BoxRec

frankly i don't understand this. a boxing fan must like
the de la hoya type. no bullshit, aggressive, taking on
the best he can find until the very last fight of his career.

power puncher, forward going, fast. what else could one
want from a boxer?

BarryWashington wrote:clarification on cross dressing pictures? haha, i kid. i'm not sure
why anyone would dislike de la hoya. not like? okay, fine. you
don't have to like everyone. but to dislike him, i don't understand
either.

i couldn't care less - even if the pictures were legit.
as long as he acted in the ring as he did he can walk
on high heels out of it and i wouldn't mind. naseem
was a running vanity joke ... so what? i prefer that
to outoftheringtestosterone and intheringducking ...

man wrote:frankly i don't understand this. a boxing fan must like
the de la hoya type. no bullshit, aggressive, taking on
the best he can find until the very last fight of his career.

power puncher, forward going, fast. what else could one
want from a boxer?

Its called ungrateful petulance.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Its called ungrateful petulance.

why do i think that you read such comment
only on a (very) british boxing forum?

man wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Its called ungrateful petulance.

why do i think that you read such comment
only on a (very) british boxing forum?

I have no idea

the guy you are quoting is australian

Counter-puncher wrote:

man wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Its called ungrateful petulance.

why do i think that you read such comment
only on a (very) british boxing forum?

I have no idea

the guy you are quoting is australian

i bet he reads shakespeare in the evening ...
and the one, who does so, is ... british.

man wrote:frankly i don't understand this. a boxing fan must like
the de la hoya type. no bullshit, aggressive, taking on
the best he can find until the very last fight of his career.

power puncher, forward going, fast. what else could one
want from a boxer?

You seriously think that I'm obliged to cheer on every great fighter? I got sick of everything in the sport being about him quite early on. I don't like his fake personality and saying the perfect thing. He reminded me of Leonard, who I absolutely detest.

Respecting ones talent and career and cheering for them are different things. The only one that is required is the first.

man wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

man wrote: why do i think that you read such comment
only on a (very) british boxing forum?

I have no idea

the guy you are quoting is australian

i bet he reads shakespeare in the evening ...
and the one, who does so, is ... british.

very relevant posting from man yet again.

Jaywheel wrote:the guy you are quoting is australian
i bet he reads shakespeare in the evening ...
and the one, who does so, is ... british.

very relevant posting from man yet again.

if that was not clear: i do mean this with all respect.
a boxing board is not the place where you expect to
see as much eloquence as you see at display here.
and well, yes, my posts are not relevant by any means.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Ledderman was out of his mind on that card and many Internet fans have run with it for years. Molina fought an inspired fight against a superior fighter. He won 4 rounds in a heck of an effort. He didn't come close to winning. Neither did Oscar against Floyd.

Mayweather is greater than Oscar by a good margin. But Oscar was still great in his own right. It amuses me that people think there are only 35 all-time greats.

People will be talking about Oscar delaHoya as a great fighter for the rest of time. Love him or hate him. I personally hate his guts, that doesn't change his talent and that he was good for the sport.

Mayweather is not greater than Oscar by any margin. Prime for prime I take DLH over Mayweather anyday. Mayweather is better defensibly but that is all. Oscar had more guts than Mayweather and was willing to fight the best. Something that at the moment Mayweather is not willing to do. And DLH vs Mayweather was closer than DLH vs Molina. Oscar resume is better than Mayweather's resume and head to head at their best I pick DLH to win 2 out 3 vs Mayweather. And let me make this clear I'm not a DLH or Mayweather fan.

DLH has a better resume than Mayweather. That counts for alot, when history looks to place fighters.

He was also willing to engage the best, in and around his division, something Mayweather is not interested in doing.

Idisagree wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Ledderman was out of his mind on that card and many Internet fans have run with it for years. Molina fought an inspired fight against a superior fighter. He won 4 rounds in a heck of an effort. He didn't come close to winning. Neither did Oscar against Floyd.

Mayweather is greater than Oscar by a good margin. But Oscar was still great in his own right. It amuses me that people think there are only 35 all-time greats.

People will be talking about Oscar delaHoya as a great fighter for the rest of time. Love him or hate him. I personally hate his guts, that doesn't change his talent and that he was good for the sport.

Mayweather is not greater than Oscar by any margin. Prime for prime I take DLH over Mayweather anyday. Mayweather is better defensibly but that is all. Oscar had more guts than Mayweather and was willing to fight the best. Something that at the moment Mayweather is not willing to do. And DLH vs Mayweather was closer than DLH vs Molina. Oscar resume is better than Mayweather's resume and head to head at their best I pick DLH to win 2 out 3 vs Mayweather. And let me make this clear I'm not a DLH or Mayweather fan.

