BoxRec

what is this guy on about saying ODH wasnt talented. he won gold medal at the olympics. he could box he could fight he could do everything. beat some good names. and only lost to the elite boxers.

You are just a hater slamdog millionaire. DLH took on all fighters. Granted he did not win all of them but nonetheless he beat some good opposition. John Molina, Chavez, Mosley, Whitaker, Quartey, Carr, and Vargas. He lost to Trinidad in my opinion but not because of anything Trinidad did, he threw the fight away by playing it safe. Get over it DLH was an elite fighter when he was in his prime. A very rusty DLH almost defeat a prime Mayweather and I firmly believe that a prime (2000) DLH would have defeated Mayweather. Go make some movies or go play who wants to be a millionaire.

I dont think Oscar is over rated.

The guy has accomplished alot in and outside
of the ring. The man deserves alot of praise and
credit.
Even in his losses he went down punching,

ace_bubble wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Pretty ridiculous . . .not that talented?

So he gets points deducted for not fighting around the globe but Tyson does for taking a trip over to England to feast on Francis and Saverese?

Many believe Oscar beat Trinidad and Floyd. He fought the best of his era. Not a top 10 ATG or anything (most don't rank him there anyway) but he was an excellent fighter.

Whitaker and Quartey were much better fighters than Ruddock.

Tyson also fought boxers like Spinks and Holmes which were considered great before they met Tyson. Problem with Tyson was that he made every opponent look pathetic. He had tremendous speed and punching power.

Tyson team destroyed him whereas DLH had a great team. We always look boxing as an individual sport but it actually is a team event. DLH has good team which could cover up his lack of talent, which they anyway did and made him greatest earner in this sport, with such a bad talent.

Even his Olympic gold would not have taken place had the referee not deduct 2 points from the Korean boxer.

Sachin

Chavez & Whitaker were washed up, but Tyson gets your pass mark for Spinks & Holmes!?

Go away. You're not fit to bother with.

Some of you guys have no clue what you are talking about. BoxRec has him 11th all time on their P4P list. :P

I think that Oscar De La Hoya may have been overrated at some point in time, but not now. His BoxRec all-time rating of No11 is too high, but there is no doubt that he was a very talented boxer with a good chin and a big heart who deserves the title of all-time great. Where he belongs exactly, I can't say. Certainly top 50, perhaps #30 is somewhere around the mark.

One reason De La Hoya is rated so highly is the fact that he is a six divisional champion. Yes, this was partly achieved by clever matchmaking and one dodgy decision against Sturm, but it is still a hell of an achievement.

Another reason is that De La Hoya has had truly great opposition throughout most of his career. He has always sought to fight the best of the best:

- Won Olympic Gold as a teenager
- TKO4 Jeff Mayweather (23-2-2) after just 4 pro fights
- TKO10 Jimmy Bredahl (16-0-0) for WBO super featherweight title
- KO2 Jorge Paez (53-6-4) for vacant WBO lightweight title
- TKO2 Rafael Ruelas (43-1-0) for IBF lightweight title
- TKO4 Julio Caesar Chavez (96-1-1) for WBC light welterweight title (Chavez had avenged his one defeat and won his previous 7 fights coming into this fight)
- UD12 Miguel Angel Gonzales (41-0-0)
- UD12 Pernell Whittaker (40-1-1) for WBC Welterweight Title (Oscar got an easy time from the judges, but Whittaker was 33yo and an all-time great, so still an impressive win)
- TKO8 Julio Caesar Chavez (100-2-2)
- SD12 Ike Quartey (34-0-1) Quartey was a former world champion and formidable opponent having beaten the likes of Vince Phillips and Oba Carr
- TKO11 Oba Carr (48-2-1)
- LMD12 Felix Trinidad (35-0-0) A close fight with a decision that many dispute against an undefeated world champion.
- LSD12 Shane Mosely (34-0-0) Losing a split decision to an ATG is no disgrace.
- TKO5 Arturo Gatti (33-4-0)
- UD12 Javier Castillejo (51-4-0) for WBC Light Middleweight Title. Steps up in weight and convincingly beats a legit world champ who went on to win a middleweight title 5 years later.
- TKO11 Fernando Vargas (22-1-0) Knocks out the younger, stronger challenger in a thriller.
- TKO7 Luis Ramon Campas (80-5-0)
- LUD12 Shane Mosely (38-2-0) Again, Shane is an ATG, and some dispute the decision.
- UD12 Felix Sturm (20-0-0) for WBO Middleweight Title. Most agree Oscar was very lucky to win this one, but was really fighting out of his weight.
- LKO9 Bernard Hopkins (44-2-1) Knocked out for the first time against much bigger, ATG Hopkins.
- TKO6 Ricardo Mayorga (27-5-1) for WBC light middleweight title. Came in as underdog against power punching Mayorga after 18 month layoff.
- LSD12 Floyd Mayweather (37-0-0) Pushed the P4P #1 to a close fight, the first person to do so since Castillo, when Mayweather was yet to reach his prime.
- LRTD8 Manny Pacquiao (47-3-2) Oscar was clearly weakened from making welterweight, and fighting a younger, fresher, stronger, P4P #1. This is almost comparable to the shot Ali being thrashed by Holmes, and should be given little consideration when viewing his career as a whole.

