Read an debate that went on in another site saying a serious case could be made for Oscar if he never lost. Well would he? It would have been a shocking resume.
I would have to say that he would be very very close... Certainly the best post-Ali/Leonard era. How he won the fights he lost would also matter.
Oscar resumes have a ton of great names on there but he never really dominated some of those big names is what hurt him. I always thought that even though you're great, when you're fighting another great it's just going to be a 50/50 fight. Now I know that if you're great, you can destroy another great if you're just that good. If Oscar had destroyed all his opponents, he'd be a legend.
stupid question,, if tito trinidad doesnt lose to hopkins and then goes on to beat hopkins he could be the GOAT but that's a lot of ifs and ifs and ifs :hat
No.. you are ******ed and should go drive your ****ing dick into a cement mixer. Let me educate your moronic Puta ass on why the posters above you answered seriously and why this topic was subject to debate on various sites. Oscar's resume is always up for debate and 'what if's because he's probably the only fighter of the recent era who fought such a deep line of opponents that a case for #1 could be made if he won them all. If Tito beat Hopkins, he's still no where near 'GOAT', you are delusional if you think that makes him 'Goat'. Even if Tito went on to beat WRIGHT and a shot Jones. He's no where near top 25 even.
Wins over PAC, mayweather, Hopkins, pea, Chavez, Mosely, trinidad... Yes. But then I think there's a few fighters this could be applied to
His resume is really strong anyway, despite having a few losses. If he'd awarded the victory he deserved over Tito, beat the middleweight champion in Bernard Hopkins, then beaten two pound-for-pound kings in Manny and Mayweather, then hell yeah, he'd be the best of all time.
He has a top, top resume - win or lose. It could definitely be debated that he would be up there with the very, very best if he had never lost. But, if is an important word. If Sugar Ray Robinson had never lost, would he be the GOAT? Wait...
He would be up there near the 1-10 ranking if he did. But you can say that about anyone. Imagine if Hearns won all his fights. Beat Leonard in 1981 and then Hagler in 1985 and was undisputed at both weights? Those two wins make the difference with Hearns being probably near 25-30 ATG now, to top 5-10 ATG. But look who he had to beat to get it. I always said what makes a great fighter is beating greats. Which is why I always say that Duran is not 1-10 ATG like some people think. People get upset with me for saying it, but I honestly believe that Duran lacks the wins against legends/fellow ATG fighters to be 1-10 ATG. I just cannot see how he ranks that high regardless of the excuses he had. To be fair, most fighters do. Which is why I think Leonard meets the criteria, regardless of having a very short career compared to most ATG fighters. He packed in great names in a short time.
