People call all kinds of fighters that are great, but not really ALL-TIME greats, ATGs. It's pretty ridiculous. The rest is the term has less and less meaning.
meh, it's very debatable both mosley fights were close, could have gone either way, and shane was juicing tito - we all know what happened there ( i had ODLH ahead) hop - yeah, loss (his only KO loss) floyd - SD (although I think he straight up lost) pac - shouldn' have even been fighting, thus shouldn't really negatively affect his status now, i'm sure this thread will either die, or get ugly, so i'm out
The fights with Mosley, and his complete throwaway of the Trinidad fight are the most debated of his losses. He clearly lost the first fight with Shane, and the second could have gone either way, IMO, although some of his cronies will tell you he won that by 3 rounds minimum. He was also gifted a decision against Sturm, which he clearly lost. The Trinidad debacle was unforgivable. Those fights aside, who were his best wins? Vargas, Quartay and a past prime Whitaker? Hardly the stuff of ATG's.
It depends on how you mean ATG. Top 10 ATG or Top 100 ATG? Oscar is an ATG. For comparison: Sugar Ray Robinson: Wins: 175 Losses: 19 Draws: 6 Win %: 87.5 Oscar De La Hoya: Wins: 39 Losses: 6 Draws: 0 Win %: 86.7 Say what you want but Oscar fought alot of great fighters and all but 2 losses could have gone either way in judges scorecards. 6 titles in 6 weight divisions (5 recognized titles), 1992 Olympic Gold medalist. What more do you need?
