Calzaghe, De La Hoya, Trinidad and Barry Hearn To Be Inducted Into Hall of Fame

Unbeaten Welsh star Joe Calzaghe, US icon Oscar "Golden Boy" De La Hoya and Puerto Rico's Felix Trinidad were among those named Thursday as 2014 inductees into the International Boxing Hall of Fame.

The induction ceremonies will be at the upstate New York facility on June 8.

Others to be inducted include promoter Barry Hearn  , referee Richard Steele  , photographer Neil Leifer, journalist Graham Houston and posthumous honourees Tom Allen, Mike O'Dowd, Charles Ledoux, George Chaney and referee Eugene Corri.

Calzaghe, 41, finished a 15-year professional career 46-0 with 32 knockouts and defended his super-middleweight crown 21 times. In his final fights at light heavyweight, Calzaghe dispatched Bernard Hopkins and Roy Jones.

"I'm so excited," Calzaghe said.

"I'm very proud and humbled. I think it's amazing to be inducted. This is a massive, massive honour, just fantastic. To be up there with all the legends is the ultimate honour for me."

De La Hoya, 41, finished 39-6 with 30 knockouts after claiming the 1992 Barcelona Olympic lightweight gold medal. He became a world champion in five weight classes from lightweight to middleweight.

After losing a split decision to Floyd Mayweather in 2007 and being stopped in the eighth round by Manny Pacquiao in 2008, de la Hoya retired to devote himself full-time to Golden Boy Promotions, which he began in 2002 and quickly made into a major force in boxing.

"I'm honoured and appreciative to be chosen," De la Hoya said.

"This is the dream of everyone who puts on a pair of gloves and steps between the ropes.

"To know that I will be in the Hall of fame with the greats of this sport is humbling but it has also put a smile on my face that isn't coming off any time soon."

Trinidad, 40, finished 42-3 with 35 knockouts, captured the International Boxing Federation welterweight title in his 20th pro fight and made 15 successful title defences, 12 of them by knockouts. Among his victims were de la Hoya and Pernell Whitaker.

Trinidad took two world titles at light middleweight and in 2001 moved up to claim the World Boxing Association middleweight crown.

His only defeats came at the hands of Hopkins and in his final two fights, to Winky Wright and Jones.

"This is tremendous news," Trinidad said.

"This is a great honour for me. I'm extremely happy to be inducted with all the Puerto Rican boxers already in the Hall of Fame. This is the biggest triumph in my career."


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-05/oscar-de-la-hoya-among-latest-inducted-into-boxing-hall-of-fame/5136062

Strongback wrote:Unbeaten Welsh star Joe Calzaghe, US icon Oscar "Golden Boy" De La Hoya and Puerto Rico's Felix Trinidad were among those named Thursday as 2014 inductees into the International Boxing Hall of Fame

Nuff' said. Thankyou and goodnight

Not sure how they can justify putting JC in and leaving Ottke out? Maybe he gets in next year?

I like Matchroom and Barry Hearn but thee is no way he should be in the HOF

joeyjojo618 wrote:Not sure how they can justify putting JC in and leaving Ottke out? Maybe he gets in next year?

Criminal joey. Makes a sham of a mockery of the whole thing.

Perhaps we can launch a campaign to get ottke in. Truss does a great job of justifying Sven as a great. He can write a supporting letter. We can form a pressure group. Get a viral marketing campaign going.

Or maybe we can just not bother.

wheelchair1991 wrote:I like Matchroom and Barry Hearn but thee is no way he should be in the HOF

Rocky's in.....

TopHat24/7 wrote:

wheelchair1991 wrote:I like Matchroom and Barry Hearn but thee is no way he should be in the HOF

Rocky's in.....

I didn't agree with that either mate what a joke

Putting aside the boards obvious and understandable desire to wind Steffan up I have no problem putting Calzaghe in whilst ignoring Ottke. We can all say what we like about some of Calzaghe’s career choices but what cannot be contested is he proved himself the man at supermiddle beyond any reasonable argument, something Ottke never achieved. Him taking longer to do so than would be liked is unfortunate but still does not change the fact he achieved it.

Also he went up and won a Ring belt at a higher weight, against an absolute stonewall future Hall of Famer who has proven, and continues to prove he still has something in the tank. Again this is not a claim Ottke can make. Add into that the fact that Joe never had to rely on favourable judging or scoring to get his wins and for me the amount of space between him and Ottke is more than enough to justify him getting the call whilst Ottke doesn’t.

Rowley wrote:Putting aside the boards obvious and understandable desire to wind Steffan up I have no problem putting Calzaghe in whilst ignoring Ottke. We can all say what we like about some of Calzaghe’s career choices but what cannot be contested is he proved himself the man at supermiddle beyond any reasonable argument, something Ottke never achieved. Him taking longer to do so than would be liked is unfortunate but still does not change the fact he achieved it.

Also he went up and won a Ring belt at a higher weight, against an absolute stonewall future Hall of Famer who has proven, and continues to prove he still has something in the tank. Again this is not a claim Ottke can make. Add into that the fact that Joe never had to rely on favourable judging or scoring to get his wins and for me the amount of space between him and Ottke is more than enough to justify him getting the call whilst Ottke doesn’t.

Hope this is only temporary, Rowley

Nice to see all 3 of the boxers get into the Hall of Fame; without a shadow of a doubt they all belong in it for me. Stellar careers and guys who won titles and fought some of the biggest names out there, albeit sometimes a little too late in the day.

The problem with the Hall of Fame these days is that the sheer number of fighters who don't deserve to be in it makes it difficult to really poke holes in the legitimacy of future/new fighters getting in.

As for Hearn, can't quite see why you have a problem with him getting in Strongback...any particular reason you begrudge him being inducted?!

owen10ozzy wrote:Nice to see all 3 of the boxers get into the Hall of Fame; without a shadow of a doubt they all belong in it for me. Stellar careers and guys who won titles and fought some of the biggest names out there, albeit sometimes a little too late in the day.

The problem with the Hall of Fame these days is that the sheer number of fighters who don't deserve to be in it makes it difficult to really poke holes in the legitimacy of future/new fighters getting in.

As for Hearn, can't quite see why you have a problem with him getting in Strongback...any particular reason you begrudge him being inducted?!

It's no surprise that you agree with your favourite ruthless promoter having a place in a Boxing Hall of Fame.  Barry should have been excluded alone for the daylight robbery he is trying to pull with his Dec 14 card.

You obviously have a healthy interest in Matchroom. I hope it works out for you.

Personally I wouldn't have Arum, King, Sulaiman or the rest of the tainted characters anywhere near Canastota.  The whole thing gets more farcical every year.

Barry Hearn isn't even a boxing man. He walked away from boxing.

Oh god Strongback, you are the definition of everything I dislike about forums! No room for manoeuvre with you! When anyone disagrees with your point you pull out the same card 'clearly you have a vested interest' blah blah blah!

You are to these forums what Jones Jnr is to boxing, outdated, punch drunk and still believing in your own hyperbole!

Barry Hearn was a critical factor in bringing boxing to the masses back in 1987 when he sold the TV rights to the Bruno v Bugner fight to London Television. He helped in the guidance of the careers of Eubank, Benn, Collins, Hamed. Has put on over 700 shows in boxing and during the early 90's was a staple in providing local hall shows around the country.

As for him being tainted and putting him alongside known crooks of the boxing world I am not sure where you have got that from. Given the following statement about him:

"Everything he says he is going to deliver he does, and that's not always the way in boxing. If he says there's a pound in it for you, there will be a pound. Maybe he's making £1.20, and he doesn't tell you about the 20p, but he'll always keep his promise." (Frank Maloney)

I would argue he was one of the more honest men of boxing!

At the risk of sounding a bit stupid, what exactly is the hall of fame?

Why are refs and promoters included?!

neilodonnell wrote:At the risk of sounding a bit stupid, what exactly is the hall of fame?

