Is Oscar De la Hoya a top 20 ATG WW?

[CarlosG815]

That's as close as you can get it. It's by a point. Because, Shane was the clear winner. You can't even justify a draw. If that fight had of been declared a draw it would have been a robbery. Because, there was one true clear winner in that fight. Close but clear.

I too had DLH losing the first fight clearly. Anything but a win for Mosley would have been robbery, this is true.

[RubenSonny]

Salvage credibility to who? You?

No to everyone who has seen you get embarrassed in this thread.

I have forgotten more about this sport and fighters in the last 6 months than you have ever known.

Really, could you elaborate on this claim.....

What you have done is just pilfered 20 welter's from other lists and plugged them into a list, and I am quite certain that you could NOT give justification for each fighter being on that list and why they're in the position in which you have placed them, and why another fighter is not in that spot.

Yeah I already said 11-20 didn't have much thought going into it, but I think they are all greater than Oscar at welterweight and I can argue that, but I also said I wouldn't be mad at anyone with them in their top 20....

You do not know anything of the fighters that you've listed, and I would venture to say that if there weren't pre-existing lists available online, you would have no idea where to even start. Please don't kid yourself and say that you could, because you will only look more foolish.

I have work from lists all the time and look where fighters are ranked and look at their careers in detail to choose where I rank them, the top 10 is solid and I have a higher ranking than most do for Walcott because I give him extra credit from much bigger men. Another example, I rate Hearns higher than most do because I hold Cuevas win in such a high regard and I don't feel the loss to Leonard is particularly detrimental to his place. I'm not afraid to admit I look at others peoples lists, of course I do and I doubt there are many that don't, it doesn't mean I'm incapable of independent thought. I think its pretty evident that I'm an independent thinker since I've debated with a lot of posters and never ducked anyone.

I do not make lists, but to me, DLH would be top 10 because I think he was amazing and when I watch him fight, I can't pick many fighters over him - he was a great and one of the last of the throwback fighters, as there aren't many guys like him today who are willing to fight anyone and put up a hell of a fight, and he's always been a class act out of the ring and even in defeat.

Generic bullcrap that proves your full of ****....

And Duran is better than DLH at welter? Well I believe Oscar would no mas his ass back to Panama, as he was clearly the far better fighter at the higher weights.

Durans win over Leonard (at welterweight) is one the single greatest wins of all time, coupled with his excellent and underrated win against Palomino, its not hard to make an argument that his welterweight resume is better, stop embarrassing yourself. I don't know what your definition of higher weights is but I think Duran has a greater resume from 147-160 than Oscar, no need to **** on a legend to make your boy look better, just shows how desperate you are.

[CarlosG815]

No to everyone who has seen you get embarrassed in this thread.



Really, could you elaborate on this claim.....



Yeah I already said 11-20 didn't have much thought going into it, but I think they are all greater than Oscar at welterweight and I can argue that, but I also said I wouldn't be mad at anyone with them in their top 20....



I have work from lists all the time and look where fighters are ranked and look at their careers in detail to choose where I rank them, the top 10 is solid and I have a higher ranking than most do for Walcott because I give him extra credit from much bigger men. Another example, I rate Hearns higher than most do because I hold Cuevas win in such a high regard and I don't feel the loss to Leonard is particularly detrimental to his place. I'm not afraid to admit I look at others peoples lists, of course I do and I doubt there are many that don't, it doesn't mean I'm incapable of independent thought. I think its pretty evident that I'm an independent thinker since I've debated with a lot of posters and never ducked anyone.



Generic bullcrap that proves your full of ****....



Durans win over Leonard (at welterweight) is one the single greatest wins of all time, coupled with his excellent and underrated win against Palomino, its not hard to make an argument that his welterweight resume is better, stop embarrassing yourself. I don't know what your definition of higher weights is but I think Duran has a greater resume from 147-160 than Oscar, no need to **** on a legend to make your boy look better, just shows how desperate you are.