Now if the is not a HOF career, I don't know what is. 44 fights in NOT a short career by any means, these greats had less fights:

Floyd Mayweather
Sugar Ray Leonard
Joe Frazier
Naseem Hamed
Kostya Tszyu
Michael Spinks

and these had the same number:

Lennox Lewis
Pernell Whittaker

I agree that Oscar should have been more active in the latter part of his career, but his inactivity was largely due to the fact that he was fighting mostly P4P top 10 fighters who only fight about once every 9 months anyway. There are no shameful losses on his record, seeing as he was way off his best against Pac.

Let's have a look at how Oscar rated against his peers throughout his career based on the impartial, computerized BoxRec ratings:

1993 - Lightweight #14
1994 - Lightweight #4
1995 - Lightweight #1
1996 - Light Welterweight #1
1997 - Welterweight #1
1998 - Welterweight #1
1999 - Welterweight #2
2000 - Welterweight #2
2001 - Light Middleweight #1
2002 - Light Middleweight #1
2003 - Light Middleweight #3
2004 - Middleweight #4
2005 - no rating
2006 - Light Middleweight #4

Ok, so he was the #1 of his division for 6 years across 4 divisions, a divisional top 4 for 12 years and was in Ring's P4P Top 10 for about a decade. How can a boxer capable of that be not talented?

If you are arguing against De La Hoya's #11 all-time ranking on BoxRec, I agree with you. But to say he is not a great, and not a talented fighter is just silly and show how little you really know about boxing.

jezzamundo wrote: Ok, so he was the #1 of his division for 6 years across 4 divisions, a divisional top 4 for 12 years and was in Ring's P4P Top 10 for about a decade. How can a boxer capable of that be not talented?

If you are arguing against De La Hoya's #11 all-time ranking on BoxRec, I agree with you. But to say he is not a great, and not a talented fighter is just silly and show how little you really know about boxing.

Firstly Ring magazine or BoxRec are not official sanctioning bodies.
Ranking by them are a function of popularity of a boxer to a lot extent. DLH sure had a very big fan following.

I am not at all arguing against DLH as a person or his achievements in and outside the boxing ring.

Oscar De La Hoya is placed 39th on the list of 50 greatest boxers of all time by ESPN.
However in terms of fame and fortune, he would be ranted among top 5. Does that not signify 'overrating'. Shouldn't he be placed higher in that all time list.

Ring magazine lists him at 75th in the list of 80 best boxers. If he was as talented as he is famous shouldn't he be placed higher in that all time list.

He has made it to fag end of both lists because fans just wanted to him be there. Haven't for his fan following he would not find place in any of these lists. Not even in any list of 100 great fighters.

I have seen (some not all) of his fight. Infact his fights that I have seen are so boring that I don't want to see more of him. A great fighter would never run around in the ring like he did in Trinidad bout. He (and his team) were just clever enough to propel him towards the top.

I don't see any punching power, no speed, no chin to demonstrate that this boxer is highest earner in this sport with a great fan following.

My argument is even with a talent like that of DLH you can still become most famous in this sport by employing clever strategy inside and outside the ring.

Among fans, how many have actually boxed in their life to really understand this sport. This a sport which can be watched with relatively not much knowledge or nuances of it, as all fans want to see is adrenaline pumped up and a boxer whom they can associate with. DLH was just a boxer who could get a fan base (and by no means this is easy). So as a person he was talented or achieved what he sought out to be, which most of you are saying, but as a talent as pure boxer just inside the ring, I am afraid not.

I cannot argue with you all, so I think we all would stick to our opinions.

Sachin

ace_bubble wrote:[
Oscar De La Hoya is placed 39th on the list of 50 greatest boxers of all time by ESPN.
However in terms of fame and fortune, he would be ranted among top 5. Does that not signify 'overrating'. Shouldn't he be placed higher in that all time list.

