Oscar de la hoya is not an atg

I agree. His losses to the elites he faced has to be weighed in. It's simply not good enough to simply fight someone and get credit for. If you don't win it's held against you. Not to mention him calling out Pac and pushing for this fight only to quit on his stool to a much smaller man. That's right there destroys his legacy completly.:deal

 

Maybe he lost in his prime against Mosley and Trinidad but those two cheated big time, so - 3 loses for De la Hoya. Credit to Pacquiao but De la Hoya was old, still a good fighter. In the Hopkins fight he was the smaller man so no shame to lose against Hopkins.

 

Any non biased intelligent boxing fan who watched Oscar's fights knows that if you score a fight round by round he clearly beat Trinidad. He also beat Mosley in the second fight. He did however lose to Sturm. Aside from his venture north of 154 where he clearly didn't belong, he was an excellent fighter.

There is always someone out there ready to base a fighters whole legacy on their last past it performance.

 

DLH was dominant for a good part of his prime years as he once held the title of P4P#1 in the world.

He beat legends and great fighters in his day. Beating Whitaker, Quartey, JCC, Camacho, Vargas and staying compettive in all close fights against Tito, Shane, Bhop ect are also very telling and helps his legacy even in loosing.

ATG isn't even a question for DLH...he's in there like swim wear.

 

Regardless of how DLH lost his fight with Tito...it was evident he was the better boxer...it's his championship mentality that was put in to questions with how he decided to finish a fight where he was outclassing anther ATG in Tito Trinidad.

 

We can talk about resume, but isn't ATG status supposed to be about beating other great fighters in their prime?

And, let me bring another thing to light. Why so much importance on gaining belts in different weight classes? It would seem that fighters going up in weight as they age is a natural phenomenon. Or, more modernly, it is something brought to the forefront as a, "very special, rare accomplishment." So, this is special when fighters start their young careers and taking great advantage of their youth and ability to drain weight before a weigh in, only to come into the ring 10-20 lbs heavier?

What sort of accomplishment is this, to a fighter who comes into the ring 2-5 lbs heavier and is fighting at their natural weight, or a fighter who has to bulk up his natural frame in order to fight at a heavier weight?


I don't think anybody questions Oscars resume. I tend to believe he deserves ATG status without much thought, but when I start considering the things mentioned above, a little doubt starts to come to mind.

 

DLH is a farce IMO, his early career was marked by him wining the shitty WBOGUS title which all of sudden is legit just because he holds ( Bull ****) He had a good run at WW and is a star, that being said he isn't all that great but he was a huge star, maybe a top 100 fighter at best, to hear people say his resume was as good as RJJ and how he is as good as him was a joke :rofl

 

I agree, DLH was a good fighter but not an ATG.

He lost way too many fights against elite opposition to be an ATG.

People on here also throw around the ATG tag too much.

 

It's not easy to get an ATG status...its more prestigious than the Hall of Fame. For me being an ATG is about your career and accomplishments. It's about who you faught, who you beat, how you beat them and longevity.

DLH has longevity...he has a list of good to great fighters who all have lost...and the only one's to beat DLH has been future ATG's themselves. DLH without a doubt has the credentials and has done enough in his career to warrant that status.