SenorPipino 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?
Your question wasn't "who's greater" but who's better pound per pound? Oscar demonstrated over 6 weight divisions that he could compete at a high level. Foster only showed that ability at light-heavyweight.
Just 1 freakin' division. So it seems pretty clear who the P4P winner is in this debate. Your unreasonable hatred of all things DLH seems to be clouding your judgement. Why did you even consider putting Oscar in the mix of this if you think he's such a joke?
I didn't put Oscar in the mix. Someone else did. I just made the question. And I am totally surprised to see in this forum that Oscar is rated higher pound per pound than the great Bob Foster?
If we go by because Oscar won more titles, then why he is not considered better than the great Sam Lanford? Langford did not even win a title. How come he is not considered better than the great Jimmy Wilde? Wilde only fought at flyweight. And why is not Oscar better than the great Sugar Ray Robinson? Robinson only won two crowns in two weight classes.
We cannot compare two fighters that fought in two different weight classes, one that was almost a heavyweight compared to someone that fought in 6 different divisions. That is UNFAIR to Foster or any other fighter above 175lbs. The cruiserweight division was not even around in Foster's days.
If we compare who was better between the two. Then we only had:
Quality of Opposition
Dominance in a Division
Longevity and Durability
Historical Impact
Awards and Accomplishments
If we go by Quality of Opposition, then I give it to Oscar. But really? Did he beat the very best of his era? We got 15 world champs that he beat in his resume. But were they really that good? What all -time great did he beat?
Julio Cesar Chavez?.....Really? his best win? A washed up legend?
Pernell Whitaker?.....Did he really beat Sweet Pea?
Felix "Tito" Trinidad?....The biggest fight of his life, he ran the last 3 rounds? He even lost the fight? Is Tito in the top 100 greats? I don't think so.
Shane Mosley?....A guy that was smaller than he was? Mosley took his title? Is Mosley in the top 100 greats? I don't think so.
Bernard Hopkins?....Really? Went down by a body shot that was not even a body shot? Do I bought that? No. Do you?
Manny Pacquiao?....Are you serious? Somebody that was way smaller than he gave him the biggest beating of his life?
Floyd Mayweather, Jr?.....How many all-time greats Oscar is gonna lose to?
I mean, by that alone, he is disqualified from the all-time greats. He did not beat an all-time great in his prime. In fact, he lost to the majority of the all-time greats mentioned. And he was better than the great Bob Foster? Oscar lost to 3 all-time greats. Foster lost to 2 of them that were way bigger than he was, but DECAPITATED an all-time great in Dick Tiger in only 4 rounds! Well, we may say that Tiger was not in his prime, was not in his weight class and all that. But a win over Tiger is way better than a win over a washed up Chavez, ain't it? Don't be fooled by the 15 champs that Oscar beat that they were greats. They were not. Genaro Hernandez, Fernando Vargas, Ike Quartey, Miguel Angel Gonzalez, Rafael Ruelas, John John Molina and Ricardo Mayorga were not great fighters pound per pound. With the exception of Hernandez and Molina and maybe Vargas, none of the rest make an all-time top 20 in the division they participated in.
If we go by division dominance, then the edge goes to Foster by far. Fourteen title defenses, 10 of them by KO, 15 world title wins, 11 by KO. He exterminated the light-heavys. I have not seen Oscar do that. Foster held the crown for 6 years. He cleaned up the light-heavys. Out of his 8 losses, 5 of them were against the BIG DOGS, the heavyweights. One of them was against Mauro Mina, when Foster was only in 16 fights in. Mina could have been a world champion and probably an all time great. He was that good. The other 2 losses? Were when Foster was FINISHED in 1978. Other else than that, Foster beat everybody at 175lbs.
Longevity and Durability...The edge goes to Foster. Both fought for 17 years. The problem is that Foster fought more often than Oscar. He had more fights. Heck, Foster has more knockouts than Oscar had fights (46 to 45)
If we go by Historical Impact, the balance goes to Foster. A terrific puncher, Foster is considered as one of boxing's all-time greatest punchers in any weight classification. He is rated by The Ring Magazine as one of the 100 greatest KO artists of all-time. His decapitation of Tiger was an all-time classic. He is definately one of the top 10 all-time greatest light-heavyweights, at least by the boxing experts. Can we say that about Oscar? I mean, what is his historical impact? What fight can we say he was in an all time classic by the experts? Where does he rank in the weight classes he fought?
If we go by Awards and Accomplishments, then, don't fool yourself with 10 world titles in 4 weight classes was an awesome feat. When you look at his accomplishments, they were nothing to be awed about. He fought in 20 title bouts. Foster fought in 16. DLH was the Ring Fighter of the Year in 1995. Foster was never voted in. DLH went unbeaten in first 31 bouts. After that, he never amounted a streak. He won 10 straight by KO form May 1993 to Dec 1994.
Foster in the other hand, won 13 in a row by KO from Dec 1967 to June 1970. And went unbeaten in 20 contests from Dec 1966 to June 1970. Nineteen of them in that span by KO!... Was more dominant champion than DLH. Was champion for 6 years. And retired undefeated champ with 14 title defenses. To me, what Foster did was more awesome and he definately to me was more accomplished.
It seems to me that Foster was way better. Sorry folks.