Why are refs and promoters included?!

A bit?

neilodonnell wrote:At the risk of sounding a bit stupid, what exactly is the hall of fame?

Why are refs and promoters included?!

It has two (from memory) sections. Boxers go in one, 'contributors to the sport' go in the other which is where refs, promoters, Rocky etc go.

Originally created to recognise Carmen Basilio, hence the location in his hometown.

DAVE667 wrote:

neilodonnell wrote:At the risk of sounding a bit stupid, what exactly is the hall of fame?

Why are refs and promoters included?!

A bit?

Play nice, Dave....

owen10ozzy wrote:Oh god Strongback, you are the definition of everything I dislike about forums! No room for manoeuvre with you! When anyone disagrees with your point you pull out the same card 'clearly you have a vested interest' blah blah blah!

You are to these forums what Jones Jnr is to boxing, outdated, punch drunk and still believing in your own hyperbole!

Barry Hearn was a critical factor in bringing boxing to the masses back in 1987 when he sold the TV rights to the Bruno v Bugner fight to London Television. He helped in the guidance of the careers of Eubank, Benn, Collins, Hamed. Has put on over 700 shows in boxing and during the early 90's was a staple in providing local hall shows around the country.

As for him being tainted and putting him alongside known crooks of the boxing world I am not sure where you have got that from. Given the following statement about him:

"Everything he says he is going to deliver he does, and that's not always the way in boxing. If he says there's a pound in it for you, there will be a pound. Maybe he's making £1.20, and he doesn't tell you about the 20p, but he'll always keep his promise." (Frank Maloney)

I would argue he was one of the more honest men of boxing!

Owen you spent the first two paragraphs abusing me after first getting up on your high horse. You're a hypocrite.

When Naz and Eubank retired Hearn walked away from boxing. He left his stable of boxers high and dry and British boxing in turmoil. Eddie has said Matchroom are only in boxing because of the Sky money and they will only stay in boxing as long as they are spending 'other peoples money'.

Matchroom have no commitment to boxing and never did. Barry Hearn has said countless times he doesn't even like boxing. I remember him saying these things regularly in the 1990's. Barry Hearn is a snooker man through and through and he likes fishing. Steve Davis means more to him than 10 Carl Froch's, Eubank's and Hamed's combined.

I know Barry's ways a long time, going back to the early 80's when I first saw Steve Davis on TV.

As to what Frank Warren thinks of the Hearn's I suggest you educate yourself by heading over to Warren's website and watch some of his hilarious YouTube videos were he slates the Hearn's continuously. Warren obviously isn't intending to be funny.

I know Barry's ways a long time, going back to the early 80's when I first saw Steve Davis on TV.

If you consider going down to route of suggesting that one of the finest players ever to grace the sport was the beneficiary of skullduggery, I will track you down and beat you to death with that enormous chip you carry on your shoulder

Strongback wrote:

owen10ozzy wrote:Oh god Strongback, you are the definition of everything I dislike about forums! No room for manoeuvre with you! When anyone disagrees with your point you pull out the same card 'clearly you have a vested interest' blah blah blah!

You are to these forums what Jones Jnr is to boxing, outdated, punch drunk and still believing in your own hyperbole!

Barry Hearn was a critical factor in bringing boxing to the masses back in 1987 when he sold the TV rights to the Bruno v Bugner fight to London Television. He helped in the guidance of the careers of Eubank, Benn, Collins, Hamed. Has put on over 700 shows in boxing and during the early 90's was a staple in providing local hall shows around the country.

As for him being tainted and putting him alongside known crooks of the boxing world I am not sure where you have got that from. Given the following statement about him:

"Everything he says he is going to deliver he does, and that's not always the way in boxing. If he says there's a pound in it for you, there will be a pound. Maybe he's making £1.20, and he doesn't tell you about the 20p, but he'll always keep his promise." (Frank Maloney)

I would argue he was one of the more honest men of boxing!

