Emile had close fights with great fighters such as Paret, Rodriguez and Benvenuti... while Oscar struggled against Quartey, Trinidad and an old Whitaker!!.... poor Pernal even put him down!!... you shouldnt even be mentioning them in the same breath, ...Oscar is not top 20 material at 147... simple as that, you didnt even mention fighters like Bruiliard, Corbett and Dixie kid... you even rated Oscar ahead of Benitez and Walcott!!... if the golden one struggled with Quartey and Mosely (to name just two!) Walcott and Benitez would have played with him!... you have to remember just cause you have all his fights and everything doesnt make him the best ever... I've got loads of film on many of the greats at 147 and compared to them Oscar is just ordinary, its as simple as that, I'm sorry to burst your bubble and destroy your illusions, but thats it... I actually think Marlon Starling could have beaten him and Mark Breland too!... no joke... you need to expand your video collection...Decagon wrote:Anyway, if you're going to complain about De la Hoya being in the top 20 because of a few close decisions, where does Emile Griffith end up?
Jose Napoles
Well I'm not so retarded that I need to use multiple poster names in order to try and back myself up. And I dont need to use insults either, you can bleat all you like but the plain truth is that you havent a clue about Cuevas and have probably only seen him in highlights against Duran and Hearns, meanwhile you go on lapping up the media hype of the golden girl, ...well go ahead if it makes you happy but why use multiple names if you're confident in your views??....HilariousHank wrote:silkov wrote:Well if we're getting into the school boy stuff I have to say that you're the one whose retarded, just about everyone knocked down Trinidad, he'd be lucky to get past 2 rounds against Pipino... I ask again what fights have you seen of Cuevas?.... not any I'm thinking....Victor*KC wrote: Hell I' don't even think cuevas could beat Trinidad Oscar would destroy Cuevas.. having Cuevas in the 20 Is silly Top 10 is retarded
Silkov is retarded. Cuevas is as one-dimensional as they come. Ferocious power, for sure, but not much else. Benefitted by a weak era in the welterweight division. Would've been beat by fellow titleholder, Carlos Palomino. Tito would've destroyed Cuevas.
-
HilariousHank
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 30 Jan 2007, 20:36
Well I'm not so retarded that I need to use multiple poster names in order to try and back myself up. And I dont need to use insults either, you can bleat all you like but the plain truth is that you havent a clue about Cuevas and have probably only seen him in highlights against Duran and Hearns, meanwhile you go on lapping up the media hype of the golden girl, ...well go ahead if it makes you happy but why use multiple names if you're confident in your views??....silkov wrote:HilariousHank wrote:Well if we're getting into the school boy stuff I have to say that you're the one whose retarded, just about everyone knocked down Trinidad, he'd be lucky to get past 2 rounds against Pipino... I ask again what fights have you seen of Cuevas?.... not any I'm thinking....silkov wrote: Hell I' don't even think cuevas could beat Trinidad Oscar would destroy Cuevas.. having Cuevas in the 20 Is silly Top 10 is retarded
Silkov is retarded. Cuevas is as one-dimensional as they come. Ferocious power, for sure, but not much else. Benefitted by a weak era in the welterweight division. Would've been beat by fellow titleholder, Carlos Palomino. Tito would've destroyed Cuevas.
[/quote]Multiple user names? Why would you say that? I have most of Cuevas' title defenses on tape. A fun fighter to watch because of the power, I just don't see him beating anyone decent, including Felix Trinidad.
Buzz will your run an IP match with me and that new guy please? Silk is a retart I almost fell of my chair laughing watching the sight of Pipino trying to outbox Hearns 
It's kinda of funny to me I get called Retarted because I feel can Oscar can be in the top 20 yet your some kind of genius for having Pipino in the Top 10 and for the record aren't you the one that follows Dec around insulting him? P.S Wtf is the Darkness you swear I follow some gay rock bands 
It's kinda of funny to me I get called Retarted because I feel can Oscar can be in the top 20 yet your some kind of genius for having Pipino in the Top 10 and for the record aren't you the one that follows Dec around insulting him? P.S Wtf is the Darkness you swear I follow some gay rock bands Yeah, well what can you do with people like these, that cant tell the difference between Mayaorga and Cuevas??... sad really.BoxBuzz wrote:This guy is running with this name because Ridiculous Ray was mentioned earlier...one of the very first posters to this site. It's some kind of damn virus goin round.
