Oscar De La Hoya Better Career Than Sugar Ray Leonard?

Yes. Leonards resume is very short compared to most people he's being compared to who don't fight in the current era. De La Hoya has exactly twice as many 12 rounders 28-6 to 13-3-1.

The "Big 4" in general are overrated compared to guys in their weight classes over the last 40 years and that's really what this is about. Leonard is 5-1-1 against Hagler, Hearns, Benitez and Duran. He doesn't have much else but if you rate that group as high as many do it doesn't matter.

De La Hoya's resume has it's weaknesses here. Leonard had a cup of coffee at LHW while De La Hoya had one at MW. De La Hoya was a larger man who started his career at 130 and lost to his 6 best opponents at WW or up while Leonard beat most of his best opponents. I think Hopkins, Trinidad, Floyd, Mosley, Manny are as a group and era better than Leonard's opponents and era so it doesn't matter but if you don't share that assessment I can see how one would have Leonard higher.

I think De La Hoya fought in the best 147/154 era, Leonard's fans think Leonard did and that really changes everything. If someone decides a fighters 5 best wins are the best 5 opponents anyone's ever beaten(H2H or P4P) well the whole arguments off the table. Look at the people who think Usyk's the best fighter ever. They think Fury, Joshua and Dubois are the three best HW's H2H anyone's ever beaten and thus beating them under any circumstances is a valid substitute for a resume.

 

Oscar won more belts but SRL beat some absolutely legendary fighters. With Duran, Hearns and Hagler, you are talking about a top three all time best lightweight, welterweight and middleweight. Oscar beat an aging Chavez and Camacho and arguably lost his other two biggest wins with Quartey and Whitaker.

I'm a big fan of both but Leonards prime was way more high level. One ironic thing about both is their two best fight were controversial an career defining. I thought Ray lost to Hagler and I thought Oscar beat Tito. Those two decisions change their legacies big time if flipped.

 

Heelllll Noooo! De La Hoya very good fighter but not on same level as SRL one of the top P4P fighters ever.

 

How are the top lightweight, welterweight, junior middleweight, and middleweight overrated in their own weight classes? I understand favoring certain fighters over them like Robbi or McCallum, but calling them overrated is a bit much imo.

 

Hell no and this is foolish to even speculate.

Leonard beat Benitez who was unbeaten.
Leonard beat Hearns who was unbeaten.
Leonard beat Kalue beat who was unbeaten.

Now he beat Hagler who hadnt lost in years.
And he beat Duran.

Four of these boxers are considered among the greatest boxers who ever laced up boxing gloves.
There is absolutely no comparison.

 

I usually have sympathy with quantity in the quantity vs quality debate, but not in this scenario. Their collective 4 x best wins all belong to SRL. The Hagler and Hearns wins are way ahead of ODLH's best win.

Two great fighters, but Ray clearly the greater, imo.

 

Leonard never beat a prime great.

Beat fat Duran
Beat green too light Hearns
Beat untrained Benitez
Beat shot Hagler

 

It's gotta be SRL
Hagler,Kalule,Hearns,Duran and Benitez had a combined record of 240-3 and 3 draws when SRL beat them
Kalule, Benitez,Hearns had never lost before. Duran and Hagler had not lost in over 10 years

 

Ray Leonard career is better and its really not close.
Though I'm a big fan of Hoya, his best wins were Vargas, Quartey, Vasquez, and Carr. All four were good fighters but not great.
The 3 great fighters he did beat, Whitaker , Chavez Sr, and Camacho in my opinion he shouldn't get a lot of credit for because each were past prime, just like Mayweather Jr. Pac, and Hopkins shouldn't get a lot of credit for beating him.
And the Whitaker win could've easily been a Loss.
The two prime vs prime ATG'S he did face , he lost too. Mosley (twice, but probably once) and Trinidad.
Mosely and Trinidad were excellent boxers and are ATG's , but both fighters had glaring flaws
I don't believe either of those two beat Benitez, Hagler, Duran, or Hearns, ( Especially Hearns) and Kalule would be a challenge for both of them.
It's really simple. Other than Ray Robinson, ( And that's because of the length of his dominance, not because of the quality at welterweight )
No welterweight in history defeated the quality of prime ATG's that Leonard did.
He is the 2nd best welterweight in history, and if wasn't for the eye injury, and the downward spiral he had after it. He'd would arguably be in the G.O.A.T category.
In my opinion he would've beaten Hagler as early as 1982. And after him who else?

 

Whilst I concur, Ray just didn't have the quantity to be in with a GOAT discussion - on talent and H2H you can argue that all day long, but on pure ring record, he would probably need to beat Hagler before '85 and have several successful defences, Inclusive of a successful defence against Marv as champion - do that and then there's a conversation. Personally, I don't think Leonard beats Hagler without seeing what Duran did in the ring. Prior to that, Hagler is too good and still posseses that aura of domination, in my book.

Top tier wins for SRL is fantastic but then amount of top tier opponents faced and beaten doesn't get him over Charles, Langford and especially Greb for me - Robbi and Armstrong's records and achievements speak for themselves.

 

Hagler won that fight. You cannot win rounds for tappy taps at the end.
And he only won vs Hearns cause Hearns got tired.

 

He did not beat Hagler, Hagler won that fight.
And Duran was not 100 %, so that win is meaningless.