Ring magazine lists him at 75th in the list of 80 best boxers. If he was as talented as he is famous shouldn't he be placed higher in that all time list.

Sachin

To continue DLH does not even make it to Ring magazines 100 greatest punchers of all time. This is probably the best list of demonstrating pure talent inside the ring. He does not even figure. So shouldn't a talented boxer who has achieved so much fame at least find a place in this list.

All time great lists are prepared on 4 factors:
In-ring performance: he has a very poor in ring performance
Achievements: he won belts but that was result of clever match picking
Dominance: no dominance as he cleverly moved up and down the weight
Mainstream appeal: only DLH had was media appeal made him into first two 'greatest list'

So if you just look at in ring performance which is what I say 'talent as a boxer' and which would be used to get the 100 greatest punchers, DLH won't figure anywhere.

Refer:
http://boxing.about.com/od/history/a/50_greatest.htm
http://boxing.about.com/od/history/a/ring_80_best.htm
http://boxing.about.com/od/history/a/ring_punchers.htm

Sachin

Sigh.

Again you are showing your lack of knowledge of boxing and De La Hoya.

Basically everyone who made the Top 100 list were knockout artists. Notice that Muhammad Ali doesn't make the list either, and we all know that he lacked pure talent inside the ring...

Oscar was only a KO artist against lesser opponents and opponents with poor to average chins in general. When against a tough opponent he tended to box his way to a points decision, or is some cases, a narrow points loss. As a welterweight and below he had a lot of power compared to his peers (Trinidad excepted), but anything above that and his power is average for the division (possibly below average at middleweight).

All time great lists are prepared on 4 factors:
In-ring performance: he has a very poor in ring performance
Achievements: he won belts but that was result of clever match picking
Dominance: no dominance as he cleverly moved up and down the weight
Mainstream appeal: only DLH had was media appeal made him into first two 'greatest list'

In-ring performance: Again, bloody clueless. De La Hoya was poor against Sturm, as he was overweight and never should have been a middleweight to begin with. He was poor against Pac Man for reasons stated before. Apart from these fights, when exactly was he poor in the ring?
Achievements: You are right, it only takes clever match making, not talent to beat Ruelas, Chavez twice, Gonzales, Whittaker, Quartey, Carr, Gatti, Castillejo, Vargas and Mayorga. I'm sure you could have done it.
Dominance: If you mean division hopping means no dominance, then Mayweather and Pacquiao haven't been dominant either.
Mainstream appeal: No one questions that Oscar's mainstream appeal was greater than his boxing achievements. In terms of fame and fortune he would probably be #1 today, and that is simply through clever buisness. No one is saying that he is a P4P all-time top 10. But if you think that if it weren't for Oscar's marketability he wouldn't make a top 100 list, I'm sorry but you are sorely mistaken. His high quality of opposition alone makes him top 50 material.

For the record, I think if The Ring's top 80 list had been made after Oscar's defeat of Mayorga, and narrow defeat to Mayweather, he would likely figure in the top 50.

jezzamundo wrote:Sigh.

Again you are showing your lack of knowledge of boxing and De La Hoya.

Basically everyone who made the Top 100 list were knockout artists. Notice that Muhammad Ali doesn't make the list either, and we all know that he lacked pure talent inside the ring...


In-ring performance: Again, bloody clueless. De La Hoya was poor against Sturm, as he was overweight and never should have been a middleweight to begin with. He was poor against Pac Man for reasons stated before. Apart from these fights, when exactly was he poor in the ring?
Achievements: You are right, it only takes clever match making, not talent to beat Ruelas, Chavez twice, Gonzales, Whittaker, Quartey, Carr, Gatti, Castillejo, Vargas and Mayorga. I'm sure you could have done it.
Dominance: If you mean division hopping means no dominance, then Mayweather and Pacquiao haven't been dominant either.
Mainstream appeal: No one questions that Oscar's mainstream appeal was greater than his boxing achievements. In terms of fame and fortune he would probably be #1 today, and that is simply through clever buisness. No one is saying that he is a P4P all-time top 10. But if you think that if it weren't for Oscar's marketability he wouldn't make a top 100 list, I'm sorry but you are sorely mistaken. His high quality of opposition alone makes him top 50 material.

For the record, I think if The Ring's top 80 list had been made after Oscar's defeat of Mayorga, and narrow defeat to Mayweather, he would likely figure in the top 50.

OK, however Ali figures in top 3 in other two lists.

From what you (all) say every opponent of DLH was all time great boxer and in all his defeats there was some or the other reason. Hard to digest that.

I think if ring took out that list around the time you say he would not have figured anywhere.