If you're gonna call someone a retard its advisable that you spell RETARD correctly!!.Victor*KC wrote:Buzz will your run an IP match with me and that new guy please? Silk is a retart I almost fell of my chair laughing watching the sight of Pipino trying to outbox Hearns
.. otherwise you just look like some trailer trash that spent all his school days smoking roll ups in the bog!. Come to think of it though youre probably still at school... I'm flattered that you've been going through my lists, I'd advise you to delve more in the hope that you may learn something, but unfortunately it seems a bit beyond your mental capacity so just stick with your golden girl tapes and your blissful ignorance if it makes you happy!....
8)Well if you think Griffith was no better than those guys then you're even more confused than I thought!.Decagon wrote:Paret was nowhere near as good as Quartey, Trinidad or an old Whitaker. Griffith had more close fights than with just those three, you know.silkov wrote:Emile had close fights with great fighters such as Paret, Rodriguez and Benvenuti... while Oscar struggled against Quartey, Trinidad and an old Whitaker!!
.. but then you rate the golden girl over Joe Walcott amongst others so why am I surprised!! 8) 
...-
elmersalsa
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 15678
- Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50
silkov wrote:Like who Vargas and Mayaorga?? dont make me laugh!... Oscar is a good fighter and decent champ but he's benifited from the multiple titles and mediocre talent, and anyone saying different just hasnt been playing attention...Victor*KC wrote:Not only that even when moved up he still took on the other top fighter's with the exception of Winky WrightDecagon wrote:At 147, the best fighters were Felix Trinidad, Pernell Whitaker, Shane Mosley and Ike Quartey. Oscar fought all of them, plus Oba Carr, Julio Cesar Chavez, Wilfredo Rivera and Hector Camacho. While I'm no fan of his opposition at 130, 135 and 140, anyone who complains about who he fought at 147 is an idiot.
You hit it right on the nose, silkov.
DeLaHoya is not even a top 40 welterweight to begin with. Plus, he also had been helped by the media that blown him up very high. I do not even considered him a top 20 lightweight and that was his best weight class of his whole career.-
elmersalsa
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 15678
- Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50
Ambling Alp wrote:No I don't think that everyone that doesn't rank Leonard #2 is automatically anti-Leonard. However, it's pretty obvious that there is a lot of anti-Leonard sentiment on this forum. Many people rate fighters that they like higher than those that they don't.silkov wrote:Leonard didnt do enough at 147 to merit number 2 imo... look at his 147 record compared with say Armstrong, Robinson, Gavilan, and Napoles??.... Armstrong made 20+ defences at 147!.... nothing to sneeze at...Ezzard wrote: Alp
There's a great argument for Leonard at #2, no doubt... But do you really think that anyone who doesn't rank him #2 is by definition anti-Leonard? Come on, leave the details for a moment and look at the competition...
Napoles, Griffith, Walker, Armstrong are all P4P greats...
IMO ranking is all about subjective opinion. Sometimes I think we react emotionally to a fighter and construct an argument to convince ourselves after the fact.
You ask to look at the detail, ok lets compare Leonard to Gavilan, Griffith, Napoles, Armstrong and Walker.
Gavilan- Lost to someone named Doug Ratford twice. The guy had a losing career record. I have never heard anyone mention this. If this Leonard ever lost to someone like that, you would hear about it constantly.
Gavilan also draws wioth Tyler and Burton, neither were anywhere near great fighters.
Naploes lost to Billy Backus. Imagine if Leonard would have lost to someone like that.
Armstrong did have a lot of title defenses, but as Decagon pointed out most were not against top fighters. Armstrong only beat 5 ranked welterweights in his career. He lost to Zivic twice.
Griffith - lost to Paret, a below average champion. In 4 fights with Rodriquez, he was 3-1 but all 4 four fights were close.
Walker? Not even in the same league as Leonard as a welterweight. Walker lost several fights before winning the title. He beat the 37 year old Britton for the title. He lost the title to Latzo, who was a below average champion. Walker isn't a top 20 welterweight.
Leonard only had one loss at welterweight, against Duran which certainly isn't embarrassing. Leonard's wins against Duran,Benitez, and Hearns are much more impressive than the the best wins that Gavilan, Armstrong, Napoles, Griffith or Walker had.
You constantly hear negative comments against Leonard but why is it that you don't hear specific weaknesses of Leonard the fighter? He was fast, accurrate,had heart, had good power, was hard to hit and had a good chin. (He was never knocked down as a welterweight). He was a complete fighter.
