Leonard got the decisions and De La Hoya did not

I got no prob wit cats who say DLH is an ATG. He still accomplished a lot. But he did squander some big fights. He also got robbed on a couple of em too. But no way he's equal to SRL. No, just no.

I agree that SRL is better at almost every aspect of the game and even if DLH had won those decisions Leonards resume still shits on Oscars. I dont believe any WW in history tho makes easy work of a prime DLH. The only chance Leonard has at stopping DLH is to get him tired and TKO him late, because while you can argue DLH isnt an ATG his chin most definitely is.

Leonard was a class above DLH and always will be. I thought Hagler got screwed in their fight but the Hearns fight isn't relevant IMO since both were way past prime. In there primes Leonard stopped him.

He should have lost to Whitaker and Quartey also. I thought he should have won Mosley 2 but still glad he lost, and he deserved to lose the Trinidad fight because he fought like a coward.

DLH got controversial decisions against Whitaker, Quartey, and Sturm. The main difference between these two golden boys is that Leonard had his big wins that weren't controversial decisions against great fighters before he became a part-time fighter, and started getting controversial decisions in his favor. Leonard stopped Benitez in a fight he was clearly winning, made Duran quit, and stopped Hearns. Benitez and Hearns were undefeated and Duran was 72-1. DLH doesn't have non-controversial wins of this caliber. His best non-controversial wins are over the likes of Vargas and Ruelas. Huge difference. Co-sign........

Man, I agree totally with you. I have to rewatch DLH Sturm 'cause I thought he won 'cause Sturm didn't threw enough punches. That fight oscar had with Sturm he lost, they gave him the decision because that was the build up fight before he fought Bernard Hopkins, and honestly Sturm was beating oscar to the punch constantly, but you know the money oscar brings to vegas, and there was no way in hell, vegas was going to let Sturm walk away the victor and jeopardize the millions they stood to make when Oscar fought bernard hopkins, but oscar lost that fight to sturm hands down.

Well maybe he didn't get a few decisions,but there is a couple he did get and didn't deserve.Pernell beat him hands down, and the fight with Quartey was questionable. I give De La Hoya his props though. He never ducked anyone.(With the exception of Terry Norris) He is a true warrior and hall of famer.But to compare him to an all time great like Leonard is taking it too far.There are comparisons, but that's it.You put a 147 pound Oscar in the ring with a 147lb Leonard in their prime, and the results would be worst than the Pacquioa fight. Both had a lot of heart,but Leonard's skill and natural ability arguebly made him the best welterweight ever.

He definitely deserved the Trinidad win, even though he ran away the last few rounds.

Sturm was a loss and everyone knows that. I disagree that Ike or Pernell where controversial. I guess we will disagree but that is why everyone has their opinion. That's why it's controversial. Some people say Whitaker won, some people say DLH won. Some people say Quartey won, some people say DLH won. Just like some people say Leonard won and others say Hagler won. It's not an Everett-Escalera or Lewis-Holyfield 1 case, where 99.99999% of people agree who won those.

Sturm was a loss and everyone knows that. I disagree that Ike or Pernell where controversial. I guess we will disagree but that is why everyone has their opinion. u cant disagree that they were controversial. if u dont think it was close, u can think so. but lots of ppl though quartey and whitaker beat him, hense its controversial. its a fact not up for opinion. i personally thought they both beat him, sturm too. the tito and mosley fights couldve gon eighter way imo. but DLH deserved to get atleast one, those are the two fights in his career that were close and he didnt get eighter one. then again sturm, quartey and whitaker all clearly beat him and he got those, so he should be more than happy.

I never said DLH was better than Leonard. I said he was in the same class of greats. DLH was actually compared to Leonard based on Leonards attributes in and out of the ring. I never said who was better but hey if you want to jump to conclusions go right ahead. De La Hoya isn't in the same class as Leonard. End of story. And yes, I'm aware Oscar was compared to Leonard as the new Golden Boy but that's that. No one was comparing their accomplishments because they're leagues apart.

I never said DLH was better than Leonard. I said he was in the same class of greats. DLH was actually compared to Leonard based on Leonards attributes in and out of the ring. I never said who was better but hey if you want to jump to conclusions go right ahead. Leonard was faster Better resume Smarter fighter Didn't tire in big fights Should we keep going? Is there anything Oscar does better than Leonard? Except maybe make more money...

DLH got controversial decisions against Whitaker, Quartey, and Sturm. The main difference between these two golden boys is that Leonard had his big wins that weren't controversial decisions against great fighters before he became a part-time fighter, and started getting controversial decisions in his favor. Leonard stopped Benitez in a fight he was clearly winning, made Duran quit, and stopped Hearns. Benitez and Hearns were undefeated and Duran was 72-1. DLH doesn't have non-controversial wins of this caliber. His best non-controversial wins are over the likes of Vargas and Ruelas. Huge difference. Sturm was a loss and everyone knows that. I disagree that Ike or Pernell where controversial. I guess we will disagree but that is why everyone has their opinion.

I didn't even catch that. Leonard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oscar I never said DLH was better than Leonard. I said he was in the same class of greats. DLH was actually compared to Leonard based on Leonards attributes in and out of the ring. I never said who was better but hey if you want to jump to conclusions go right ahead.

DLH got controversial decisions against Whitaker, Quartey, and Sturm. The main difference between these two golden boys is that Leonard had his big wins that weren't controversial decisions against great fighters before he became a part-time fighter, and started getting controversial decisions in his favor. Leonard stopped Benitez in a fight he was clearly winning, made Duran quit, and stopped Hearns. Benitez and Hearns were undefeated and Duran was 72-1. DLH doesn't have non-controversial wins of this caliber. His best non-controversial wins are over the likes of Vargas and Ruelas. Huge difference.

:rofl::rofl::rofl: He definitely beat Tito and Mosley 2nd time, a lot of people hated him 'cause he was fortunate.

:rofl::rofl::rofl: I didn't even catch that. Leonard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oscar

True statement!!DLH did beat Trinidad & Mosley in their second fight!!

De La Hoya never got decisions? :chairshot

Oscars PPV attraction screwed him. Boxing needed other big names to remain big (Mosley 2,Tito) since those guy don't bring as much without being relevant, and beating De La Hoya kept you relevant. Leonard and De La Hoya are in the same class it's just the decisions they got that is the difference. Leonard got the decisions over Hagler and Hearns and Oscar did not get them against Mosley 2 and Tito and some even argue Mayweather but i don't. Oscars got legit loses are to the following Mosley 1 / Hopkins / Sturm / Mayweather / Manny and that is it. Only Mosley 1 beat him in his prime and was first loss imo. DLH is an all time great and he deserves more respect than we give him. I grew up on this generation and he is definitely is up their with the greatest of all time like Leonard. I know a lot of people here are Anti DLH but this is how i see it. :rofl::rofl::rofl: