Emile Griffith or Oscar De La Hoya

[Woldemar]

Who had better resume?

[dr_devious]

Griffiths with ease inside the distance

[Ambling Alp II]

Who had better resume?

Griffith's victim's list is much better. However, Griffith lost more often to fighters that he should have beat and had a lot of close calls. Overall, Griffith's was better, but's closer than what some people think.

[gilgamesh]

Griffith probably has a better record, but I think if these two fought prime for prime it'd be a fight that could go either way.

I'd favor Griffith though by a hair.

[elmersalsa]

WTF is this? A joke? Oscar De La Hoya is not even in the great Emile Griffith's class!

[Ambling Alp II]

Griffth was better. However the gap is much close than you think. You overrate Griffith (whom you happen to like) and underrate De la Hoya (whom you just happen to not like).

[gilgamesh]

WTF is this? A joke? Oscar De La Hoya is not even in the great Emile Griffith's class!

I'd say he's right there with him. DIdn't have as many fights, but had about the same rate of success in the fights he had. Griffith performed slightly better, and showed better stamina.

De La Hoya had better speed, but wasn't as well put together overall as Griffith.

[Wee Tommy]

Griffith, by a distance. He wasn’t pampered the way Oscar was.

[elmersalsa]

WTF is this? A joke? Oscar De La Hoya is not even in the great Emile Griffith's class!

I'd say he's right there with him. DIdn't have as many fights, but had about the same rate of success in the fights he had. Griffith performed slightly better, and showed better stamina.

De La Hoya had better speed, but wasn't as well put together overall as Griffith.

You gotta be out off your mind!

[gilgamesh]

WTF is this? A joke? Oscar De La Hoya is not even in the great Emile Griffith's class!

I'd say he's right there with him. DIdn't have as many fights, but had about the same rate of success in the fights he had. Griffith performed slightly better, and showed better stamina.

De La Hoya had better speed, but wasn't as well put together overall as Griffith.

You gotta be out off your mind!

I've seen both of 'em fight multiple times. I mean I'd pick Griffith to win like I said, I just don't see it as some kinda blowout.

[Onetimeonly]

Griffith probably has a better record, but I think if these two fought prime for prime it'd be a fight that could go either way.

I'd favor Griffith though by a hair.

Definitely has a better record, but I agree Oscar could beat him.

[DrDuke]

Resume-wise (faced opponents) Griffith is way ahead of Oscar.

Achievement-wise (wins and titles) Griffith is also noticeably ahead.

It's just happened for Oscar to be more popular.

In a potential matchup I'd give an edge for Griffith, but just a slight one.

[Ambling Alp II]

I'm just going to play the Devil's Advocate here. (I rate Griffith higher but think the gap is closer than some other people)

First I will start with the kind of BS argument that we see a lot:
De La Hoya won world titles in 5 weight classes. Griffith just 2.
De La Hoya had a higher winning %.
De La Hoya had a higher KO%.

OK, now for a real argument:

Obviously the best fighters that Griffith beat were better than the best De La Hoya beat. (Especially when you considered the stages of Whitaker and Chavez when DLH fought them.)


However, you also have to look at their other fights;
Griffith lost to Randy Sandy. Randy Sandy. He lost to Denny Moyer, Manuel Gonzalez, Don (not Gene) Fullmer, and Stanley Hayward. Good fighters, but come on. He got ko'd by Rubin Carter in the first round. That severely hurts Griffith's case and should factored in. for whatever reason, nobody ever talks about these fights when rating Griffith. He also has a ton of close decisions go his way.
Imagine if De La hoya had one loss like that. You would never hear the end if it from his critics. Griffith had 6.

[DrDuke]

The comparison of these two blokes can be so complex, but they definitely had at least a one thing in common - both of them were fairies.

[gilgamesh]

I'm just going to play the Devil's Advocate here. (I rate Griffith higher but think the gap is closer than some other people)

First I will start with the kind of BS argument that we see a lot:
De La Hoya won world titles in 5 weight classes. Griffith just 2.
De La Hoya had a higher winning %.
De La Hoya had a higher KO%.

OK, now for a real argument:

Obviously the best fighters that Griffith beat were better than the best De La Hoya beat. (Especially when you considered the stages of Whitaker and Chavez when DLH fought them.)


However, you also have to look at their other fights;
Griffith lost to Randy Sandy. Randy Sandy. He lost to Denny Moyer, Manuel Gonzalez, Don (not Gene) Fullmer, and Stanley Hayward. Good fighters, but come on. He got ko'd by Rubin Carter in the first round. That severely hurts Griffith's case and should factored in. for whatever reason, nobody ever talks about these fights when rating Griffith. He also has a ton of close decisions go his way.
Imagine if De La hoya had one loss like that. You would never hear the end if it from his critics. Griffith had 6.

DLH does have some wins like that, and he never hears the end of it

[elmersalsa]

Comparing Oscar De La Hoya with the likes of the great Emile Griffith is a TOTAL BLASPHEMY!

This Griffith is a probably all-time top 20 or top 25 pound per pound great and defitnitely one of the top 5 all-time welterweight boxers.

I don't even see Oscar as a top 5 all time in any weight class he fought. He did not beat an all time great boxer in his prime. And when he had to prove greatness he always flunked, especially in that Felix "Tito" Trinidad fight. None of the two showed that they were great fighters. The hoopla among their followers in these fighters was overrated.

I don't even see Oscar in the top all-time pound per pound 100 greats, either. Plus, the Bernard Hopkins acting job rolling all over the ring like a cabaret slut did not made easier for him either. That was an Oscar for great fakeness. Just like his name. He did not had to win an Oscar. He already got the name. What a joke of a fighter he was.