The only reasonable arguement that I have seen against him was that he wasn't on top for long as some of the other guys because of the eye injury. However, look what he accomplished in the time that he was on top. It's simply more than anyone besides Robinson.
You got good points, Alp. I do not mind put Leonard at #2 either. He truly was an all time great welterweight by anybody's standards. But I got to give Armstrong the #2 slot at 147. This guy took and cleaned the whole welterweight division, making 11 title defenses in 1939 alone...That is very impressive regardless of the era or quality of opposition he had. And we got to remember he did it in a consistency that few match. Especially, going up and down from lightweight to welterweight constantly, that is wear and tear for any fighter. Plus his record at welterweight as a champion is more impressive than Leonard's. He had a total of 19 title defenses, plus 3 title defenses in one month...That is incredible.
-
elmersalsa
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 15678
- Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50
Indeed, its good to see someone else who knows what theyre talking aboutelmersalsa wrote:silkov wrote:Like who Vargas and Mayaorga?? dont make me laugh!... Oscar is a good fighter and decent champ but he's benifited from the multiple titles and mediocre talent, and anyone saying different just hasnt been playing attention...Victor*KC wrote: Not only that even when moved up he still took on the other top fighter's with the exception of Winky Wright
You hit it right on the nose, silkov.
....unfortunately for many ignorance is bliss and golden balls can do no wrong... what can you do?... I've tried to widen certain peoples perspectives but I think its a lost cause... when someone doesnt know the difference between Cuevas and Mayaorga or compares Griffith with Trinidad then its a lost cause... 8) Actually, Alp, I didn't ask to look at the detail just because I believe that you can construct a very good argument for any of those I mentioned, and you did...Ambling Alp wrote:No I don't think that everyone that doesn't rank Leonard #2 is automatically anti-Leonard. However, it's pretty obvious that there is a lot of anti-Leonard sentiment on this forum. Many people rate fighters that they like higher than those that they don't.silkov wrote:Leonard didnt do enough at 147 to merit number 2 imo... look at his 147 record compared with say Armstrong, Robinson, Gavilan, and Napoles??.... Armstrong made 20+ defences at 147!.... nothing to sneeze at...Ezzard wrote: Alp
There's a great argument for Leonard at #2, no doubt... But do you really think that anyone who doesn't rank him #2 is by definition anti-Leonard? Come on, leave the details for a moment and look at the competition...
Napoles, Griffith, Walker, Armstrong are all P4P greats...
IMO ranking is all about subjective opinion. Sometimes I think we react emotionally to a fighter and construct an argument to convince ourselves after the fact.
You ask to look at the detail, ok lets compare Leonard to Gavilan, Griffith, Napoles, Armstrong and Walker.
Gavilan- Lost to someone named Doug Ratford twice. The guy had a losing career record. I have never heard anyone mention this. If this Leonard ever lost to someone like that, you would hear about it constantly.
Gavilan also draws wioth Tyler and Burton, neither were anywhere near great fighters.
Naploes lost to Billy Backus. Imagine if Leonard would have lost to someone like that.
Armstrong did have a lot of title defenses, but as Decagon pointed out most were not against top fighters. Armstrong only beat 5 ranked welterweights in his career. He lost to Zivic twice.
Griffith - lost to Paret, a below average champion. In 4 fights with Rodriquez, he was 3-1 but all 4 four fights were close.
Walker? Not even in the same league as Leonard as a welterweight. Walker lost several fights before winning the title. He beat the 37 year old Britton for the title. He lost the title to Latzo, who was a below average champion. Walker isn't a top 20 welterweight.
Leonard only had one loss at welterweight, against Duran which certainly isn't embarrassing. Leonard's wins against Duran,Benitez, and Hearns are much more impressive than the the best wins that Gavilan, Armstrong, Napoles, Griffith or Walker had.
You constantly hear negative comments against Leonard but why is it that you don't hear specific weaknesses of Leonard the fighter? He was fast, accurrate,had heart, had good power, was hard to hit and had a good chin. (He was never knocked down as a welterweight). He was a complete fighter.
The only reasonable arguement that I have seen against him was that he wasn't on top for long as some of the other guys because of the eye injury. However, look what he accomplished in the time that he was on top. It's simply more than anyone besides Robinson.
As ever you have made a very good assessment of the relative merits of the fighters. Personally, I don't dwell on the defeats as much as you when ranking because fighters worked under different conditions. I'm not saying you're wrong but in my mind if a guy lost a few on the way up it's no big deal.
