The fighters with most potential decision changing fights on their resume

De La Hoya is always interesting to ponder in this regard. He got some decisions he didn't deserve, and lost some others which he did deserve. But for the sake of his legacy I think they were often the wrong way round. I suspect if you offered Oscar a chance to magically change the past and turn his wins against Whitaker and Sturm to losses, but at the same time change those losses against Trinidad and Mosley (II) to wins, he'd happily take it and I think he'd be more highly rated with those results, too.

Nobody would have held it against him if he'd have lost a tight, mildly disputed verdict against Whitaker, or only managed a draw (which is as kind as I could personally be to him for that fight). Pea was faded by 1997, but still just about had some pound for pound credentials and even if you think he lost, you'd have to concede that Oscar kept it close and was hardly disgraced. Likewise, against Sturm it was clear that Oscar was just well past his best and clearly too small to be effective as a Middleweight - no big deal to lose there. He got those two victories undeservedly for me (again I'll stress - the Whitaker fight was close) but the irony is that he got the favourable judging in those fights when he really didn't need it.

On the other hand, he desperately needed and deserved it against Trinidad and the Mosley in their rematch in my opinion, and got it neither time. Both of those defeats are WAY more damaging to his legacy (and his pride, I suspect) than Whitaker and Sturm would have been. They were his contemporaries in all senses, men with whom he'd been on collision courses for years and, crucially, guys who he'd often been seen as superior to, and expected to take care of business against. Regardless of his horrendous tactics in rounds 10-12, he still beat Trinidad in my opinion, in a fight which everyone knew beforehand was likely to define the legacy of both men, and though he lost to Shane first time out I also think he won the rematch reasonably clearly. It's an uncomfortable blotch on his record to be 0-2 against him given he's usually rated the higher of the pair on overall career achievements.

A couple of Johnsons to mention, too, both Reggie and Glen. Reggie should never have been 0-4 against Castro x 2, John David Jackson and Toney but somehow ended up with that ledger against them. Switch it to something like 3-1 (which it easily could have been) and all of a sudden his record looks totally different and a lot more reflective of how good a fighter he was. As for Glen, I had him beating Ottke, Dawson in their first fight and also thought he was unlucky to only share his three-fight series with Woods. Turn two or three of them into deserved wins with better judges and once again you start getting a better gauge of what a good fighter he was.

 

Jimmy Young had many controversial fights. Not only his two decisive defeats against Ali and Norton and the controversial draw against Shavers, but also many other fights (Ossie Ocasio twice .....).
Carmen Basilo also had many close, hard-fought and great fights.
An unknown boxer, for example, is Hans Schömig 41-26-18.

 

Griffith had quite a few close ones. Giardello too. El Feo as well.

 

Ali had plenty of close ones as he aged too.

 

Fres Oquendo

Yacqui Lopez

Jesse Burnett

 

Gaspar Ortega

 

Paulie Ayala had some controversial decisions go in his favour in big fights.

 

I've posted this before but I always thought Hagler should of been 65-1-1. He clearly beat Antofurmo the first time as well as Watts. He should of won a close decision against SRL

 

It can reasonably argued he's 1-2 against Norton.

 

Ray Leonard.

He lost to both Hearns and Hagler. People point to his wins over them ( or draw) as proof of his greatness.

His real record is a Loss to Duran, and then a win by walk away - Hearn's was beating him till he got caught in the first fight, and then Hearns won a rematch ( although they made it a draw)

Hagler was shafted , although it was close ( because he was shot) But most observers that study boxing give it to Hagler.

This all leads to people thinking he was the greatest of the Fab 4, when in fact he was the least. He was BEATEN by Duran, Hearns and Hagler. I cannot think of anyone else more over rated because of questionable decisions that went their way.

 

Great point. You hear more about Locche's "undeserved" decisions than Monzon's.

 

Joe Grimm would be the greatest fighter ever if all his losses to big names were reversed. Len Wickwar would have quite the record, too.

 

Rocky Lockridge ....if he had gotten the decision against Eusebio Pedroza...Wilfredo Gomez...and Julio Cesar Chavez ....we would be talking about an all time great fighter ....and all of those fights were close