I'm not a fan of either one of them myself. In their primes they would be in different weight classes, but Floyd was always the better fighter. He wouldn't toy with a younger version like he did when they fought. He pretty clearly took his foot off of the gas. I had it 9-3, it wasn't remotely close after 6 rounds.

Oscar definitely faced the best in the business for his whole career. In that regard he had few peers. That doesn't make him a better fighter. Quite frankly he wasn't. You can say the only thing Floyd had over DelaHoya was defense. That would be ignoring Ring Intelligence and they aren't even on the same planet in that regard. Floyd figures out ways to win where Oscar has often figured out a way to lose. That's a decider more often than not.

Edit: And Oscar doesn't have a better resume imo.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Edit: And Oscar doesn't have a better resume imo.

While I can agree to disagree with some of your points (and agree with some, which are valid).To be honest, I have to disagree on resume.

Just look at the names on this.....

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

Now compare it to this (which is not shabby, but not anywhere near).

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?cat=boxer&human_id=352

Sorry mate, nowehere near.

PS Not trying to be clever here, I just maybe don't see what your seeing. We each have an opinion, which usually differs. Makes thing interesting

I don't need to look at their ledgers. I'm quite familiar with both. Oscar certainly faced more top flight opposition. That isn't debatable. How the fights played out matter too.

Castillox2, Corrales, Hernandez, Mosley and Oscar are comparable to Hernandez, Chavez, Molina, Quartey, Vargas & Trinidad. Some of both of their wins are against faded fighters, but I didn't list anyone completely shot.

If you actually think Oscar beat whitaker that would be a feather in his cap. I thought Pea won easily so i don't give him any credit for that. There aren't may people that would list Oscar over Floyd in an alltime list. While I admit their resumes are close, Floyd has a pretty significant edge in the skills department imo and was infinitely smarter in the ring.

Fair comment, all I was saying Oscar's resume, nothing more, is better, win, lose or draw.

He fought better fighters, riskier fights, won some and lost some.

I am not discussing their respective skills

bengulnaci1 wrote:Fair comment, all I was saying Oscar's resume, nothing more, is better, win, lose or draw.

He fought better fighters, riskier fights, won some and lost some.

I am not discussing their respective skills

I disagree on his resume being better, but it certainly isn't important. Win, lose or draw is part of a resume for me. Now I could give a damn about an "0". Like I would give Oscar credit for his losses to Shane, I thought he edged the second one.

My main response was directed at the assertion from I disagree that Oscar was greater than Floyd. I don't see any conceivable argument for that.

Fair comment mate.

bengulnaci1 wrote:Fair comment mate.

You too.

i find it always troubling to rate a fighter over another
if he lost in the direct matchup - unless it is like louis
vs marciano, where one man is clearly way beyond
prime. and despite making a good effort DLH just lost.

i liked one of your comments: PBF found a way to win
and oscar a way to lose. i feel you can make the case
that oscar lost against trinidad. to me it was not a clear
robbery and oscar had it in his hands. he did not jab
enough against pbf, he lost too much weight against
pac and ran into a liver shot with bernard. all these
losses had at least something exceptional about them.

in terms of resume there is one thing obviously different:
DLH was always eager to fight the best. no matter what.

Idisagree wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:He (Oscar De La Hoya), was a great fighter, but not as great as many people think. In the biggest fight of his career against Felix "Tito" Trinidad, he flopped. He did not close the show like the real great ones. That was the fight that, if he would have won convincingly, (In my mind, he beat Tito, no doubt) and close the show like he should, he would have been rated along with the true all time greats. But dissapointingly, HE RAN LIKE A CHICKEN THE LAST 3 ROUNDS OF THAT FIGHT. He did not beat the great Pernell Whitaker. The great Julio Cesar Chavez was washed up when he beat him the two times they met. John-John Molina was robbed when he clearly whupped him. And lost to the greats Floyd Mayweather, Jr. and Manny Pacquiao. Well, I don't count those losses that much because when he fought those two, HE WAS AT THE END OF HIS CAREER. Impressive record? no doubt. Is he in my personal list of the 100 greatest pound per pound fighters ever? No at all.

Didn't your superman Duran quit like a chicken in the second fight vs Leonard?

Sorry I forgot he had to go to the bathroom

Don't know where you hate for DLH comes from but it quite obvious. DLH did not lose to Molina. Molina was holding for dear life most of the fight. People don't give him credit for taking that fight that he did not have to take. He only took the fight because he wanted to fight best fighters out there. He was a part time fighter when he fought Floyd and was more a businessman at that point in his career and made the fight very close. Both at their best I pick DLH to defeat Mayweather.