The more you talk the more obvious it is that you have no business making lists. Nobody is ****ting on Duran, but his status over lightweight isn't anything to clamor over.

Go pilfer some more names of fighters you know nothing about off another man's list and make a top 50 for us

[Steak]

The more you talk the more obvious it is that you have no business making lists. Nobody is ****ting on Duran, but his status over lightweight isn't anything to clamor over.

Go pilfer some more names of fighters you know nothing about off another man's list and make a top 50 for us

There are very few wins at WW that are better than beating a prime Leonard. Can you name any?

not to mention his wins over Palomino, Brooks, and Nsubungu were all quality as well.

[CarlosG815]

There are very few wins at WW that are better than beating a prime Leonard. Can you name any?

not to mention his wins over Palomino, Brooks, and Nsubungu were all quality as well.

I'm not saying that his win over Leonard was not a good win, but there is no question that there are very man welterweights who are better than Duran, despite this win. His win over Palomino is decent because of the name, but there is no question that Palomino was past it and his career was all but over before he even stepped into the ring with Duran. It's kind of like Pacquiao's win over Oscar. Pacquiao is a great fighter, Oscar was a great fighter in his prime, but they met at the wrong time.

[RubenSonny]

The more you talk the more obvious it is that you have no business making lists. Nobody is ****ting on Duran, but his status over lightweight isn't anything to clamor over.

Go pilfer some more names of fighters you know nothing about off another man's list and make a top 50 for us

^^^This is whats known as a cop out...

[CarlosG815]

^^^This is whats known as a cop out...

I am not argumentative and I do not want to waste time going back and forth with a kid who admittedly picked names off a list, read a wikipedia on a fighter, and then slopped them into a list and based their ranking on how much he liked the way their name looked.

What is the point, and what do I have to gain by going back and forth with you? You have no business making lists and have openly admitted to just sticking names wherever with little thought.

There is no need to cop out, I just don't have the energy. You are in the same class as Stereotype, you just run with the general consensus. Most of the time I am posting from my phone and do not take the time to double check so everything is from memory and knowledge, unlike you who I'm sure just wiki's stuff. Nice try at sounding knowledgeable but I see right through you and I'm sure others do as well.

[Steak]

I'm not saying that his win over Leonard was not a good win, but there is no question that there are very man welterweights who are better than Duran, despite this win. His win over Palomino is decent because of the name, but there is no question that Palomino was past it and his career was all but over before he even stepped into the ring with Duran. It's kind of like Pacquiao's win over Oscar. Pacquiao is a great fighter, Oscar was a great fighter in his prime, but they met at the wrong time.

Palomino was in far better condition than DLH. I predicted a win for Pacquiao because DLH looked like crap against Forbes, and Palomino looked good against Benitez less than half a year before he lost to Duran, and Palomino was still clearly a top fighter at the time.

[CarlosG815]

Palomino was in far better condition than DLH. I predicted a win for Pacquiao because DLH looked like crap against Forbes, and Palomino looked good against Benitez less than half a year before he lost to Duran, and Palomino was still clearly a top fighter at the time.

No question about that, I can't think of many instances where a fighter was in as bad of condition as Oscar was before his fight with Pacquiao. I was watching an interview that Oscar did with Dish network before the Pacquiao fight and when asked about going to 147 he was saying how "It's going to be tough... It's going to be really tough...." Just looking at him in that interview, it was clear that he was going to get destroyed. A 35 year old man who walks around at 170 cutting down to 147.... He looked awful in the interview.

Palomino to me didn't look too great against Benitez and had they fought a few years earlier I think he would have beat him, as I think that Palomino is the better fighter. IIRC Palomino would retire after his loss to Duran. I don't think he had it left in him anymore going into that fight, as Palomino was the better welterweight.

[StarshipTrooper]

If my Aunt had a dick she would be my uncle.

I spit my coffee when I read that :hahahaha9: Good to see you posting over here.....make it a habit :grin9:

Poet