Is Oscar De La Hoya most overrated boxer in boxing history

[ace_bubble]

Hi,
I have always thought Oscar to be highly overrated boxer. He was not at all as good as he was made out to be. He may be most successful professional boxer, but not that talented.

Oscar De La Hoya is perhaps one of the most financially successful boxer in the history of this sport. He has earned around $700 million from this sport. However what about his talent as a fighter. Its far pathetic then many many lesser known boxers. In his last 14 bouts in past 9 years he has lost six of them. He has lost to all the strong contenders of his era like Trinidad, Mosley, Hopkins, Mayweather, Pacquio. Even some of his later victories where quite controversial like with Felix Strum. In his earlier career he had some success fighting known boxers, or older boxers like Chavez who were way past their prime and also mostly near his home town ie state s of California and Nevada. In fact he has never fought outside US, and fought way less (14 times in past 9 years) which shows how selective or narrow was his fight pickup criteria. All great boxers right from Jack Johnson to Ali to Tyson have had bouts around the globe with diverse fighters. They fought just way to much so as to be beaten at near end of their careers.

You can read more of my views on this topic on my blog:
http://sjmittal.blogspot.com/2009/05/is ... rated.html

So let me know your opinion here

Sachin

[Adamj1987]

no hes not overated, he beat trinidad IMO
he was fighting way above his optimum weight with hopkins
hes the only guy who wont legitimate titles in 6 divisions
with what mosely has a acomplished since beating DLH no-one can deny mosely is a great and mosley had used steroids for the 2nd fight
mayweather was p4p number 1 at the time
pacquiao is p4p number 1 and DLH was severly weight drainned

what about the people DLH did beat whitaker, chavez twice, sturm (the current wba middleweigth champ) oba car who was highly rated at the time

[Goodnight, Irene]

Comparing Tyson in a favourable light with De La Hoya on the subject of competition faced

All I need know on you, fella, is in your location

[ace_bubble]

Comparing Tyson in a favourable light with De La Hoya on the subject of competition faced

All I need know on you, fella, is in your location

Tyson won his bouts convincingly. After his conviction it was a different thing, plus Don King destroyed him. DLH in his initial days fought older or unknown boxers and when time came to fought better boxers, he always lost.

Talent wise Tyson was far better than DLH

[Goodnight, Irene]

Oooh, he won convincingly, did he? Wow.

Lemme knows De La Hoya wouldn't convincingly beat lighter weight versions of the calibre of Tony Tubbs, Mitch Green, Frank Bruno, Francois Botha, & Lou Savarese.

You've not a clue, my young friend. Boxing is not for your kind, anyway

[ace_bubble]

no hes not overated, he beat trinidad IMO
he was fighting way above his optimum weight with hopkins
hes the only guy who wont legitimate titles in 6 divisions
with what mosely has a acomplished since beating DLH no-one can deny mosely is a great and mosley had used steroids for the 2nd fight
mayweather was p4p number 1 at the time
pacquiao is p4p number 1 and DLH was severly weight drainned

what about the people DLH did beat whitaker, chavez twice, sturm (the current wba middleweigth champ) oba car who was highly rated at the time

There is some reason in all his losses
Chavez was all washed up when he met DLH. Way past his prime.
Same for Whitaker. Both were much older than DLH.
As I say in his early career he mostly took unknown or older boxers. He (or his team) was way to selective in choosing the fights.

IMO he lost trinidad and even lost to Strum. Just because Mayweather fight was in line win here was needed. And again just look at his poor boxing record only 14 fights in 9 years and all near home crowd.

Does not seem like some champions record.

He was smartest but far from talented boxer.

Sachin

[ace_bubble]

Oooh, he won convincingly, did he? Wow.

Lemme knows De La Hoya wouldn't convincingly beat lighter weight versions of the calibre of Tony Tubbs, Mitch Green, Frank Bruno, Francois Botha, & Lou Savarese.

Yes, all DLH could beat were lighter weight versions of the calibre of Tony Tubbs, Mitch Green, Frank Bruno, Francois Botha, & Lou Savarese. He lost all big fights with good boxers of his era (whatever the reason maybe).

