Who was the better fighter pound per pound?

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 05 Mar 2013, 18:58

Who was the better fighter pound per pound?

Oscar De La Hoya or Bob Foster.

I do not consider Oscar De La Hoya a great fighter. He was a great businessman in an era that cared much more about superstardom dollars than real fighting.

SaadOffTheDeck · Post by **SaadOffTheDeck** » 05 Mar 2013, 19:39

I'll take Foster, though resume and p4p aren't nearly the same thing.

Nile4000 · Post by **Nile4000** » 05 Mar 2013, 19:40

Going with De La Hoya, though Foster did more in his division than Oscar.

SenorPipino · Post by **SenorPipino** » 06 Mar 2013, 18:01

Lean toward Oscar. Foster was more dominant in his division, but he seldom moved up in weight and when he did he flopped. Oscar fought from junior lightweight to middleweight and won titles in all these weight classes. ( Yes, I'm aware there are many more titles available during the DLH era). Oscar's ability to prosper over a 30 lb division span gives him the P4P edge. But Foster was scarier.

si7dog7 · Post by **si7dog7** » 06 Mar 2013, 18:13

SenorPipino wrote:Lean toward Oscar. Foster was more dominant in his division, but he seldom moved up in weight and when he did he flopped. Oscar fought from junior lightweight to middleweight and won titles in all these weight classes. ( Yes, I'm aware there are many more titles available during the DLH era). Oscar's ability to prosper over a 30 lb division span gives him the P4P edge. But Foster was scarier.

cannot disagree with anything here

SaadOffTheDeck · Post by **SaadOffTheDeck** » 06 Mar 2013, 18:19

SenorPipino wrote:Lean toward Oscar. Foster was more dominant in his division, but he seldom moved up in weight and when he did he flopped. Oscar fought from junior lightweight to middleweight and won titles in all these weight classes. ( Yes, I'm aware there are many more titles available during the DLH era). Oscar's ability to prosper over a 30 lb division span gives him the P4P edge. But Foster was scarier.

Good post.

SaadOffTheDeck · Post by **SaadOffTheDeck** » 06 Mar 2013, 18:19

Sorry about the results, Elmer.

gilgamesh · Post by **gilgamesh** » 06 Mar 2013, 18:39

SenorPipino wrote:Lean toward Oscar. Foster was more dominant in his division, but he seldom moved up in weight and when he did he flopped. Oscar fought from junior lightweight to middleweight and won titles in all these weight classes. ( Yes, I'm aware there are many more titles available during the DLH era). Oscar's ability to prosper over a 30 lb division span gives him the P4P edge. But Foster was scarier.

This is a good assessment of this topic.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 07 Mar 2013, 09:57

SenorPipino wrote:Lean toward Oscar. Foster was more dominant in his division, but he seldom moved up in weight and when he did he flopped. Oscar fought from junior lightweight to middleweight and won titles in all these weight classes. ( Yes, I'm aware there are many more titles available during the DLH era). Oscar's ability to prosper over a 30 lb division span gives him the P4P edge. But Foster was scarier.

To be fair to Foster, I doubt any LHW in history could have moved straight up & lived with the HW monsters of the 70s, although I do agree with your ultimate point.

Rover · Post by **Rover** » 07 Mar 2013, 10:05

Much as I dislike him intensely, DLH.

Rover · Post by **Rover** » 07 Mar 2013, 10:06

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'll take Foster, though resume and p4p aren't nearly the same thing.

Yeah, I don't even know why elmer posted this poll, as the dispute in that other thread concerned resumes.
Wait...I do know why...he's an idiot.

Rover · Post by **Rover** » 07 Mar 2013, 10:07

SenorPipino wrote:Lean toward Oscar. Foster was more dominant in his division, but he seldom moved up in weight and when he did he flopped. Oscar fought from junior lightweight to middleweight and won titles in all these weight classes. ( Yes, I'm aware there are many more titles available during the DLH era). Oscar's ability to prosper over a 30 lb division span gives him the P4P edge. But Foster was scarier.

Damn, you nailed it. Very comprehensive analysis there, sir.

Rover · Post by **Rover** » 07 Mar 2013, 10:08

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Sorry about the results, Elmer.

I'm not sorry.

Rover · Post by **Rover** » 07 Mar 2013, 10:19

See what happens when you post a poll trying to prove a point when a different point was being contested, elmer? Bites you in the ass.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 07 Mar 2013, 13:41

De La Hoya in my opinion was not a great fighter. He does not belong with the 100 greats pound per pound in my view.