Let us see of some similar lists taken out in future and perhaps that would show what experts in boxing think. Here we have fans voice only, many of whom must not have played this sport or understood in depth.

No point arguing anymore.

ace_bubble wrote: Firstly "overrated" may mean "estimate too highly" for which I don't need to provide any rating.

No point arguing anymore.

- Who's really arguing? You've provided much needed comic relief, which may mean you don't need to provide anything but your existence for us to laugh at.

I think he's an overrated boxer that came at the right time when there was not really great fighters to be high about.

IMO Oscar De La Hoya was one of the most gifted fighters of his generation and would compete with any of the great welterweights in boxing.Reminds me of Barny Ross with his balance and reflexs and also has one of the best left hooks ever.

mali wrote:IMO Oscar De La Hoya was one of the most gifted fighters of his generation and would compete with any of the great welterweights in boxing.Reminds me of Barny Ross with his balance and reflexs and also has one of the best left hooks ever.

I like watching him.

The cheesy smile was a bit fake, but the fighting skills were for real.

Original question: "Is Oscar De La Hoya most overrated boxer in boxing history?"

No.

Here is a guy that fought competitively every time out save perhaps his last bout. He got his gut bell rang by Hopkins but was very competitive with a future LHW champion....and in what division did ODG get started? This guy ran from no one...save a few rounds from Felix when he (and I) thought he had the fight in the bag and simply wanted to grab his check and go. Not his best moment, but he was NEVER outclassed by anyone when he was in top shape.

Some close wins could be considerd losses and some losses could be considered wins......that actually says a lot about just how competitive he was. He is not an over rated fighter in my opinion. Maybe he fought a little too close to the edge in terms of watching his points and doing the math when he should have been more "in the moment". But for a boxer he was an intellectual and often chose to do only what it took rather than always take foolish chances. The foolish risktaker usually gets a bit more respect I suppose, but takes more than his share of needless beatings as well. So his intelligence did not always please the viewing public I suppose.

I'm just not sure that's a big enough knock on the guy to ask this question about him.

I guess collins, raylaw, boxbuzz, and sg 1985 pretty much summed it up.

What I wanted to add is that "overrated" shouldn't have anything to do with whether you liked some one. However, it's pretty obvious that often some people don't like a particular fighter and label him "overrated".

ace_bubble wrote:

ace_bubble wrote:[
Oscar De La Hoya is placed 39th on the list of 50 greatest boxers of all time by ESPN.
However in terms of fame and fortune, he would be ranted among top 5. Does that not signify 'overrating'. Shouldn't he be placed higher in that all time list.

Ring magazine lists him at 75th in the list of 80 best boxers. If he was as talented as he is famous shouldn't he be placed higher in that all time list.

Sachin

To continue DLH does not even make it to Ring magazines 100 greatest punchers of all time. This is probably the best list of demonstrating pure talent inside the ring. He does not even figure. So shouldn't a talented boxer who has achieved so much fame at least find a place in this list.

All time great lists are prepared on 4 factors:
In-ring performance: he has a very poor in ring performance
Achievements: he won belts but that was result of clever match picking
Dominance: no dominance as he cleverly moved up and down the weight
Mainstream appeal: only DLH had was media appeal made him into first two 'greatest list'

So if you just look at in ring performance which is what I say 'talent as a boxer' and which would be used to get the 100 greatest punchers, DLH won't figure anywhere.

Refer:
http://boxing.about.com/od/history/a/50_greatest.htm
http://boxing.about.com/od/history/a/ring_80_best.htm
http://boxing.about.com/od/history/a/ring_punchers.htm

Sachin

You are inferring that a fighter cannot be rated as skilful unless he was a murderous puncher. By that rationale Muhammad Ali, Pernell Whitaker etc are not talented, correct?

He is overrated in the sense that his talent and accomplishment could never match his incredible fame. One of few boxers to be household names in this country. However you rate his talent or resume, his determination and willingness at the highest levels of scrutiny and success were always what I admired most.

[quote="Collins2000"][quote="mali"]IMO ... l.[/quote]

Got me thinking about the smile now and wondering if, perhaps without it he would be rated as highly as he is.

Answer = No

That mantle is reserved for Roy Jones.

On the one hand, ODLH has had a great record, made huge money and was one of the dominant factors of his generation, one of the best in his time.

On the other hand as far as holding his own in any time.... I just don't see him holding his own with Ray Robinson, Carmen Basilio, Johnny Bratton, Kid Gavilan, Luis Rodriguez, Emile Griffith and a bunch of others.

Oscar was a good role model, a well marketed product and among the best of his time but not among the best of all time.