Remember Tyson was able to unify all the belts in his division, but DLH never anyway thats not important. Pre conviction days of Tyson he did won some great fights with fighters like Ruddock so even Tyson who may not be considered greatest was far talented that DLH.

And how little did DLH fought!!

[dempseyfire]

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.

[ace_bubble]

If you don't fight you don't loose. Point I am making is DLH fought just 14 times in last 9 years and lost 6. How pathetic that record is. Not at all a champion's record.
Now if you say some of his defeat were controversial some of his wins were too.
Thats again not the point.

When he saw that all he is doing is loose to boxers with talent, he retired. He fought only 45 times and lost 6. You can make up a great record initially by fighting unknown boxers, which exactly what DLH did. However after a stage you have to face champions in order to be called a champion. At later stages you just cannot continue to fight unknown boxers.

When that time came for DLH he mostly lost, so to cover up, he fought way too less and then promptly took retirement. Had he fought around 55 times, I am sure his record would have been around 12 - 14 defeats and then whole world would have known, how pathetic he really is.

Think it over.

Sachin

[Adamj1987]

how many fights has hopkins had since his 2nd loss to taylor? hes still championship level and would beat most of the champions around him

point- you dont have to be that active to still be a champion

[ace_bubble]

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

[ace_bubble]

how many fights has hopkins had since his 2nd loss to taylor? hes still championship level and would beat most of the champions around him

point- you dont have to be that active to still be a champion

Hopkins has 54 fights and lost only 5. He is 44 and still fighting where as DLH retired at just 36.
You cannot compare the two. Hopkins is a completely different class of fighter than DLH.
Three of his losses are coming at very end of his career. Infact he could have chosen not to continue so long. He is active and a champion.

Also to you point even at such an old age he has had 4 fights in 2 years and won 3 much better than just 14 in 9 and loose 6.

Sachin

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Hi,
I have always thought Oscar to be highly overrated boxer. He was not at all as good as he was made out to be. He may be most successful professional boxer, but not that talented.

- You aren't really thinking in the higher order process of brain function. You've confused your stream of consciousness with higher order thinking, sorta like tweeting passes as writing.

Anyone in the boxing biz would've been frothing over the opportunity to harness the talent that Oscar possesses, so an eye for talent has also passed by you. Moreover, since you provided no "rating," it follows that he cannot be overrated nor underrated.

Nobody who has ever existed has maximized all their natural talents in their lives, that would be impossible. One could argue in a boxing sense that Oscar could've/should've done better in selected bouts, but as you noted, he may be the most successful professional boxer, so I doubt he's pained about the hundreds of millions streams of consciousness that have been sparked by his presence on this globe of ours.

Restricting Oscar to just the most successful boxer moniker would be like limiting Ghandi to the most successful Indian politician. The guy is a brand name unto himself and is poised to take over the Lion's share of promotional business of boxing. He's done it from the bottom up and can mingle seamlessly with construction workers and maids as easily as presidents and business tycoons.

In short, he's one of the few boxers who's transcended boxing, so his boxing has become a moot point since he's been a guaranteed HOFer by the time he hit 30.

[Adamj1987]

how many fights has hopkins had since his 2nd loss to taylor? hes still championship level and would beat most of the champions around him

point- you dont have to be that active to still be a champion

Hopkins has 54 fights and lost only 5. He is 44 and still fighting where as DLH retired at just 36.
You cannot compare the two. Hopkins is a completely different class of fighter than DLH.
Three of his losses are coming at very end of his career. Infact he could have chosen not to continue so long. He is active and a champion.

Also to you point even at such an old age he has had 4 fights in 2 years and won 3 much better than just 14 in 9 and loose 6.

Sachin

most fighters retire in there 30's hopkins is a freak because hes still fighting at the highest level at such an age foreman, holmes holyfield and archie moore have/are doing something similar.

you are saying top fighters arnt finished by 36. so your saying tyson, moorer, roy jones, ricardo lopez, joe louis etc wernt done?
also if retired at only 36 and saying hes overated where does that put calzaghe or marciano who both retired earlier


you will not find anyone who agrees with your statemnt that de la hoya is overrated

[ace_bubble]

most fighters retire in there 30's hopkins is a freak because hes still fighting at the highest level at such an age foreman, holmes holyfield and archie moore have/are doing something similar.

you are saying top fighters arnt finished by 36. so your saying tyson, moorer, roy jones, ricardo lopez, joe louis etc wernt done?
also if retired at only 36 and saying hes overated where does that put calzaghe or marciano who both retired earlier


you will not find anyone who agrees with your statemnt that de la hoya is overrated

Even Calzaghe and Marciano were better talented boxer than DLH. They may had short careers but ended with clean records. DLH even with a short career lost to almost every good boxer in his era.

I may not get anyone to agree to me. I am only questioning his talent as a boxer and not him as a person or his success in world of boxing and otherwise.

If you look objectively and only focus on the talent part you would agree to me.

Sachin

[Adamj1987]

most fighters retire in there 30's hopkins is a freak because hes still fighting at the highest level at such an age foreman, holmes holyfield and archie moore have/are doing something similar.

you are saying top fighters arnt finished by 36. so your saying tyson, moorer, roy jones, ricardo lopez, joe louis etc wernt done?
also if retired at only 36 and saying hes overated where does that put calzaghe or marciano who both retired earlier


you will not find anyone who agrees with your statemnt that de la hoya is overrated

Even Calzaghe and Marciano were better talented boxer than DLH. They may had short careers but ended with clean records. DLH even with a short career lost to almost every good boxer in his era.

I may not get anyone to agree to me. I am only questioning his talent as a boxer and not him as a person or his success in world of boxing and otherwise.

If you look objectively and only focus on the talent part you would agree to me.

Sachin

how did he win so many titles and they wernt all washed up has beens

[ace_bubble]

Hi,
I have always thought Oscar to be highly overrated boxer. He was not at all as good as he was made out to be. He may be most successful professional boxer, but not that talented.

- You aren't really thinking in the higher order process of brain function. You've confused your stream of consciousness with higher order thinking, sorta like tweeting passes as writing.

Anyone in the boxing biz would've been frothing over the opportunity to harness the talent that Oscar possesses, so an eye for talent has also passed by you. Moreover, since you provided no "rating," it follows that he cannot be overrated nor underrated.

Nobody who has ever existed has maximized all their natural talents in their lives, that would be impossible. One could argue in a boxing sense that Oscar could've/should've done better in selected bouts, but as you noted, he may be the most successful professional boxer, so I doubt he's pained about the hundreds of millions streams of consciousness that have been sparked by his presence on this globe of ours.

Restricting Oscar to just the most successful boxer moniker would be like limiting Ghandi to the most successful Indian politician. The guy is a brand name unto himself and is poised to take over the Lion's share of promotional business of boxing. He's done it from the bottom up and can mingle seamlessly with construction workers and maids as easily as presidents and business tycoons.

In short, he's one of the few boxers who's transcended boxing, so his boxing has become a moot point since he's been a guaranteed HOFer by the time he hit 30.

Firstly "overrated" may mean "estimate too highly" for which I don't need to provide any rating. I am not questioning DLH as person for what he achieved inside and outside the ring.

I am simply picking up his fight card and analyzing if this card is of some talented boxer. Doing that I find its actually not. Now this card could have belonged to X DLH instead of O DLH. If it had would the boxing community given that much importance to X DLH than what it gave to O DLH. Certainly not.

So this is what my conclusion was. In order to be successful in boxing you don't need to have just great talent (in boixng). And O DLH record shows us exactly that. With such poor track record he got so much fame and fortune and hence the conclusion he was most overrated.

Sachin

[ace_bubble]

how did he win so many titles and they wernt all washed up has beens

I am glad you asked that.
There are 8 professional boxing organization. With 4 more recognized. As you move to lower weights you would find some or the other always vacant or a division where there is not much competition. Infact due to many reasons some big fights or great fighters like to have a non title fights. I would perhaps post on this some other time.

