Top 10 fighters of past 30 years from light to middle.

wrong again, duran beat leonard and then lost:yep hardly a show of dominance at 147. duran once agan did not defend any title he won successfully past 135:deal

 

and once again *** boy how many successful title defenses did duran have after 135:deal

after december 8th floyd will have matched all of duran's title defenses. so a guy who has had 12 title defenses in 39 fights compared to a guy who had 12 in over 120 fights and you can get the picture of who was fighting at a championship level throughout more of their career.

 

I never said Duran dominated 147, I said he was recognized as "the man" at 147 after he beat Sugar Ray Leonard.

 

But using that logic, you could claim Joe Calzaghe is the greater fighter than Mayweather by saying "after November 3rd, Calzaghe will have 21 title defenses (10 more than Floyd) in 44 fights. So a guy who has had 21 title defenses in 44 fights compared to a guy who has 11 title defenses in 38 fights, you can get the picture of who was fighting at a championship level throughout more of their career."

 

What's your response to this bigtime...other than calling me a name?

 

Oscar was a brilliant fighter in his pomp, his only two defeats in his prime were razor thin losses to prime Trinidad and Mosley. Nobody could touch de la Hoya at 135 or 140, and he did all this despite the pressure of being a media darling and a can't miss star from the moment he turned pro.

Tommy was great fun and my favourite fighter of the 80s, but unlike de la Hoya, The Motor City Cobra did choke a couple of times in big fights in his pomp.

Hopkins was blue collar Hagleresque star of the late 90s/early 2000s, but he lacked the true star quality of de la Hoya, although by being so solid he runs Oscar close.

Jones get stung for whatever reason missing out on potential career defining fights. I think in the years to come, Jones will regret wasting his pomp fighting the likes of Antonio Byrd.... Jones should be up there with Robinson, Armstrong and Duran, instead he struggles to prove he is a Great IMO.

Whitaker was another very solid name in the 90s, but his style although a purist's dream was never going top take him to the level of a de la Hoya. Also unlucky in that his pomp at 135 lacked a fight with a massive superstar, but unlike Jones that was not Whitaker's fault.

 

I think you forget Mayweather has been at the top of this sport for nine years now, he is the dominant fighter of this era. So to not rate the best fighter of the last nine years in the best fighters of the last 30 years, would not just be a slap in the face of the narcistic Lil Floyd, but this entire era with all its brilliant fighters.

 

De La Hoya's competition wasn't great at 135 or 140

Take a look at De La Hoya's biggest fights vs. Trinidad, Mosley 1 and 2, Mayweather, and Hopkins. He is 0-5.

Star quality should not be factored in when determining a fighter's greatness.

Jones not only proved he was a great, but he proved he was an ATG. He defeated James Toney, Bernard Hopkins, Mike McCallum, Virgil Hill, John Ruiz, Antonio Tarver, etc. All in all, he has defeated more than 15 world champions and had 18 title defenses. People underrate Roy's competition.

Whitaker was easilly greater than Oscar De La Hoya.

 

de la Hoya dominated at 135 and 140 and fought everyone could and he beat them well.

IMO star quality needs to be taken into account when factoring greatness. Without star quality there would not be a full time heavyweight in the top 100. de la Hoya was for or better or worse the icon of his era and one of the few worldwide stars in boxing in that time period.

If you want to put Tommy above Oscar I have no problem with that, I really liked Hearns in the 80s, but as much as I dislike de la Hoya I do recognize that was greater than Hearns.

Jones blew it, he avoided for whatever reason the likes of Benn, Eubank, Collins and Michalczweski. Like I stated I think 50 years down the road, history will look at Jones' career and shake its head. Jones had it all, but dropped the ball somewhere along the way. How can someone so good not even win a World Championship in a non racist era?:huh

Whitaker was a fine technican and a phenom of his era, but he lacked the qualities to become a superstar and spent his career post 93 in de la Hoya's shadow to the mainstream fans.

Yes we as hardcore can rant and rave about him, he was amazing, but if a casual fan has of heard of him, I suspect sadly it maybe for his out of ring problerms.

 

Why so??? Do you agree with bigtime's list???

 

You are far too subjective. It's your list, but you certainly add in qualities that you can give and take away anytime you choose. You talk about fighters losing their big matches, but don't count that against DLH. You count the fighters Jones didn't fight (and not the ones he did) but not the ones DLH didn't fight. Realize that Jones has beaten just as many ATG as DLH did and more impressively. Jones certainly didn't drop the ball, he just didn't carry it as far as he could have considering his talent.

We are talking about the best fighters, not the best entertainers. Whitaker is a far better fighter than DLH as shown by their match with a prime DLH and past it Whitaker.

 

You have said that you hold Hearns losses in big fights against him, but how about De La Hoya? The man has gone 0-5 in his 5 biggest fights. Hearns easilly beat a past-his-prime Roberto Duran while De La Hoya easilly beat a past-his-prime Julio Cesar Chavez. Hearns defeated defensive master Wilfred Benitez more convincingly than De La Hoya's win over Pernell Whitaker.

Is there any denying that Thomas Hearns would have beaten Oscar De La Hoya at 147?

 

I pointed out de la Hoya lost two very close fights in his pomp.

de la Hoya met everyone he could that was worth fighting, Jones did not.

Jones has never beaten an all time great IMO, de la Hoya has beaten Chavez (twice) and Whitaker.

Whitaker was amazing, I pointed that out; but if even some hardcore fans had little time for him, it is no wonder he never reached the superstar status of de la Hoya, hence de la Hoya gets the edge.

I can understand people being idealistic, de la Hoya was certainly in part a media creation and that annoys people and they want to destroy that creation. I do not much like myself, I think de la Hoya is very arrogant, but I can see that he has some charm and that will attract casual fans, and not being the ugliest boxer of all-time I guess also helped him attract another market.

For the record I have de la Hoya as my #22 best of all-time, Whitaker #23, so basically very even.

 

Just done an even better job!:hey

 

So to you, James Toney and Hopkins are not ATG? And I suppose that McCallum isn't either?

No, DLH didn't meet everyone he could that was worth fighting. See, there you go trying to be subjective and leaving things to a very wide interpretation. I don't recall his fight with KT at 140. I don't recall him unifying a single division, meaning he skipped champions in nearly every weight class.

Superstar status means nothing. It has little to do with how good a fighter you are.

DLH is not even top 50 all time on most lists.

It's your list. All I am saying is you are not consistant. Jones lost NO fights in his prime in the ring. Whitaker fought great competition and is a far better fighter, if not entertainer. Nearly every reputable list has him ahead of DLH.

You say you don't like DLH....but you seem to give him the benefit of the doubt in every way possible, while downgrading other fighters for things you don't acknowledge as weaknesses of DLH.