Owen you spent the first two paragraphs abusing me after first getting up on your high horse. You're a hypocrite.

When Naz and Eubank retired Hearn walked away from boxing.  He left his stable of boxers high and dry and British boxing in turmoil.  Eddie has said Matchroom are only in boxing because of the Sky money and they will only stay in boxing as long as they are spending 'other peoples money'.

Matchroom have no commitment to boxing and never did.  Barry Hearn has said countless times he doesn't even like boxing. I remember him saying these things regularly in the 1990's.  Barry Hearn is a snooker man through and through and he likes fishing.  Steve Davis means more to him than 10 Carl Froch's, Eubank's and Hamed's combined.

I know Barry's ways a long time, going back to the early 80's when I first saw Steve Davis on TV.

As to what Frank Warren thinks of the Hearn's I suggest you educate yourself by heading over to Warren's website and watch some of his hilarious YouTube videos were he slates the Hearn's continuously.  Warren obviously isn't intending to be funny.

Clearly you didn't read my post properly (shock), given the quote was from Maloney! What a surprise that Frank Warren has nothing nice to say given he has become number two promoter in the country thanks to the Hearn's. (even that he can't manage without the help of Queensbury promotions and various others alongside him). It's funny because normally he has such nice things to say about his past fighters when they leave him; Hatton, Calzaghe, Khan....oh what, you mean he doesn't have anything good to say! My mistake!

I believe it had more to do with those two retiring; it is widely known that Hearn had begun to lose patience with the sport having had a number of bills cancelled with tv networks and other promoters not following through on payment; John Daly and the Hong Kong debacle one of the more well known incidents.

Given he is a businessman I fully expect him to be savvy; boxers are always going to be left high and dry if they lose a promoter that is the nature of the game. Yet many boxers made money they would never have made thanks to Hearn & I would argue that you'll find a lot more people within the sport who will find good things to say about him than not. Steve Roberts for instance! (Look him up if you need to).

Not sure why you are bringing up Eddie; but since you have. Boxing is one of the least profitable sports if not done on a big level. Out of all of the shows that Eddie puts on I would argue he only ever profits on the big ones. Lest we forget that being on the SKY platform means he will be required to pay a substantial size of money to BskyB. The fact that Hearn has continued to get more and more dates from SKY to show the boxing suggests to me that they certainly aren't struggling, as you said earlier! And if he is using other peoples money; good on him, sensible bloke clearly. Personally I'm not sure how you can slate a blokes moral's when the one your talking about has given career high and life changing pay days to Rees, Purdy, Barker, Murray in the last 12 months! He has also put a bloke who could barely sell into a slot as one of 'highest earning' boxers in Carl Froch! The fact so many people jump over to his stable and so few leave it suggests he honours his contracts and gets his fighters what they want!

Ceej is not going to be happy with this.

J.Benson II wrote:Ceej is not going to be happy with this.

This will get him sectioned probably

Barry Hearn has just been inducted into the WPA (world pool) hall of fame aswel haha

owen10ozzy wrote:

Strongback wrote:

owen10ozzy wrote:Oh god Strongback, you are the definition of everything I dislike about forums! No room for manoeuvre with you! When anyone disagrees with your point you pull out the same card 'clearly you have a vested interest' blah blah blah!

You are to these forums what Jones Jnr is to boxing, outdated, punch drunk and still believing in your own hyperbole!

Barry Hearn was a critical factor in bringing boxing to the masses back in 1987 when he sold the TV rights to the Bruno v Bugner fight to London Television. He helped in the guidance of the careers of Eubank, Benn, Collins, Hamed. Has put on over 700 shows in boxing and during the early 90's was a staple in providing local hall shows around the country.

As for him being tainted and putting him alongside known crooks of the boxing world I am not sure where you have got that from. Given the following statement about him:

"Everything he says he is going to deliver he does, and that's not always the way in boxing. If he says there's a pound in it for you, there will be a pound. Maybe he's making £1.20, and he doesn't tell you about the 20p, but he'll always keep his promise." (Frank Maloney)

I would argue he was one of the more honest men of boxing!