[Ambling Alp II]

What possible reason would he have to fake that he was in pain?

Where does Randy Sandy rank on your all time list? Top 100?
How about Stanley Hayward? Top 50?

[elmersalsa]

What possible reason would he have to fake that he was in pain?

Where does Randy Sandy rank on your all time list? Top 100?
How about Stanley Hayward? Top 50?

Emile Griffith was fighting all the time. Probably at least 6 fights a year. Of course, he had to had some losses. That does not mean he was not a great boxer. Plus, the level of competition in the 1960s and 70s decade was way better than Oscar's era. That is not an opinion. It is a fact.

And he beat Stanley Hayward in the rematch. Sometimes is hard to get up eveytime to fight on the regular. Especially in Griffith's time where the money was not as big as today's.

Griffith was a three time world champion in 3 weight classes. And that was in a time of one champion per weight class.

[elmersalsa]

What possible reason would he have to fake that he was in pain?

Where does Randy Sandy rank on your all time list? Top 100?
How about Stanley Hayward? Top 50?

Oscar faked that. It was an atrocity. If he is an all time top 100 great, it is a BLASPHEMY.

[Onetimeonly]

You're pathetic. I hated Oscar too but he was tough as nails. As for this top 100 crap, plenty of GREAT fighters aren't in the top 100. Oscar was GREAT, tough and always up for a challenge. Case closed!

[gilgamesh]

Comparing Oscar De La Hoya with the likes of the great Emile Griffith is a TOTAL BLASPHEMY!

This Griffith is a probably all-time top 20 or top 25 pound per pound great and defitnitely one of the top 5 all-time welterweight boxers.

I don't even see Oscar as a top 5 all time in any weight class he fought. He did not beat an all time great boxer in his prime. And when he had to prove greatness he always flunked, especially in that Felix "Tito" Trinidad fight. None of the two showed that they were great fighters. The hoopla among their followers in these fighters was overrated.

I don't even see Oscar in the top all-time pound per pound 100 greats, either. Plus, the Bernard Hopkins acting job rolling all over the ring like a cabaret slut did not made easier for him either. That was an Oscar for great fakeness. Just like his name. He did not had to win an Oscar. He already got the name. What a joke of a fighter he was.

Whether or not he's all time Top 100 he still wouldn't be all that far off of Emile Griffith.

Oscar definitely didn't fake a KO loss against B-Hop. Makes no sense why he would've or what he would've gained by that.

I doubt he'd be considered Top 5 in any weight class he competed in, but that's mainly because he never stayed in any one weight class all that long.

Hell you could easily name The Top 300 or 500 Fighters of all time, and every step of the way you're gonna be talking about pretty badass guys considering that 100's of Thousands of men who have tried, and failed to achieve the same level of success over the course of the sport.

[elmersalsa]

You're pathetic. I hated Oscar too but he was tough as nails. As for this top 100 crap, plenty of GREAT fighters aren't in the top 100. Oscar was GREAT, tough and always up for a challenge. Case closed!

He ain't in the top 100 greats and you know that.

[elmersalsa]

Comparing Oscar De La Hoya with the likes of the great Emile Griffith is a TOTAL BLASPHEMY!

This Griffith is a probably all-time top 20 or top 25 pound per pound great and defitnitely one of the top 5 all-time welterweight boxers.

I don't even see Oscar as a top 5 all time in any weight class he fought. He did not beat an all time great boxer in his prime. And when he had to prove greatness he always flunked, especially in that Felix "Tito" Trinidad fight. None of the two showed that they were great fighters. The hoopla among their followers in these fighters was overrated.

I don't even see Oscar in the top all-time pound per pound 100 greats, either. Plus, the Bernard Hopkins acting job rolling all over the ring like a cabaret slut did not made easier for him either. That was an Oscar for great fakeness. Just like his name. He did not had to win an Oscar. He already got the name. What a joke of a fighter he was.

Whether or not he's all time Top 100 he still wouldn't be all that far off of Emile Griffith.

Oscar definitely didn't fake a KO loss against B-Hop. Makes no sense why he would've or what he would've gained by that.

I doubt he'd be considered Top 5 in any weight class he competed in, but that's mainly because he never stayed in any one weight class all that long.

Hell you could easily name The Top 300 or 500 Fighters of all time, and every step of the way you're gonna be talking about pretty badass guys considering that 100's of Thousands of men who have tried, and failed to achieve the same level of success over the course of the sport.

Good post, gilgamesh. But, yes, Oscar did faked that, big time!

[Onetimeonly]

You're pathetic. I hated Oscar too but he was tough as nails. As for this top 100 crap, plenty of GREAT fighters aren't in the top 100. Oscar was GREAT, tough and always up for a challenge. Case closed!

He ain't in the top 100 greats and you know that.

Who cares? He might be, if not is #110 useless? Damn Elmer, you gotta grow up at some point and recognize fighters you don't like. He's definitely greater than Pascal Perez.

[elmersalsa]

You're pathetic. I hated Oscar too but he was tough as nails. As for this top 100 crap, plenty of GREAT fighters aren't in the top 100. Oscar was GREAT, tough and always up for a challenge. Case closed!

He ain't in the top 100 greats and you know that.

Who cares? He might be, if not is #110 useless? Damn Elmer, you gotta grow up at some point and recognize fighters you don't like. He's definitely greater than Pascal Perez.

No, he is not better than Pascual Perez. No way!