Further boxers in lighter weights constantly move up or down the weight category to pick up fights. They may be title fights or capture of some vacant title.

So its easy to win a tile which is Vacant or a division which does not have much competition. DLH did pick Vacant titles and also picked up his title fights intelligently.

He fought at 6 weight category ie 24 titles at stake and at any point of time around 5 would be vacant. Around 10 would be where you must not have heard much about the title holder. So winning 10 titles in a career of 16 years which may have 16 * 24 = 384 title fights is not a big deal. He had 10 titles and around 10 title defenses ie 20 from a list of probable 384 titles at stake. Not a big deal.

Believe me boxing is more of a strategic sport than a pure brawn sport. You have to be very smart as who to fight and when to fight in order to be successful and derive maximum out of your career.

DLH did exactly the same, and he did it very well. Others should learn from him.

Sachin

[Adamj1987]

how did he win so many titles and they wernt all washed up has beens

I am glad you asked that.
There are 8 professional boxing organization. With 4 more recognized. As you move to lower weights you would find some or the other always vacant or a division where there is not much competition. Infact due to many reasons some big fights or great fighters like to have a non title fights. I would perhaps post on this some other time.

Further boxers in lighter weights constantly move up or down the weight category to pick up fights. They may be title fights or capture of some vacant title.

So its easy to win a tile which is Vacant or a division which does not have much competition. DLH did pick Vacant titles and also picked up his title fights intelligently.

He fought at 6 weight category ie 24 titles at stake and at any point of time around 5 would be vacant. Around 10 would be where you must not have heard much about the title holder. So winning 10 titles in a career of 16 years which may have 16 * 24 = 384 title fights is not a big deal. He had 10 titles and around 10 title defenses ie 20 from a list of probable 384 titles at stake. Not a big deal.

Believe me boxing is more of a strategic sport than a pure brawn sport. You have to be very smart as who to fight and when to fight in order to be successful and derive maximum out of your career.

DLH did exactly the same, and he did it very well. Others should learn from him.

Sachin

wow glad u pointed that out to me ive been wondering why the belts change colour and some say different letters

i think you'll find there are more than 8 matey boy

WBC
WBA
WBO
WBF
WBU
IBF
IBO
IBC
IBA
UBC
UBA
EBF
The ring

thats just from the top of my head

[ace_bubble]

i think you'll find there are more than 8 matey boy

WBC
WBA
WBO
WBF
WBU
IBF
IBO
IBC
IBA
UBC
UBA
EBF
The ring

thats just from the top of my head

these are 8 which important world titles sanctioning bodies:
WBC
WBA
WBO
WBF
IBF
IBO
IBC
IBA

WBA WBC IBF WBO are the 4 which are recognized by most.
Ring is not a sanctioning body.

So you can see for urself with so many bodies around, fighters moving up and down weight class and many lying vacant having world titles today is not a major benchmark of rating a talent.

[Adamj1987]

de la hoya won major 4 world titles not the obscure crap and you cannot base an opinion of the fighter from his record how many of his fights have you seen - his fight with pacquiao cannot be used as evidence he's overrated as you dismissed an old chavez that he beat otherwise you are saying -

young DLH beat old chavez = overated
young pacquiao beat old DLH = DLH just crap

[observer1]

Tyson and DLH were both good in their own ways.

[ace_bubble]

young DLH beat old chavez = overated
young pacquiao beat old DLH = DLH just crap

DLH 35 Pacquio 30 when they fought
DLH 23 Chavez 34 when they fought.

do the math.

so it actually implies:
young DLH beat old chavez = overated
young pacquiao beat old DLH = DLH just crap

you are right!

[Adamj1987]

no because you might as well say pacquiao is crap, everyone DLH beat was crap because thats what your implying

[Adamj1987]

actually im not looking at this thread you've obviously come on with an agenda no-one agrees give it up and actually watch the fights and see how competitive he was

ps -blocked