BoxRec

barry wrote:>>>Top 3? Nah. Off the top of my head, pernell Whitaker, Julio Cesar Chavez and Roy Jones jnr would all be above him, if I thought about it a bit more I would put a few others in there but I'll sober up first.<<<

Well off the top of my head, considering that Oscar beat two of the three you mentioned...I would say...yeah! Go sober up. See kids...alcohol really effects judgment!

First of all, De La Hoya didn't beat Whitaker, he got the decision, but he didn't win the fight. Second, check the years when De La Hoya beat both men, Oscar 'beat' Whitaker in 1997, 8 years after he won the Lightweight title. De La Hoya beat Chavez in 1996, 12 years after he won his first world title. Did these facts actually go through your head before you made the ridiculous statement that De La Hoya is better then these two just because he won fights against them near the end of their careers?

^ a wins a win mate...

about chavez he held a belt going into the fight and ODLH Whipped him!! why did chavez take a remach if he thought he couldant win?

He was still past his best by a long way, as was Whitaker. Rating Oscar above these men based on wins over them while they were at the ends of their career isn't logical. Can we have Paul Pender over Ray Robinson? How about Terry Norris over Ray Leonard or Iran Barkley over Tommy Hearns? See where I'm going with this? Just because he beat them at the ends of their careers doesn't make him a greater fighter. If we're going off this silly reasoning then you can have Hopkins, Mosley and Trinidad all over Oscar and my arguement still stands that he isn't one of the three greatest of the last 20 years, because afterall, 'a win is a win', isn't it mate?

^ yes u moron a win is a win!!! a lose isnt a win isnt it?

of course u wouldnt put ODLH over Whitaker or chavez that would just be stupid!!!!!

I'm not actually sure what the point you're trying to make is, I thought you were agreeing with barry, but now are you agreeing with me? Whats your thoughts on where Oscar stands pound for pound in the last 20 years? I might try doing a top 25 later but I'm really busy right now.

i dunno nemore im lost!

um i do rank oscar in top 25 p4p of the era you really have to look at the mans accomplishments, although i felt oscar went in the ring with 3 p4p kings (hopkins, trinidad, mosley) and lost to them all! the only high rated fighter he beat of his era were Quartey and Vargas and i hardly put them in the elite class!!

Yeah I do think he is a great fighter, I just don't think he's this elite fighter in the class of a Ray Leonard or a Marvin Hagler. He's not the best of the era but he is one of them. Maybe top 5, Probably top 10, definately top 15.

>>>First of all, De La Hoya didn't beat Whitaker, he got the decision, but he didn't win the fight.<<<

First of all, what does the record book say…that Oscar didn’t win? Sorry, but fact beats the hell out of opinion every time! It was a close fight no doubt, but Oscar won...plain and simple and no matter how much you, or anyone else may wish otherwise 1000 years from now Oscar will still be the winner of that bout…FACT!

>>>Second, check the years when De La Hoya beat both men, Oscar 'beat' Whitaker in 1997, 8 years after he won the Lightweight title. De La Hoya beat Chavez in 1996, 12 years after he won his first world title. Did these facts actually go through your head before you made the ridiculous statement that De La Hoya is better then these two just because he won fights against them near the end of their careers?<<<

Second, I never made the statement that Oscar was better, that's just something you're now trying to make up, I just stated the obvious facts of the situation, which back up my argument. Its ridiculous how some people like to make up shit when they have nothing factual to back up they’re argument!

You can hold onto the “they were past they’re best" all you want, it’s not going to change anything! They probably were past they’re prime, but the facts speak for themselves…Oscar beat them…FACT.

>>>Did these facts actually go through your head before you made the ridiculous statement that De La Hoya is better then these two just because he won fights against them near the end of their careers?<<<

Sorry, but what you stated is not fact…it is your personal opinion…facts are what I have presented along with a little bit of my opinion, but mostly FACT!

