BoxRec

Who was the better fighter pound per pound?

Oscar De La Hoya or Bob Foster.

I do not consider Oscar De La Hoya a great fighter. He was a great businessman in an era that cared much more about superstardom dollars than real fighting.

I'll take Foster, though resume and p4p aren't nearly the same thing.

Lean toward Oscar. Foster was more dominant in his division, but he seldom moved up in weight and when he did he flopped. Oscar fought from junior lightweight to middleweight and won titles in all these weight classes. ( Yes, I'm aware there are many more titles available during the DLH era). Oscar's ability to prosper over a 30 lb division span gives him the P4P edge. But Foster was scarier.

SenorPipino wrote:Lean toward Oscar. Foster was more dominant in his division, but he seldom moved up in weight and when he did he flopped. Oscar fought from junior lightweight to middleweight and won titles in all these weight classes. ( Yes, I'm aware there are many more titles available during the DLH era). Oscar's ability to prosper over a 30 lb division span gives him the P4P edge. But Foster was scarier.

cannot disagree with anything here

SenorPipino wrote:Lean toward Oscar. Foster was more dominant in his division, but he seldom moved up in weight and when he did he flopped. Oscar fought from junior lightweight to middleweight and won titles in all these weight classes. ( Yes, I'm aware there are many more titles available during the DLH era). Oscar's ability to prosper over a 30 lb division span gives him the P4P edge. But Foster was scarier.

Good post.

Sorry about the results, Elmer.

SenorPipino wrote:Lean toward Oscar. Foster was more dominant in his division, but he seldom moved up in weight and when he did he flopped. Oscar fought from junior lightweight to middleweight and won titles in all these weight classes. ( Yes, I'm aware there are many more titles available during the DLH era). Oscar's ability to prosper over a 30 lb division span gives him the P4P edge. But Foster was scarier.

This is a good assessment of this topic.

SenorPipino wrote:Lean toward Oscar. Foster was more dominant in his division, but he seldom moved up in weight and when he did he flopped. Oscar fought from junior lightweight to middleweight and won titles in all these weight classes. ( Yes, I'm aware there are many more titles available during the DLH era). Oscar's ability to prosper over a 30 lb division span gives him the P4P edge. But Foster was scarier.

To be fair to Foster, I doubt any LHW in history could have moved straight up & lived with the HW monsters of the 70s, although I do agree with your ultimate point.

Much as I dislike him intensely, DLH.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'll take Foster, though resume and p4p aren't nearly the same thing.

Yeah, I don't even know why elmer posted this poll, as the dispute in that other thread concerned resumes.
Wait...I do know why...he's an idiot.

SenorPipino wrote:Lean toward Oscar. Foster was more dominant in his division, but he seldom moved up in weight and when he did he flopped. Oscar fought from junior lightweight to middleweight and won titles in all these weight classes. ( Yes, I'm aware there are many more titles available during the DLH era). Oscar's ability to prosper over a 30 lb division span gives him the P4P edge. But Foster was scarier.

Damn, you nailed it. Very comprehensive analysis there, sir.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Sorry about the results, Elmer.

I'm not sorry.

See what happens when you post a poll trying to prove a point when a different point was being contested, elmer? Bites you in the ass.

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?

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?

This thread is an epic fail by you.

So because your assessment of DLH is below what it ought to be, and you have a bit of an inflated view of Foster...the rest of us are now measurably and absolutely "less knowledgeable" about boxing?

Damn.....I didn't know the world worked quite in that fashion.

It's a bit like saying who had the better legacy, Hopkins or Jones?

Foster was more dominate in his prime than Oscar was. Foster dominated 175, while Oscar bounded up and down across several divisions having success in most of them. Had Oscar been forced to stay in one division for as long as Foster did, I don't know how well he would have done or lasted.

BoxBuzz wrote:So because your assessment of DLH is below what it ought to be, and you have a bit of an inflated view of Foster...the rest of us are now measurably and absolutely "less knowledgeable" about boxing?

Damn.....I didn't know the world worked quite in that fashion.

I am not saying that the rest of you are less knowledgeable. This is the best forum about boxing. It is mindboggling to me see the polls are in favor of the overrated Oscar De La Hoya. In no way or fashion was he better than the great Bob Foster, a true all-time great.

elmersalsa wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:So because your assessment of DLH is below what it ought to be, and you have a bit of an inflated view of Foster...the rest of us are now measurably and absolutely "less knowledgeable" about boxing?

Damn.....I didn't know the world worked quite in that fashion.

I am not saying that the rest of you are less knowledgeable. This is the best forum about boxing. It is mindboggling to me see the polls are in favor of the overrated Oscar De La Hoya. In no way or fashion was he better than the great Bob Foster, a true all-time great.

It's not even close. Considering we are talking about a fighter you hate with every fiber of your being, you should probably step back and recognize that your personal feelings are clouding your judgment. Foster was probably a better fighter, he was no more accomplished. If so, it's only slightly.

SaadOffTheDeck 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?

This thread is an epic fail by you.

Nothing new there.

BoxBuzz wrote:So because your assessment of DLH is below what it ought to be, and you have a bit of an inflated view of Foster...the rest of us are now measurably and absolutely "less knowledgeable" about boxing?

Damn.....I didn't know the world worked quite in that fashion.

elmer's world does.

elmersalsa wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:So because your assessment of DLH is below what it ought to be, and you have a bit of an inflated view of Foster...the rest of us are now measurably and absolutely "less knowledgeable" about boxing?

Damn.....I didn't know the world worked quite in that fashion.

I am not saying that the rest of you are less knowledgeable. This is the best forum about boxing. It is mindboggling to me see the polls are in favor of the overrated Oscar De La Hoya. In no way or fashion was he better than the great Bob Foster, a true all-time great.

Does the last portion after the comma of your last sentence indicate that there are some greats who are not true all-time greats?

Depends on what you're asking for, really. I understand the argument of De La Hoya being more accomplished on paper, especially in the sense of doing it at multiple weights. However, both at their best, I definitely think Bob was the more formidable fighter. When there's significant footage of both men, that's usually what it boils down to for me. So I'd go with Foster.

King Carlos wrote:Depends on what you're asking for, really. I understand the argument of De La Hoya being more accomplished on paper, especially in the sense of doing it at multiple weights. However, both at their best, I definitely think Bob was the more formidable fighter. When there's significant footage of both men, that's usually what it boils down to for me. So I'd go with Foster.