I just cannot believe what I am reading. I thought you guys knew more boxing than that. De La Hoya better than Foster?

SaadOffTheDeck · Post by **SaadOffTheDeck** » 07 Mar 2013, 14:13

elmersalsa wrote:De La Hoya in my opinion was not a great fighter. He does not belong with the 100 greats pound per pound in my view.

I just cannot believe what I am reading. I thought you guys knew more boxing than that. De La Hoya better than Foster?

This thread is an epic fail by you.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 07 Mar 2013, 17:17

So because your assessment of DLH is below what it ought to be, and you have a bit of an inflated view of Foster...the rest of us are now measurably and absolutely "less knowledgeable" about boxing?

Damn.....I didn't know the world worked quite in that fashion.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 07 Mar 2013, 17:24

It's a bit like saying who had the better legacy, Hopkins or Jones?

Foster was more dominate in his prime than Oscar was. Foster dominated 175, while Oscar bounded up and down across several divisions having success in most of them. Had Oscar been forced to stay in one division for as long as Foster did, I don't know how well he would have done or lasted.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 07 Mar 2013, 17:54

BoxBuzz wrote:So because your assessment of DLH is below what it ought to be, and you have a bit of an inflated view of Foster...the rest of us are now measurably and absolutely "less knowledgeable" about boxing?

Damn.....I didn't know the world worked quite in that fashion.

I am not saying that the rest of you are less knowledgeable. This is the best forum about boxing. It is mindboggling to me see the polls are in favor of the overrated Oscar De La Hoya. In no way or fashion was he better than the great Bob Foster, a true all-time great.

SaadOffTheDeck · Post by **SaadOffTheDeck** » 07 Mar 2013, 18:14

elmersalsa wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:So because your assessment of DLH is below what it ought to be, and you have a bit of an inflated view of Foster...the rest of us are now measurably and absolutely "less knowledgeable" about boxing?

Damn.....I didn't know the world worked quite in that fashion.
I am not saying that the rest of you are less knowledgeable. This is the best forum about boxing. It is mindboggling to me see the polls are in favor of the overrated Oscar De La Hoya. In no way or fashion was he better than the great Bob Foster, a true all-time great.

It's not even close. Considering we are talking about a fighter you hate with every fiber of your being, you should probably step back and recognize that your personal feelings are clouding your judgment. Foster was probably a better fighter, he was no more accomplished. If so, it's only slightly.

Rover · Post by **Rover** » 07 Mar 2013, 18:48

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:De La Hoya in my opinion was not a great fighter. He does not belong with the 100 greats pound per pound in my view.

I just cannot believe what I am reading. I thought you guys knew more boxing than that. De La Hoya better than Foster?
This thread is an epic fail by you.

Nothing new there.

Rover · Post by **Rover** » 07 Mar 2013, 18:49

BoxBuzz wrote:So because your assessment of DLH is below what it ought to be, and you have a bit of an inflated view of Foster...the rest of us are now measurably and absolutely "less knowledgeable" about boxing?

Damn.....I didn't know the world worked quite in that fashion.

elmer's world does.

Rover · Post by **Rover** » 07 Mar 2013, 18:51

elmersalsa wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:So because your assessment of DLH is below what it ought to be, and you have a bit of an inflated view of Foster...the rest of us are now measurably and absolutely "less knowledgeable" about boxing?

Damn.....I didn't know the world worked quite in that fashion.
I am not saying that the rest of you are less knowledgeable. This is the best forum about boxing. It is mindboggling to me see the polls are in favor of the overrated Oscar De La Hoya. In no way or fashion was he better than the great Bob Foster, a true all-time great.

Does the last portion after the comma of your last sentence indicate that there are some greats who are not true all-time greats?

King Carlos · Post by **King Carlos** » 08 Mar 2013, 17:18

Depends on what you're asking for, really. I understand the argument of De La Hoya being more accomplished on paper, especially in the sense of doing it at multiple weights. However, both at their best, I definitely think Bob was the more formidable fighter. When there's significant footage of both men, that's usually what it boils down to for me. So I'd go with Foster.

SaadOffTheDeck · Post by **SaadOffTheDeck** » 08 Mar 2013, 18:24

King Carlos wrote:Depends on what you're asking for, really. I understand the argument of De La Hoya being more accomplished on paper, especially in the sense of doing it at multiple weights. However, both at their best, I definitely think Bob was the more formidable fighter. When there's significant footage of both men, that's usually what it boils down to for me. So I'd go with Foster.