Who In History Goes Through De La Hoya's Resume Undefeated?

It's a good thread cos' it shows how unrealistic it is to see certain fighters as invincible and over-emphasis the undefeated thing.

The main contenders I can think of for getting through De la Hoya's opponants undefeated would be: Mayweather, Duran and Robinson.

But really I think no one could do it. Realistically who could possibly come from 130 or below and beat Hopkins, not to mention the rest of them.

 

Zab Judah :hey:hey

 

No one would have a chance at going through his career path exactly as it was undefeated. So we may as well speculate on who would have the best chance of beating all the guys at the business end of his resume, 140+.

 

Why at 140+? Isn't that the point though, to see who could fight that many great fighters at such a broad weight range and beat 'em all? If you take the weight equation out of it doesn't it just become a standard p4p type scenario. I am no Mayweather fan but in my mind I think Mayweather has to be a hot favourite just based on how consistent and adaptable he is. Could he perceivably beat Hopkins at 156 or 158 or whatever the catchweight was? Maybe.

 

This thread is actually bull****.

De La Hoya although ballsy, was a guy who fought tests beyond his capacity.

Fighters who are undefeated are always undefeated for a reason. They know their limits and they know tests that they can take and what risks are plausible enough for them to get through. Being undefeated and wanting to remain undefeated as a fighter makes a fighter make different career choices.

I think DeLaHoya was never an "undefeated" fighter in that sense. It seems to me that Oscar was just a showman.

I mean in all seriousness, you can do that with certain fighters and ask who comes out unscathed but I mean...who seriously thought DLH would beat B-Hop?

He lost didnt he?...

If Pacquiao decided to take on Vitali Klitschko and lost in a surprisingly longer bout than expected, would people be spouting **** like "who can come out of Pacquiao's career undefeated...o yea...there's Vitali K in the way."

Minus B-Hop and there's a pretty good list of possibilities.

 

What? What you're saying is ridiculous. You're clearly a product of the current marketability driven era of boxing where its not about fighting the best but about managing one's career to earn the most money. Protecting people's 0's is about giving a fighter the air of invincibility whilst limiting the risk. No one is trying to make excuses for De La Hoya losing. You are suggesting that fighters should only fight people they are sure they can beat. Oscar pushed himself to see what he could achieve, obviously he was going to step beyond his physical capabilities as some point. People said Pac coming up to 147 was insane, but look what happened there. A fighter that remains undefeated after a long career essentially means the fighter is invincible around that weight or that they haven't fought all the worthy opponants. I can't think of too many of the former.

 

Cotto hasnt retired yet so I'd reserve bull**** comments like this. (Nice subtle way to try and "attack" me) He's already said he'd fight him, but Arum wont allow it. Cotto hasnt ever ducked anyone. Get off that ****.

Marciano was a guy who fought the best at a time when the best werent AT THEIR BEST! Get off that ****.

Oscar was a showman period. He seemed very ego-driven. Once he lost, he lost the the sorta fear that drives fighters from real tests.

Honestly...If Mayweather had lost to Castillo many moons ago in their first fight, I'd guarantee you he would've fought Mosley, Cotto, Margarito and everyone else who was willing...plus whoever else at higher weight classes. Because there's really nothing else to lose and only everything to gain from proving your the best.

Do you think DeLaHoya would've taken the same tests he has had he NOT lost to Trinidad?

 

I never suggested that. I suggested that the mindset of an undefeated fighter is to take on tests he knows are within his capability.

THE MINDSET!

Oscar took some of his toughest challenges AFTER he lost to Trinidad.

Whittaker and Quartey would tough, but I think there's a few that would be able to do it.

You would also have to consider in this thread that your using a specified weight range in which not many of the greatest fighters started from and expanded to. This thread was sorta doomed to make DLH look good because of this. I actually think Duran would have a pretty damn good shot and it would be more impressive considering he started at 118.

Pacquiao started too small. Floyd is close, but is too small as well. Robinson fought in a totally different era that's bull**** to even compare to now. Leonard is a guy that might have been able to do it. Duran might've.

 

Well for Robinson, that probably has something to do with him fighting every couple of weeks. Losses meant far less back then than they do now, because of the enormously high activity rate of the fighters. And most of his losses came when he was ancient.

Robinson would go through Oscar's career undefeated, and I feel like the only threats to that would be Hopkins and Mosley [in the first fight].

 

So are you saying that Hoya's loss was good in that it made him go on and fight better quality opponants or bad because it made him take on guys that were too good/big for him?

This thread isn't about making DLH look good - lets face it, the guy lost six times - it's about comparing how other fighters would stack up against each other vs his resume. So yes, they would need to be near his weight range.

Leonard wouldn't make 130.