Sorry, if you watch Chavez fight in 1988 and then watch him fight Oscar and think he is the same fighter you need your eyes examined. If you watch Whitaker fight in 1990 and then watch him fight Oscar and still think he is the same fighter, you need your head examined. It's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of anyone who has seen the fights that these men were not at their best when Oscar fought them, and if you think that win qualifies Oscar as a greater fighter then them, then you're theory of greatness really is warped, and your arguement that Oscar is top 3 of the last 20 years becomes contradictory because he can't be above the likes of Trinidad and Mosley for the same reasons. So what is it, is Oscar behind those guys or behind Whitaker and Chavez in terms of greatness, because he can't be in front of both going on your ridiculous rating system.

ps- Don't try and back down and say you never said Oscar was better, you might not have actually said it but you certainly implied it with this:

>>>Top 3? Nah. Off the top of my head, pernell Whitaker, Julio Cesar Chavez and Roy Jones jnr would all be above him, if I thought about it a bit more I would put a few others in there but I'll sober up first.<<<

Well off the top of my head, considering that Oscar beat two of the three you mentioned...I would say...yeah! Go sober up. See kids...alcohol really effects judgment!

If that is not saying Oscar is better or greater then those guys, there was no reason at all to post that.

>>>Sorry, if you watch Chavez fight in 1988 and then watch him fight Oscar and think he is the same fighter you need your eyes examined. If you watch Whitaker fight in 1990 and then watch him fight Oscar and still think he is the same fighter, you need your head examined. It's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of anyone who has seen the fights that these men were not at their best when Oscar fought them, and if you think that win qualifies Oscar as a greater fighter then them, then you're theory of greatness really is warped, and your arguement that Oscar is top 3 of the last 20 years becomes contradictory because he can't be above the likes of Trinidad and Mosley for the same reasons. So what is it, is Oscar behind those guys or behind Whitaker and Chavez in terms of greatness, because he can't be in front of both going on your ridiculous rating system.<<<

Contradictory...how so? I am basing Oscar's greatness on his overall record, who he fought, who he beat, who he lost to and how he lost overall...nothing contradictory about it!

>>>ps- Don't try and back down and say you never said Oscar was better, you might not have actually said it but you certainly implied it with this:<<<

Who's trying to back down? As I stated then, I'll state again...I did not say Oscar was better...implying and saying it are two different things, it's just like opinion and fact!

My exact words,
"He is one of the best of the past 20 years...maybe the best overall. If not the best, right up there in the top 3 (not of all-time) in my opinion."

and

"Well off the top of my head, considering that Oscar beat two of the three you mentioned...I would say...yeah!"

Now why don't you show me where I said that Oscar was better and sorry, but implying don't count!

Was Oscar better than Chavez and Whitaker...well other than the fact that he beat both, you can make whatever excuses for the bouts that you like, it still will not change the FACT that Oscar beat them both, and Oscar's overall resume, in my opinion, is more impressive than either Chavez, or Whitaker! Oscar had/has the overall skills and size to beat Chavez 9 out of 10 times and the only way that Whitaker could have beaten Oscar would have been to run and out-speed him, which he might could have done, but then again maybe not.

But overall...do I think that Oscar was better than Whitaker and Chavez...probably, I'll wait until Oscar retires before I try to give him a definitive ranking. They all three are top ten, probably top five, so don't get yourself all worked up about it!!

Once again I think De La Hoya is being slightly underrated. I think Barry's point is that statistically the records show De La Hoya did beat those two fighters of course there were plenty of other variables mainly the age of his opponents involved in those wins. To be honest I think De La Hoya would give a prime Whitaker a good fight. De La Hoya was a big compared to Sweet Pea. Sweet Pea just makes anyone look bad while fighting him. Similar to Winky Wright. Even past his prime he'd make opponents look bad. De La Hoya became more versatile later in his career, this is why I believe prime for prime, it'd be a good match almost 50/50. As for Chavez, I think Chavez would catch De La Hoya with a body shot, but we'll never really know, and i'm sure De La Hoya would give a prime Chavez a competitive fight. Is De La Hoya greater than Whitaker or Chavez? Not sure, but he definetely does compare to them in terms of greatness. Not too many fighters have been willing to fight the best, De La Hoya is one of those rare fighters who does fight the best. There's a reason why everyone watches De La Hoya's fights.. love him or hate him, he always is entertaining and he fights good opponents.