I might even put Ray at #2 myself, I'm just not sure... I guess my point is that these guys are all so close that personal preference is all there is to set them apart.
If I had to criticise Leonard's career it would be that it was over-managed to some degree. If he had not retired and stuck around in the mid 80s he might be considered top 5 p4p... It was an amazing time looking back. I could watch Leonard and Hearns fights every night of the week.
I missed 1 letter on retard big wow but atleast learn how to spell Mayorga correctly if your going to insult someonesilkov wrote:If you're gonna call someone a retard its advisable that you spell RETARD correctly!!.Victor*KC wrote:Buzz will your run an IP match with me and that new guy please? Silk is a retart I almost fell of my chair laughing watching the sight of Pipino trying to outbox Hearns
I'm flattered that you've been going through my lists, I'd advise you to delve more in the hope that you may learn something, but unfortunately it seems a bit beyond your mental capacity so just stick with your golden girl tapes and your blissful ignorance if it makes you happy!....
When have you seen Griffith fight? when your going by his KO Ratio to see if he hit hardelmersalsa wrote:That is comparing a Chevette (DLH) vs a Rolls Royce (Griffith)Decagon wrote:Anyway, if you're going to complain about De la Hoya being in the top 20 because of a few close decisions, where does Emile Griffith end up?
http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... ht=#690250
Ok if he was past it by the Hearn's fight was he past it against Angel Espada in the 1st fight you keep asking me if I seen him fight and I said yes In one of your post you said that DLH "He cherry picked a lot of his fights though, even below 147" My question is who did he duck?silkov wrote:Indeed, its good to see someone else who knows what theyre talking aboutelmersalsa wrote:silkov wrote: Like who Vargas and Mayaorga?? dont make me laugh!... Oscar is a good fighter and decent champ but he's benifited from the multiple titles and mediocre talent, and anyone saying different just hasnt been playing attention...
You hit it right on the nose, silkov.
-
elmersalsa
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 15678
- Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50
Grigffith was an oustanding ring technician. He could do it all, except he did not have tha wallop in his punch. I saw his second figh with Paret and some of his clips and he was very strong and skilled in the inside, diffficult to outbox and threw a heavy volume of punches. His stamina was tops, always in great shape, even when he was not at his best, he always seem to have great stamina.Victor*KC wrote:When have you seen Griffith fight? when your going by his KO Ratio to see if he hit hardelmersalsa wrote:That is comparing a Chevette (DLH) vs a Rolls Royce (Griffith)Decagon wrote:Anyway, if you're going to complain about De la Hoya being in the top 20 because of a few close decisions, where does Emile Griffith end up?
http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... ht=#690250
He clearly beat Paret in all 3 fights...They just robbed him in the second fight.
He does not have to KO DLH. He would have hit DLH so many times that DLH would prefer to run to look well and not being KOd by a feather fisted Griffith.
I 've got about a dozen or so fights of Griffith including his fights with Monzon, we're talking here about a man who gave a peak Monzon 2 of his toughest fights, Griffith was in a different league altogether from Delahoya, ...just because you may not have seen him fight or know anything about his opposition doesnt change that fact. Griffith would have played with Delahoya...
Victor, ...I 've got about a dozen or so fights of Griffith including his fights with Monzon, we're talking here about a man who gave a peak Monzon 2 of his toughest fights, Griffith was in a different league altogether from Delahoya, ...just because you may not have seen him fight or know anything about his opposition doesnt change that fact. Griffith would have played with Delahoya...
Well he beat Espada 3 times and Espada was an excellent fighter himself, Cuevas was never a fancy dan but his power broke opponents cheekbones, eyesockets and jaws, Cuevas had a great chin as well at his peak.... he destroyed Harold Weston amongst others, Weston went on to give Hearns and Benitez extremely tough fights... ...Delahoya certainly never fought anyone that hit that hard and if a light puncher like Whitaker could put Oscar down Cuevas would have koed him. As for Trinidad he was floored by just about everyone he faced and he was hardly hard to hit, Cuevas would put him out in 2 rounds.Victor*KC wrote:Ok if he was past it by the Hearn's fight was he past it against Angel Espada in the 1st fight you keep asking me if I seen him fight and I said yes In one of your post you said that DLH "He cherry picked a lot of his fights though, even below 147" My question is who did he duck?silkov wrote:Indeed, its good to see someone else who knows what theyre talking aboutelmersalsa wrote:
You hit it right on the nose, silkov.
