

As a matter of fact, he lost to every great fighter of his prime:
Felix "Tito" Trinidad
Shane Mosley (twice)
The Oscar-winning performance plot against the great Bernard Hopkins
Floyd Mayweather
Manny Pacquiao.

That does not make the cut. He should have at least won one or two of those fights.

[Onetimeonly]

I understand

Thats my point too - if a close loss to maidana for morales is great a close loss to floyd should be rated 10 times that

Nothing close about Floyd/Oscar.

[Ambling Alp II]

I understand

Thats my point too - if a close loss to maidana for morales is great a close loss to floyd should be rated 10 times that

He was bigger, taller and stronger than Floyd at 154lbs. He should have stopped Floyd out. Big time. But he lost.

As a matter of fact, he lost to every great fighter of his prime:
Felix "Tito" Trinidad
Shane Mosley (twice)
The Oscar-winning performance plot against the great Bernard Hopkins
Floyd Mayweather
Manny Pacquiao.

That does not make the cut. He should have at least won one or two of those fights.

Earlier you said that Trinidad and Mosley were not great fighters.

I'm assuming that it doesn't matter to you that he should have got the decision against Trinidad and against Mosley the 2nd time? Sorry. Silly question. Of course it doesn't.

For those of you scoring at home, the wins over Camacho, Whitaker, and Chavez don't count.
Somehow the loss to Mayweather and even Pacquiao does count! Wow, no bias against DLH here.

De La Hoya should have stopped Mayweather because he was bigger, taller, and stronger. However, the Hopkins fight somehow counts even though Hopkins was bigger, taller and stronger!

[butterflykat]

What about Cecil Lewis "Young Jack" Thompson?

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Revisionist history saying whitaker doesnt count. He was ranked 3rd p4p by ring when he faced oscar

Oscar was 2 to 1 vs chavez sr it was seen as competitive