Leonard got the decisions and De La Hoya did not

[Tyson2k7]

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.

[-EX-]

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...

[IMDAZED]

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.

[princemanspoper]

De La Hoya was a terrific lightweight.He never looked better at any point in his career than the time he spent at 135.He was a very good fighter who could have been great

[#1Assassin]

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.

[Thread Stealer]

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.

[Stoppage]

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

[jvsnypes]

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.

[Jone2ts]

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.

100% on point

[jayhova29]

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.