To say that the 147 division was weak in the 70s like you did earlier is just silly and simply shows that you dont know much about that era or the fighters in it...
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
Elmer, I don't mean to knock Armstrong, I do have him as my #3 welterweight of all-time. however, Leonard was the better welterweight.elmersalsa wrote:Ambling Alp wrote:No I don't think that everyone that doesn't rank Leonard #2 is automatically anti-Leonard. However, it's pretty obvious that there is a lot of anti-Leonard sentiment on this forum. Many people rate fighters that they like higher than those that they don't.silkov wrote: Leonard didnt do enough at 147 to merit number 2 imo... look at his 147 record compared with say Armstrong, Robinson, Gavilan, and Napoles??.... Armstrong made 20+ defences at 147!.... nothing to sneeze at...
You ask to look at the detail, ok lets compare Leonard to Gavilan, Griffith, Napoles, Armstrong and Walker.
Gavilan- Lost to someone named Doug Ratford twice. The guy had a losing career record. I have never heard anyone mention this. If this Leonard ever lost to someone like that, you would hear about it constantly.
Gavilan also draws wioth Tyler and Burton, neither were anywhere near great fighters.
Naploes lost to Billy Backus. Imagine if Leonard would have lost to someone like that.
Armstrong did have a lot of title defenses, but as Decagon pointed out most were not against top fighters. Armstrong only beat 5 ranked welterweights in his career. He lost to Zivic twice.
Griffith - lost to Paret, a below average champion. In 4 fights with Rodriquez, he was 3-1 but all 4 four fights were close.
Walker? Not even in the same league as Leonard as a welterweight. Walker lost several fights before winning the title. He beat the 37 year old Britton for the title. He lost the title to Latzo, who was a below average champion. Walker isn't a top 20 welterweight.
Leonard only had one loss at welterweight, against Duran which certainly isn't embarrassing. Leonard's wins against Duran,Benitez, and Hearns are much more impressive than the the best wins that Gavilan, Armstrong, Napoles, Griffith or Walker had.
You constantly hear negative comments against Leonard but why is it that you don't hear specific weaknesses of Leonard the fighter? He was fast, accurrate,had heart, had good power, was hard to hit and had a good chin. (He was never knocked down as a welterweight). He was a complete fighter.
The only reasonable arguement that I have seen against him was that he wasn't on top for long as some of the other guys because of the eye injury. However, look what he accomplished in the time that he was on top. It's simply more than anyone besides Robinson.
You got good points, Alp. I do not mind put Leonard at #2 either. He truly was an all time great welterweight by anybody's standards. But I got to give Armstrong the #2 slot at 147. This guy took and cleaned the whole welterweight division, making 11 title defenses in 1939 alone...That is very impressive regardless of the era or quality of opposition he had. And we got to remember he did it in a consistency that few match. Especially, going up and down from lightweight to welterweight constantly, that is wear and tear for any fighter. Plus his record at welterweight as a champion is more impressive than Leonard's. He had a total of 19 title defenses, plus 3 title defenses in one month...That is incredible.
Armstrong didn't clean out the welterweight division by any means. He didn't beat Burley,Williams, Cocoa Kid etc. While he made an impressive amount of title defenses, most of them were not against legitimate contenders. Only 4 were against ranked fighters. None of those four were remotely in Leonard's class.
Leonard had 3 huge wins at welterweight- Benitez, Duran, Hearns. Beating a large quantity of ordinary fighters doesn't even compare to this.
Armstrong only has one win (Ross) at welterweight that compares to this.
Armstrong also lost twice to Zivic, while Leonard only lost once at welter to Duran who was certainly better than Zivic.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
It's fair enough to criticize a few of De La Hoya's perfromances in fights, but to say that his he has "cherry picked" his opponents is absolutely ridiculaus.
At 147, he fought Trinidad, Quartey and Moseley in their primes. They were the best opponents available.
None of these 3 ever fought each other, yet De La Hoya fought all 3.
He gets criticized by some for fighting chavez and Whitaker when they were past their primes. However, it's not De La hoya's fault that they were past it when he fought them. While both Chavez or Whitaker were past their best by the time De La Hoya came up, they were still quality opponents. De La Hoya certainly could have found easier opponents.
It's true that De La Hoya didn't fight Tzyu. However, it's quite a stretch to say De La Hoya ducked him. De La Hoya was only in that weight class for a year. De La hoya was a welterweight for fours years. Tzyu had all of that time to move up and fight De La Hoya.