barry wrote:>>>Sorry, if you watch Chavez fight in 1988 and then watch him fight Oscar and think he is the same fighter you need your eyes examined. If you watch Whitaker fight in 1990 and then watch him fight Oscar and still think he is the same fighter, you need your head examined. It's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of anyone who has seen the fights that these men were not at their best when Oscar fought them, and if you think that win qualifies Oscar as a greater fighter then them, then you're theory of greatness really is warped, and your arguement that Oscar is top 3 of the last 20 years becomes contradictory because he can't be above the likes of Trinidad and Mosley for the same reasons. So what is it, is Oscar behind those guys or behind Whitaker and Chavez in terms of greatness, because he can't be in front of both going on your ridiculous rating system.<<<

Contradictory...how so? I am basing Oscar's greatness on his overall record, who he fought, who he beat, who he lost to and how he lost overall...nothing contradictory about it!

>>>ps- Don't try and back down and say you never said Oscar was better, you might not have actually said it but you certainly implied it with this:<<<

Who's trying to back down? As I stated then, I'll state again...I did not say Oscar was better...implying and saying it are two different things, it's just like opinion and fact!

My exact words,
"He is one of the best of the past 20 years...maybe the best overall. If not the best, right up there in the top 3 (not of all-time) in my opinion."

and

"Well off the top of my head, considering that Oscar beat two of the three you mentioned...I would say...yeah!"

Now why don't you show me where I said that Oscar was better and sorry, but implying don't count!

It is contradictory because you said right here:

>>>Top 3? Nah. Off the top of my head, pernell Whitaker, Julio Cesar Chavez and Roy Jones jnr would all be above him, if I thought about it a bit more I would put a few others in there but I'll sober up first.<<<

Well off the top of my head, considering that Oscar beat two of the three you mentioned...I would say...yeah! Go sober up. See kids...alcohol really effects judgment!

in a reply to my post that said Oscar wasn't a top 3 fighter of the last 20 years (which was a reply to your post that said he was), that he was. It is right there, I said "Top 3? Nah." and you said "Well off the top of my head, considering that Oscar beat two of the three you mentioned...I would say...yeah!" So it is contradictory because you would rate in the top 3 over these men because he beat them and then not rate the likes of Mosley and Trinidad who beat him, over him. If you want to go around making generalised statements and then saying they didn't mean what they did in the context of the debate, good for you. I know what it meant, you know what it meant, if you can't be a man and admit it good luck with that, but it's quite clear right there that you said because Oscar beat them he has to be rated over them.

barry wrote:Was Oscar better than Chavez and Whitaker...well other than the fact that he beat both, you can make whatever excuses for the bouts that you like, it still will not change the FACT that Oscar beat them both, and Oscar's overall resume, in my opinion, is more impressive than either Chavez, or Whitaker! Oscar had/has the overall skills and size to beat Chavez 9 out of 10 times and the only way that Whitaker could have beaten Oscar would have been to run and out-speed him, which he might could have done, but then again maybe not.

But overall...do I think that Oscar was better than Whitaker and Chavez...probably, I'll wait until Oscar retires before I try to give him a definitive ranking. They all three are top ten, probably top five, so don't get yourself all worked up about it!!

I can't see Oscar matching up well with Whitaker at 140lb. He fought Whitaker past his best and above his weight division, even moving the fight to 140lbs gives Oscar the advantage but Oscar's style just matches up badly against a southpaw who boxes as well as Whitaker does. Whitakers speed would give Oscar fits and Oscars inability to throw a proper right hand would be the difference. Whitaker would outpoint him pretty comfortably IMO. He matches up better with Chavez but Chavez's pressure and body work over the course of the fight would tell on Oscar and Chavez would come over the top in the later rounds. Oscar was never able to properly deal with all-time great fighters in their primes. Whenever he fought a good fighter in their prime and in their weight division (bar Vargas), he struggled.

