In terms of actual wins, who has the better resume - DLH or Floyd?

[-PBP-]

Only seen the Hurtado fight, a very good amatuer styled undefeated fighter that gave alot of people trouble.

You realise Marquez jumped 2 weightclasses to fight Floyd, training for a catchweight(by drinking urine) but being bamboozled out of it. Think Mayweather-Maidana I, Floyd bribed him just the same. Mosley is a lesser fighter to Whitaker and was at a lesser point than Whitaker before Hoya.

OK. So Whitaker was on *******, was demoted from the pound for pound top fighter because he looked so bad in his last few fights and didn't go on to accomplish anything else thereafter. I can play that game too.

These arguments are so one sided and biased.

"Oh Floyd beat nothing but shot past it fighters while De La Hoya fought the best like Whitaker and Chavez."

"Floyd made poor little Marquez jump 2 weight classes but Oscar was a warrior because he fought Manny Pacquiao who was 2 weight classes below."

"Floyd lost to Castillo but De La Hoya's wins over Whitaker, Quartey and Sturm were clear and indisputable.

"De La Hoya was robbed against Trinidad and Mosley but he never had any close contested decisions go in his favor"

[BOXEO _]

De la Hoya obviously.

[-PBP-]

Its funny how DLH claims Mayweather's fights are boring, yet he did more running vs Tito than Floyd ever has. And this was a prime DLH, not late 30s ie the ages that Mayweather has been accused of being a "runner". The double standards are evident.

Anyway, DLH fans love to do exactly what you said. Claim robbery vs Tito and Mosley II, yet gloss over the fact that a faded Whitaker (who looked horrible his previous fight) clowned him, Quartey (coming off something like a year and a half layoff) won more rounds even with the 10-8 12th against him, and the Sturm fight was a blatant robbery to set up the Hopkins megafight.

Bottom line, DLH fought more names than Floyd...... when it was advantageous to do so (Tito and Mosley aside). His fans/Mayweather haters are a special kind of delusional, so you routinely get nonsense like, "Sweet Pea was P4P when DLH fought him", "The version of Chavez that Oscar fought would have went through all of Maywwethers opponents!" and "DLH was beating Hopkins before he got knocked out". The first 2 statements belie the fact that they were badly faded/near shot, and the third is a straight up fabrication, yet DLH fans are on par with Pacquiao's when it comes to rewriting history.

That's why I say give it 5-8 years or so. People in hindsight tend to just focus on the names and ignore the circumstances. With recent fighters they go through the resume with a fine toothed comb and pick it apart but with retired fighters they don't apply the same degree of criticism. How often does Ali get penalized for gift decisions over Norton and Jimmy Young?

That's just the way it is.

[SplitSecond]

OK. So Whitaker was on *******, was demoted from the pound for pound top fighter because he looked so bad in his last few fights and didn't go on to accomplish anything else thereafter. I can play that game too.

These arguments are so one sided and biased.

"Oh Floyd beat nothing but shot past it fighters while De La Hoya fought the best like Whitaker and Chavez."

"Floyd made poor little Marquez jump 2 weight classes but Oscar was a warrior because he fought Manny Pacquiao who was 2 weight classes below."

"Floyd lost to Castillo but De La Hoya's wins over Whitaker, Quartey and Sturm were clear and indisputable.

"De La Hoya was robbed against Trinidad and Mosley but he never had any close contested decisions go in his favor"

Ok, I sense the butthurt in you, trying to insinuate things I never said so we'll end this here.

Just wanted to address the bold. Oscar went down in weight to meet Pacquiao. He didn't bribe Pacquiao in the last minute to let him stay in his comfort zone. That Marquez win is a disgrace. And so is the habit of breaking the rules in the last minute and covering it up with money.

[-PBP-]

Ok, I sense the butthurt in you, trying to insinuate things I never said so we'll end this here.

Just wanted to address the bold. Oscar went down in weight to meet Pacquiao. He didn't bribe Pacquiao in the last minute to let him stay in his comfort zone. That Marquez win is a disgrace. And so is the habit of breaking the rules in the last minute and covering it up with money.

You want to end it because you are guilty of it. Your only looking at circumstances surrounding each fight with one of the fighters in this discussion.

[-Hyperion-]

OK. So Whitaker was on *******, was demoted from the pound for pound top fighter because he looked so bad in his last few fights and didn't go on to accomplish anything else thereafter. I can play that game too.

These arguments are so one sided and biased.

"Oh Floyd beat nothing but shot past it fighters while De La Hoya fought the best like Whitaker and Chavez."

"Floyd made poor little Marquez jump 2 weight classes but Oscar was a warrior because he fought Manny Pacquiao who was 2 weight classes below."

"Floyd lost to Castillo but De La Hoya's wins over Whitaker, Quartey and Sturm were clear and indisputable.

"De La Hoya was robbed against Trinidad and Mosley but he never had any close contested decisions go in his favor"

who in floyds resume wouldve beat the versions of Ike-Trinidad-Shane 147-Shane 154-old Whitaker that Oscar fought? at the time Floyd fought them?

I believe only Pac 2015 had a shot at Whitaker 97, because like you said, he looked on the decline even though he had not lost...other than that, they all get KO'ed or embarrassed.

Part of Floyds greatness is that he has been at the top of the sport from 99 to 07 then 09 to 2015, Oscar's prime was shorter, since he didnt keep in shape and wasnt a gym rat... 95 to 03.

Like I said, if floyd is greater because of longevity I have no problem with that but come on, his opponents were not better than the top Oscar faced...

[Nay_Sayer]

And he moved up as he got bigger. But every division he fought in he fought the very best every time out and he took on them in their prime. He never waited to let a fighter lose first before he fought them. Plus he fought in a way way way better era of welterweight than Floyd.

This is simply NOT true. de la Hoya spent the second half of his career fighting Trinidad leftovers.

[The Big Dunn]

who in floyds resume wouldve beat the versions of Ike-Trinidad-Shane 147-Shane 154-old Whitaker that Oscar fought? at the time Floyd fought them?

I believe only Pac 2015 had a shot at Whitaker 97, because like you said, he looked on the decline even though he had not lost...other than that, they all get KO'ed or embarrassed.

Part of Floyds greatness is that he has been at the top of the sport from 99 to 07 then 09 to 2015, Oscar's prime was shorter, since he didnt keep in shape and wasnt a gym rat... 95 to 03.

Like I said, if floyd is greater because of longevity I have no problem with that but come on, his opponents were not better than the top Oscar faced...

we don't know who would win any fantasy fight, its all a guess and a personal opinion. Is there anything more biased than that?

[Nay_Sayer]

Oscar-Trinidad wasn't a robbery, and Jim Lampley is a piece of shit for swaying the minds of many. You dickheads need to go and rewatch that one, it's a new age and you could very easily find a copy now.

^This right here. There is a big difference between a close fight and a robbery. Trinidad - de la Hoya was NO robbery.

[Nay_Sayer]

the guys who beat oscar would have beat floyd.

160 hopkins
prime mosley
the great tito
2008 pac

Sorry but NO. Mayweather outboxes prime Shane and KO's 2008 Pacquiao...