De La hoya fought several fighters that weren't great but were pretty good; Camacho, Gatti, Hernandez, Molina, Ruelas, Rivera, Gonzalez, Carr. He fought very few tomato cans since he has been a top fighter.
This isn't considering his fights above 147 against Moseley, Castillejo, Campas, Vargas, Mayorga, even Hopkins. Now at the age of 34, (which is older than Whitaker and chavez were when they foguht De La Hoya) he going to fight the fighter regarded as pound for pound the best in the world.
For those who say De La hoya has cherry picked his opponents, what fighter since the mid 1990's, (When De La Hoya became a top fighter) has fought anywhere near the competition that De La Hoya has ?
Who else is even remotely close?
At 147, he fought Trinidad, Quartey and Moseley in their primes. They were the best opponents available.
None of these 3 ever fought each other, yet De La Hoya fought all 3.
He gets criticized by some for fighting chavez and Whitaker when they were past their primes. However, it's not De La hoya's fault that they were past it when he fought them. While both Chavez or Whitaker were past their best by the time De La Hoya came up, they were still quality opponents. De La Hoya certainly could have found easier opponents.
It's true that De La Hoya didn't fight Tzyu. However, it's quite a stretch to say De La Hoya ducked him. De La Hoya was only in that weight class for a year. De La hoya was a welterweight for fours years. Tzyu had all of that time to move up and fight De La Hoya.
De La hoya fought several fighters that weren't great but were pretty good; Camacho, Gatti, Hernandez, Molina, Ruelas, Rivera, Gonzalez, Carr. He fought very few tomato cans since he has been a top fighter.
This isn't considering his fights above 147 against Moseley, Castillejo, Campas, Vargas, Mayorga, even Hopkins. Now at the age of 34, (which is older than Whitaker and chavez were when they foguht De La Hoya) he going to fight the fighter regarded as pound for pound the best in the world.
For those who say De La hoya has cherry picked his opponents, what fighter since the mid 1990's, (When De La Hoya became a top fighter) has fought anywhere near the competition that De La Hoya has ?
Who else is even remotely close?
I'm not saying you're not truthful in your opinion,but I find that hard to believe,because win or lose,DelaHoya faced them all.Plus as much a fan of Tzyu that I was,he packed it in and quit on his stool out of frustration in my mind,against Hatton.Not hurt,abused,busted up,just frustrated over Hatton's choice of style for that fight.The hold,grab,hit,hold,hit technique just flustered him.Greats don't quit like that.Like Roy JOnes Jr,an excellent fighter,who when faced with adversity,give it up.He wasn't being abused in the first Tarver fight,just outhustled,and when Tarver didn't succumb to the legendary speed/power of Jones,Jones was boggled,and received a gift decision the 1st time.Kind of like Tyson against Holyfield.I'm planning on writing something soon here about Tyson,(just a personal observation).Some of these guys appear "world beaters"until somebody takes their punch,speed,offense,and stands up to them,they fall apart.enrique wrote:De La Hoya ducked Tzyu.
zuru
Maybe your confusing me with someone else I never said that the 70's division was weak or did I say Dlh could beat a Prime Griffith BTW Whitaker did Knock him down but it's not like he seriously had him hurt or anything Mayorga landed an uppercut on Dlh in the 3rd round that would of easily of dropped Mw 's and SMW'ssilkov wrote:Well he beat Espada 3 times and Espada was an excellent fighter himself, Cuevas was never a fancy dan but his power broke opponents cheekbones, eyesockets and jaws, Cuevas had a great chin as well at his peak.... he destroyed Harold Weston amongst others, Weston went on to give Hearns and Benitez extremely tough fights... ...Delahoya certainly never fought anyone that hit that hard and if a light puncher like Whitaker could put Oscar down Cuevas would have koed him. As for Trinidad he was floored by just about everyone he faced and he was hardly hard to hit, Cuevas would put him out in 2 rounds.Victor*KC wrote:Ok if he was past it by the Hearn's fight was he past it against Angel Espada in the 1st fight you keep asking me if I seen him fight and I said yes In one of your post you said that DLH "He cherry picked a lot of his fights though, even below 147" My question is who did he duck?silkov wrote: Indeed, its good to see someone else who knows what theyre talking about
To say that the 147 division was weak in the 70s like you did earlier is just silly and simply shows that you dont know much about that era or the fighters in it...