Les Darcy wrote:

barry wrote:>>>Sorry, if you watch Chavez fight in 1988 and then watch him fight Oscar and think he is the same fighter you need your eyes examined. If you watch Whitaker fight in 1990 and then watch him fight Oscar and still think he is the same fighter, you need your head examined. It's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of anyone who has seen the fights that these men were not at their best when Oscar fought them, and if you think that win qualifies Oscar as a greater fighter then them, then you're theory of greatness really is warped, and your arguement that Oscar is top 3 of the last 20 years becomes contradictory because he can't be above the likes of Trinidad and Mosley for the same reasons. So what is it, is Oscar behind those guys or behind Whitaker and Chavez in terms of greatness, because he can't be in front of both going on your ridiculous rating system.<<<

Contradictory...how so? I am basing Oscar's greatness on his overall record, who he fought, who he beat, who he lost to and how he lost overall...nothing contradictory about it!

>>>ps- Don't try and back down and say you never said Oscar was better, you might not have actually said it but you certainly implied it with this:<<<

Who's trying to back down? As I stated then, I'll state again...I did not say Oscar was better...implying and saying it are two different things, it's just like opinion and fact!

My exact words,
"He is one of the best of the past 20 years...maybe the best overall. If not the best, right up there in the top 3 (not of all-time) in my opinion."

and

"Well off the top of my head, considering that Oscar beat two of the three you mentioned...I would say...yeah!"

Now why don't you show me where I said that Oscar was better and sorry, but implying don't count!

It is contradictory because you said right here:

>>>Top 3? Nah. Off the top of my head, pernell Whitaker, Julio Cesar Chavez and Roy Jones jnr would all be above him, if I thought about it a bit more I would put a few others in there but I'll sober up first.<<<

Well off the top of my head, considering that Oscar beat two of the three you mentioned...I would say...yeah! Go sober up. See kids...alcohol really effects judgment!

in a reply to my post that said Oscar wasn't a top 3 fighter of the last 20 years (which was a reply to your post that said he was), that he was. It is right there, I said "Top 3? Nah." and you said "Well off the top of my head, considering that Oscar beat two of the three you mentioned...I would say...yeah!" So it is contradictory because you would rate in the top 3 over these men because he beat them and then not rate the likes of Mosley and Trinidad who beat him, over him. If you want to go around making generalised statements and then saying they didn't mean what they did in the context of the debate, good for you. I know what it meant, you know what it meant, if you can't be a man and admit it good luck with that, but it's quite clear right there that you said because Oscar beat them he has to be rated over them.

barry wrote:Was Oscar better than Chavez and Whitaker...well other than the fact that he beat both, you can make whatever excuses for the bouts that you like, it still will not change the FACT that Oscar beat them both, and Oscar's overall resume, in my opinion, is more impressive than either Chavez, or Whitaker! Oscar had/has the overall skills and size to beat Chavez 9 out of 10 times and the only way that Whitaker could have beaten Oscar would have been to run and out-speed him, which he might could have done, but then again maybe not.

But overall...do I think that Oscar was better than Whitaker and Chavez...probably, I'll wait until Oscar retires before I try to give him a definitive ranking. They all three are top ten, probably top five, so don't get yourself all worked up about it!!

I can't see Oscar matching up well with Whitaker at 140lb. He fought Whitaker past his best and above his weight division, even moving the fight to 140lbs gives Oscar the advantage but Oscar's style just matches up badly against a southpaw who boxes as well as Whitaker does. Whitakers speed would give Oscar fits and Oscars inability to throw a proper right hand would be the difference. Whitaker would outpoint him pretty comfortably IMO. He matches up better with Chavez but Chavez's pressure and body work over the course of the fight would tell on Oscar and Chavez would come over the top in the later rounds. Oscar was never able to properly deal with all-time great fighters in their primes. Whenever he fought a good fighter in their prime and in their weight division (bar Vargas), he struggled.

I agree the Oscar that fought Whitaker would lose, but Oscar did improve later. There's no denying we started to see his right hand come out more often and fairly effectively. That's why I said prime for prime it'd be interesting. As would Chavez vs De La Hoya prime for prime. I guess the point is that he does compare with these fighters. He can very well be a top 3 fighter of his era.