Owen you spent the first two paragraphs abusing me after first getting up on your high horse. You're a hypocrite.

When Naz and Eubank retired Hearn walked away from boxing.  He left his stable of boxers high and dry and British boxing in turmoil.  Eddie has said Matchroom are only in boxing because of the Sky money and they will only stay in boxing as long as they are spending 'other peoples money'.

Matchroom have no commitment to boxing and never did.  Barry Hearn has said countless times he doesn't even like boxing. I remember him saying these things regularly in the 1990's.  Barry Hearn is a snooker man through and through and he likes fishing.  Steve Davis means more to him than 10 Carl Froch's, Eubank's and Hamed's combined.

I know Barry's ways a long time, going back to the early 80's when I first saw Steve Davis on TV.

As to what Frank Warren thinks of the Hearn's I suggest you educate yourself by heading over to Warren's website and watch some of his hilarious YouTube videos were he slates the Hearn's continuously.  Warren obviously isn't intending to be funny.

Clearly you didn't read my post properly (shock), given the quote was from Maloney! What a surprise that Frank Warren has nothing nice to say given he has become number two promoter in the country thanks to the Hearn's. (even that he can't manage without the help of Queensbury promotions and various others alongside him). It's funny because normally he has such nice things to say about his past fighters when they leave him; Hatton, Calzaghe, Khan....oh what, you mean he doesn't have anything good to say! My mistake!

I believe it had more to do with those two retiring; it is widely known that Hearn had begun to lose patience with the sport having had a number of bills cancelled with tv networks and other promoters not following through on payment; John Daly and the Hong Kong debacle one of the more well known incidents.

Given he is a businessman I fully expect him to be savvy; boxers are always going to be left high and dry if they lose a promoter that is the nature of the game. Yet many boxers made money they would never have made thanks to Hearn & I would argue that you'll find a lot more people within the sport who will find good things to say about him than not. Steve Roberts for instance! (Look him up if you need to).

Not sure why you are bringing up Eddie; but since you have. Boxing is one of the least profitable sports if not done on a big level. Out of all of the shows that Eddie puts on I would argue he only ever profits on the big ones. Lest we forget that being on the SKY platform means he will be required to pay a substantial size of money to BskyB. The fact that Hearn has continued to get more and more dates from SKY to show the boxing suggests to me that they certainly aren't struggling, as you said earlier! And if he is using other peoples money; good on him, sensible bloke clearly. Personally I'm not sure how you can slate a blokes moral's when the one your talking about has given career high and life changing pay days to Rees, Purdy, Barker, Murray in the last 12 months! He has also put a bloke who could barely sell into a slot as one of 'highest earning' boxers in Carl Froch! The fact so many people jump over to his stable and so few leave it suggests he honours his contracts and gets his fighters what they want!

I mentioned Eddie because he spoke on behalf of Matchroom when he said they were only in boxing as long as they had the Sky deal to bank roll their operation.  No Sky money and Matchroom will drop boxing like a hot snot.

So Hearn being a business man excuses him from crapping all over his stable of fighters when Eubank and Hamed retired.  As soon as the easy big money was gone Barry headed for the hills.  He wasn't interested in developing fighters, hell he doesn't even like boxing.   I would seriously be surprised if they are still in the fight game in two years time.  If Barry is heading for retirement then I wouldn't be too hopefully about Matchroom's future full stop. Eddie doesn't have the wit or treachery required for the pro game.

Despite Matchroom claiming they are best mates with their fighters they are not, it is only about money. Money is the reason the fighters have gone to Matchroom.  If Warren had the Sky deal all the fighters would sign for him. There is no sentiment in boxing.

Don Curry remains the only p4p number 1 still not to be in then............

Great............Still have no qualms with the three fighters mentioned...All greats.

Calzaghe yes Trinidad yes Hearn yes Steele yes but De La Hoya??? c'mon.