How can you consider Mayweather a great and not DLH?

You are also fooling yourself, Idisagree. Molina beat DLH. He carried the fight. It was the other way around...DLH was holding for survival. The judges gave the fight to Oscar because boxing needed a superstar at the time of the absence of the great Mike Tyson. I don't even consider DLH in the class of the 100 great fighters of all-time pound per pound. To be in a list like that, you got to be extra special. DLH was not even special. He was a superstar carried and brought up perfectly in an era of PPV. He was a gold medalist and intelligent businessman. I give him credit for that. But other things aside, he was not that good like everyone in this thread thinks. Consider this. He did not had enough fights at the pro level to begin with. He fought in an era where ANYBODY could be a world champion, since we have 4 alphabet organizations and more weight classes. Multiply 17 weight classes times 4 crowns in each weight class and we got 68 world crowns for a fighter to choose. More than half of the so called champions he beat in his heyday would have not been even contenders. He RAN LIKE A CHICKEN WITHOUT THROWING A SINGLE PUNCH IN THE LAST 3 ROUNDS AGAINST FELIX "TITO" TRINIDAD...Who he was fooling? Maybe himself. I believe he beat Tito, BUT HE WAS NOT IMPRESSIVE IN THE BIGGEST NIGHT OF HIS CAREER.

Now, he never beat the great Pernell Whitaker. A Whitaker that was not even in his prime, nor even in his own weight class. He lost to an overblown lightweight in Shane Mosley. DLH greatest defining fight? A win against a washed up all-time great in Julio Cesar Chavez? Gets dropped like a cabaret girl by a "body shot" of the great Bernard Hopkins? A body shot that was not even a real body shot?

Now, in what weight class do we consider him an all-time great?
Jr. Lightweight? No, he did not had enough fights there.
Lightweight? Was his best weight, but still, he did not stayed long enough. He don't even make the top 20 all-time lightweights in my book.
Jr. Welterweight? He only had 3 fights there? He beats Chavez and Miguel Angel Gonzalez who is mediocre at best.
Welterweight? Don't make the top 20 all-time welterweights...Too crowded for his own good
Superwelterweights or Jr. Middleweight? Well, this weight class is young. Probably, his best weight class after lightweight. But if we put all the great jr. middleweights who fought there long enough, DLH does not make the top 10 in that weight class.

So, how can he be an all-time great? How could that be, sir?

At least the great Floyd Mayweather, Jr dominated the jr. lightweights in the late 90s and early 2000s.

What is your top 100 all time greatest fighters? You reference it often, do you have one compiled? And is that the only 100 fighters in history that can be considered great?

It just seems odd when you say the a fighter "does not even qualify for your top 100 all time fighters." Makes it sound like if they don't, they suck

"...He lost to an overblown Lightweight Mosley..."

Yeah, Mosley was a totally natural 135lber who never drained, & who looked pudgy at 147

BTW, Elmer, can you clarify which is worse? Running like a chicken, or quitting like a dog, ala you-pretend-not-to-notice-who...?

elmersalsa wrote:Gets dropped like a cabaret girl by a "body shot" of the great Bernard Hopkins? A body shot that was not even a real body shot?

first time i hear someone assuming that being dropped
by a "body shot" means you are a "cabaret girl". and as
well first time i hear someone say bernard's "was not even
a real body shot". hard to take you serious when you write
things like that.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:What is your top 100 all time greatest fighters? You reference it often, do you have one compiled? And is that the only 100 fighters in history that can be considered great?

It just seems odd when you say the a fighter "does not even qualify for your top 100 all time fighters." Makes it sound like if they don't, they suck

Everybody got their own personal list...Mine is not different than anybody elses. Everyone have their own opinions. I can see at least 100 great fighters that were better than Oscar De La Hoya

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"...He lost to an overblown Lightweight Mosley..."

Yeah, Mosley was a totally natural 135lber who never drained, & who looked pudgy at 147

BTW, Elmer, can you clarify which is worse? Running like a chicken, or quitting like a dog, ala you-pretend-not-to-notice-who...?

We never know what happened to the great Roberto Duran in New Orleans. Maybe he had stomach cramps. Maybe he was frustrated. Maybe he was not in shape. We could make all kinds of excuses. One thing I know, in the biggest fight of his life, Duran beat the crap of the great Sugar Ray Leonard. It was not even close, GNI. But DLH, in the biggest fight of his career, HE RAN LIKE A CHICKEN...THAT IS A FACT. He had the fight won against Tito, and he ruined it like that. That is a shame.