^ Not for that reason alone, but i rank Lewis above them

How about Evander Holyfield over Larry Holmes and George Foreman?

>>>Lennox Lewis beat Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield. Doesn't that mean that you should rank him above them?<<<


Who else did he beat? De La Hoya not only beat Chavez and Whitaker, but he has steadily beat some of the better fighters of the past twenty years...big difference, and that is what ranks him higher than Whitaker, or Chavez in my book, or can you not comprehend that!

Beside...anyone who would think that Klondike, or Bill Tate should be named with some of the greatest, like you seem to do as you are always mentioning the two fighters whenever you can, well that person has a lot of homework to do, but then again...that's no surprise with some people!

But for the record Decagon...how can you rate Cerdan ahead of LaMotta? Answer that and I think you have the answer to your own question!

The only thing I ever said about Klondike and Tate was that you didn't know anything about either fighter because you had never done any kind of research about any pre-1940s boxing, which you whole-heartedly agreed to, which you have since re-canted the claim, but we all saw it...from that you have somehow tried to mold it that I said that the two fighters were better than this fighter, or that fighter which is very contradictory considering that my top 20 heavyweights was posted a long time before you started making up your childish rants, but it seems that you are the only person that I have ever heard claiming that Tate and Klondike were above those fighters you mention, so it is obvious to everyone that you must indeed feel that they were all-time greats, or else you would not always be mentioning they’re names...and trust me, everyone has seen you constantly mention the names...don't try to run and hide now, or attempt to pretend different now…everyone has already seen you making the claims!!!

No you didn't say anything about microfilm...you said that you had never done a real research at all prior to 1940 and furthermore, you stated that the only real research that you had done for the 40s was by reading Harry Otty's books, which is a very good book, but sorry, you not going to learn about all 1940s boxing from one book!

Now you are getting a little over-heated because you know I'm right and telling the truth, but mostly because you don't have any evidence to refute anything, so what do you do...you do as you usually do and start making up ridiculous crap...LOL

Don't worry, for a small fee I'll provide you with some knowledge that you so desperately need!!! LOL

Speaking of heavyweight quotes, one of your classic quotes Decagon, which just backs up what I stated earlier:

>>>Oh, I don't think that Wright would beat Langford of Johnson. Those two actually were good fighters. Corbett? He was knocked out by a skill-less middleweight like Fitzsimmons. A skilled middleweight like Wright would destroy him. Oh, and I would never rank Wright over the middleweights of the 1940s. Burley, Marshall, Robinson, Cerdan, Williams, LaMotta and maybe even Tony Zale would beat Corbett as well.<<<

Or how about:

>>>There's a possibility that Sullivan was a great fighter - just as there's a possibility that there are purple tigers living on Mars - but I don't find either very probable given the lack of evidence.<<<


If that quotes doesn't reek of lack of research, then what does?


A quote of your's pertaining to Bob Fitzsimmons, who at one time was around 800 in boxrecs all time rankings, which was because some of the eralier records had not been completed, but here is another classic...clueless quote:


>>>Boxrec ranks him #800-something all-time at heavyweight. I don't think they're too far off. Seriously, what name on Fitzsimmon's record suggests that he's even on the same level as Corrie Sanders or Tony Tucker? Or that he'd be competitive with either of them?<<<



Decagon---The next time, before you decide to be a tool and come after me, remember, you have made countless, countless silly comments that just oozes of unknowing!

What the hell are you yapping about now? The thread you just put up isn't even connected to this forum...sorry, but what you might have said elsewhere doesn't count for this forum!