Be quiet onetwo.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Be quiet onetwo.....

i'm sorry TRUSS but his fish net body number is unforgivable

I have not been able to laugh at anything else since.

DLH is about as stonewall a Hall of Famer as you would ever hope to see in the modern game, and I say that as someone nowhere near as sold on him as many on here.

Glenn McCrory and Mick Henessy will probably be up next year

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Calzaghe yes Trinidad yes Hearn yes Steele yes but De La Hoya??? c'mon.

Yes travesty De La Hoya been inducted, after all he only won world titles at 6 different weights.

Rowley wrote:DLH is about as stonewall a Hall of Famer as you would ever hope to see in the modern game, and I say that as someone nowhere near as sold on him as many on here.

Crazy to think who is in there and people are making sarcastic noises about a great like Oscar..........

Gormless types about.......Just look at the Glenn mccrory post..

De La Hoya only ever fought the best,dodged nobody,nailed on Hall of Famer.

Can only agree Truss, don’t think saying Johannson or Mcguigan is in so anything goes is a valid test, but Oscar has simply got to make it. When we used to do the 606 HOF I frequently argued some guys like Tyson transcend the sport so much they deserve to be in even if their records do not quite stand up to the absolute elite and for me there is a massive element of that with Oscar. To be honest think he would split opinion even in the HOF on here which set the bar far higher than Canastota ever did.

All of them deserving of a place in the IBHOF but i'd vote for none of them to be inducted into the 606v2 hall of fame, not a lot in it granted. Trinidad would be the one i'd have to think most about.

Goes without saying that all three of them, Joe, Oscar and Tito, are more than qualified to absolutely sail in to Canastota. But while I might be in a minority here, I'd say that the three of them would be worthy for our more exclusive Hall, too. I'd give them all the thumbs up, anyhow, albeit Calzaghe is a close shave!

One either way for Oscar, told you he would split opinion.

I said no to both Benitez and Bivins so Oscar never had much hope of getting a yes from me.

You're a hard man to please hammer. Unless we're talking about carl froch.      

All three worth their place in canestota, but in the 606 hof (caneworms?) Tito would be the first struck off for me. Oscar and jc get torn to shreds but trinidad gets a free pass for feeding on stiffs and granddads for years. Dealt with them handily, but only 2 standout wins for me are against Oscar and Vargas, and we all know he didnt really win one of them.

Calzaghe a better overall career than Tito for you then, Milky? Food for thought.

I still get mildly surprised when people place Trinidad higher than De la Hoya mind you, agree with that one. Even if you think that Trinidad's win over him was legitimate - and I don't, for what it's worth - I think the overwhelming evidence points to that result between them being very much the exception rather than the norm, and overall I think Oscar's record has much more depth to it.

I absolutely loved Oscar back when I was a young whippersnapper, so although I was a Tito fan of sorts as well I always had a niggling little bit of resent towards him for that verdict over the Golden Boy.

I may have been exaggerating a little for effect chris!

At the time I liked trinidad and didn't like Oscar, so was delighted he won, but looking back at their careers, like i said, i think he gets a free pass from people because he was an exciting fighter. He was dumped on his behind frequently and usually won by ko, and people like guys who have action in their fights.

His welterweight reign was lengthy but the names on it were well past their sell by, blocker had lost his punch resistance, camacho well into his running years, whitaker was 2 years after oscar fought him. Carr and campas were undefeated so some credit there but they were decent but no world beaters. Oscar threw away their fight, and yet still should have won it.

Reid was a decent performance against a talented but largely untested opponent. Vargas a very good win,  joppy a decent performance against a limited champion too.

No shame in taking a spanking from Bhop, but showed up his limitations if he couldn't bully you. We'll let him off his ill advised comeback, though i suspect the winky fight has the same result at light middle years earlier.

Never fought quartey either to definitively prove himself the man at welter, even though (on paper) he beat the man who beat the man (on paper) A Pickem fight for me.

Ok, so that's a fairly critical appraisal of a guy who had a very long unbeaten run, but exactly what people do to Oscar.

