they have both won titles in 5 divisions but dlh did it by fighting the best and he lost some fights. mayweather did it the cowardly way by ducking and dodging the best.
Oscar won more titles in 6 divisions and might have some losses, but he fought better opposition. They both won titles at 130, but can you imagine Floyd in the ring with a younger Hopkins?
Oscar has lost all of the biggest fights of his career, not to mention he won controversial decisions against Sturm, Quartey, and Whitaker. He gave away a fight against Tito, and is widely considered to have taken a dive against Bhop. Not to mention....HE LOST TO FLOYD.
Oscar won more titles in 6 divisions and might have some losses, but he fought better opposition. They both won titles at 130, but can you imagine Floyd in the ring with a younger Hopkins?
both were linear champs at 3 weights unless u give importance to alphabet titles
oscar has 5 losses, got gifts against sturm,whitaker,quartey. has some wins against shot to death fighters and some trinidad leftovers. i personally think u need to win against good opposition otherwise reggie strickland would be considered 2 have a great legacy since he fought everyone:
they have both won titles in 5 divisions but dlh did it by fighting the best and he lost some fights. mayweather did it the cowardly way by ducking and dodging the best.
Oscar won championships by fighting the best? Sturm is the best? Mayorga is the best?
There are so many posts in this thread and on boxingscene in general analysing people's resumes and records as a means to determine who will have the greater legacy. That is part of it, but something is ephemeral as 'legacy' is not so easy to tie down.
In the case of Floyd and Oscar I don't see how anyone can deny that Mayweather will be enduringly regarded as p4p the best of his era (if he doesn't screw up somehow). Which to me is exactly what a legacy is. In the future when they talk of the 'greatest fighter' of our current era they will be talking about Mayweather, not Oscar.
Comment