Migz wrote:just a quick question about ODLH?
i know people are gonna give me sh*** when i say this, but were do you think ODLH stands among boxings elite of all time at the moment he has won numerous titles and his introduction takes no less than 10mins, but do you think he should ever be mentioned among the all time greats? just askin

i really don't see him as an all time great, an outstanding modern day fighter and a sure hall of famer based on the titles he picked up and the quality men he went in with. but his biggest fights - vs mosley 1 and trinidad - he fell short. couldn't keep mosley off him in the late rds, couldn't bite down and rally vs the smaller man. couldn't maintain his class boxing vs tito and even if he'd got the decision his performance is marred badly by that awful running. if he was so fornicating great he would've done better

also, yes he beat a lot of tough fighters, quartey, whitaker, vargas among them. but notice how the fights were taken only when these men looked vulnerable. even mosley i, mosley had had a close call with riveria. as for his work at 130 and 135, let's bring up the subject of cheating on the scales. he was twice as big as any of those guys yet he never faced Nazarov at l/w, who was rated above Mosley and Johnston and was a p4p entrant and class fighter

hall of famer? yes all time great? get the f_uck off these boards

To Oscar's credit, he did come back and do very well in the second bout with Mosley...most felt he won and against Trinidad, he really should have won, even though he ran for the last three, or four rounds, but based on those three bouts, I would say that Oscar could compete with any welterweight in history and beat a big percentage of the greats. I don't think he could have beat Hearns, Armstrong, Walker, Leonard and a few others, but he could have competed very well with each of those guys.

barry wrote:To Oscar's credit, he did come back and do very well in the second bout with Mosley...most felt he won and against Trinidad, he really should have won, even though he ran for the last three, or four rounds, but based on those three bouts, I would say that Oscar could compete with any welterweight in history and beat a big percentage of the greats. I don't think he could have beat Hearns, Armstrong, Walker, Leonard and a few others, but he could have competed very well with each of those guys.

I agree with that. I believe he deserved the decision against Mosley in their second fight.

There were no doubts about the Hopkins loss, or the first loss to Mosley, but the other two could have and probably should have gone Oscar's way.

As to his other close bouts, I felt that Quartey did enough the win that bout, Molina was a closer bout, but Oscar won it by a pretty good amount, but that the first real test of his career. I thought the Whitaker bout was closer than the scorecards, but still a bout that Oscar won quite handily. The Felix Strum bout was very close, but considering that Oscar was fighting two weight classes higher than he should, he done quite well against one of the better middleweights in the game.

Looking over his career Oscar has a resume that is absolutely loaded with tough opposition. Rarely did he ever take any give-me bouts and usually those bouts were against the likes of a Javier Castillejo, or Patrick Charpentier, but otherwise he has pretty much faced nothing but top 5 ranked opposition!

Decagon wrote:I scored it for Mosley. Overall, watching the fight, I had the feeling that De la Hoya won, but on a round-by-round basis, I had Mosley clearly ahead. For too many rounds, Oscar was just throwing that pitty-pat jab, using it for range, rather than trying to hurt Mosley. Neither man did particularly much in that fight, and I wouldn't consider it a great performance for either man. It was almost like De la Hoya was fighting to Compubox and the HBO commentators. Heck, that's what a smart fighter does, and that easily could have given him the fight, but Mosley was in there to do damage, and that's what got him the fight on my card.

I understand what you mean. It wasn't a particularly good performance by them. A bit like Margarito vs Santos in that neither fighter looked exceptionally impressive.

barry wrote:There were no doubts about the Hopkins loss, or the first loss to Mosley, but the other two could have and probably should have gone Oscar's way.

As to his other close bouts, I felt that Quartey did enough the win that bout, Molina was a closer bout, but Oscar won it by a pretty good amount, but that the first real test of his career. I thought the Whitaker bout was closer than the scorecards, but still a bout that Oscar won quite handily. The Felix Strum bout was very close, but considering that Oscar was fighting two weight classes higher than he should, he done quite well against one of the better middleweights in the game.

Looking over his career Oscar has a resume that is absolutely loaded with tough opposition. Rarely did he ever take any give-me bouts and usually those bouts were against the likes of a Javier Castillejo, or Patrick Charpentier, but otherwise he has pretty much faced nothing but top 5 ranked opposition!

i had DLH definitely beating Whitaker, who didn't do much aside from throw right jabs and miss/smother his own straight left and pose when he should've been working. DLH kept on touching him and imo he outworked him. obviously it makes him an excellent fighter to be holding his own with these guys - incl mosley, tito, quartey - but a lot of DLH fights I always felt shortchanged