Calzaghe, rightly gets panned for the large period of time he spent fighting nobodies in wales. There may be a little more depth to tito's record than calzaghe's and he has 3 weight world champion to his name, on paper anyway. Duke mckenzie has that. Against that jc was undefeated.  

So i doubt thats any food for thought chris but yes, in my view its a little closer than you think!

The win over Oscar is much better than anything Joe did..........Chuck in a once beaten Whittaker..........

They stack up better than any two Joe wins..........Hoppo I suppose comes close.......Jones was finished.......but he was 42......Joppy , Vargas and Mayorga compare favorably to Joe's other best.......

Felix for me..

88Chris05 wrote:Calzaghe a better overall career than Tito for you then, Milky? Food for thought.

I still get mildly surprised when people place Trinidad higher than De la Hoya mind you, agree with that one. Even if you think that Trinidad's win over him was legitimate - and I don't, for what it's worth - I think the overwhelming evidence points to that result between them being very much the exception rather than the norm, and overall I think Oscar's record has much more depth to it.

I absolutely loved Oscar back when I was a young whippersnapper, so although I was a Tito fan of sorts as well I always had a niggling little bit of resent towards him for that verdict over the Golden Boy.

 
Don't agree. Trinidad is the best of these three for me, then Oscar, then Calzaghe (who I feel is a tad overrated).
 
Trinidad conquered welterweight, light middleweight and very nearly middleweight (it took an exceptional performance from Hopkins to derail him).
 
He's also the only man to have definitively defeated Whitaker (who admittedly had seen better days).

Oscar's got the best record..........

JCC twice, Whittaker's first loss, greater longevity..............

Definitively JMM is unbeaten against Manny........

Duran beat Leonard by 1 point..........I scored it for Leonard..

Because you don't like Oscar...........It's not definitive....

You rate Duran top 6 because he beat Leonard........Otherwise he'd be lower.......

Really are something.......

Never met a hypocrite like you.......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Duran beat Leonard by 1 point..........I scored it for Leonard..

Because you don't like Oscar...........It's not definitive....

You rate Duran top 6 because he beat Leonard........Otherwise he'd be lower.......

Really are something.......

Never met a hypocrite like you.......

 
Is this gibberish aimed at me?
 
Oscar didn't definitively defeat Whitaker -- most were split over the verdict which could have gone either way. The only man to comprehensively defeat Whitaker was Trinidad -- there really isn't any argument about that.
 
To claim someone's a hypocrite because they don't agree with your warped logic -- where you drag snippets of arguments out of context and from previous threads into a thread that bears no relation -- is ridiculous. Even for a poster as ridiculous as you.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Definitively JMM is unbeaten against Manny........

 

"Trinidad conquered welter, super welter and middle".......

Hagler is higher than Mayweather becuase he stayed at one weight and dominated!!

The hypocrisy is endless:picard:   

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"Trinidad conquered welter, super welter and middle".......

Hagler is higher than Mayweather becuase he stayed at one weight and dominated!!

The hypocrisy is endless:picard:   

You can't even quote someone correctly you dullard.

You obviously haven't got the hang of the word hypocrisy either so here, I'll give you a hand:

Hagler is higher than Mayweather, for me, because he didn't pass on his greatest challenges -- not merely because he stayed at one weight. Trinidad didn't move through the weights picking up alphabet belts against opposition that he knew he could beat -- he unified welterweight against his biggest rival, wiped out everyone at light middle and then tried to do the same at 160. That's great (for me, obviously not for you).

I don't even know why I bother with you, it's like talking to a family pet.

For the record haz, on your card, did trinidad beat de la Hoya?

milkyboy wrote:For the record haz, on your card, did trinidad beat de la Hoya?

I scored it a couple of years back (with the commentary off) and flitted between a draw and a one point Trinidad win. Oscar blew it down the stretch -- there was only one guy fighting. I thought both fighters lost that night -- neither covered themselves in glory.

Oscar's career never recovered.