Was Oscar DeLaHoya a COMPLETE FIGHTER???

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 27 Mar 2006, 19:57

What is a COMPLETE FIGHTER???

Was Oscar DeLahoya a complete boxer???

need some opinions.

walshb · Post by **walshb** » 28 Mar 2006, 11:21

As a super lightweight I think he had close to everything. Speed, combo speed, great footwork, stamina, chin and good power. He could be a little lazy at times and gave away unnecessary rds. But to beat him at his peak you're going to have to be faster, rougher and tougher. To outbox him I think would be extremely difficuly. The opponent would have to be as fast and more ferocious, like a Duran.

enrique · Post by **enrique** » 29 Mar 2006, 14:19

Oscar was the best in his time but he could not have beaten Carmen Basilio, Emile Griffith, Luis Rodriguez, Kid Gavilan, Johnny Bratton and a bunch others...

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 29 Mar 2006, 16:48

I have seen some of his fights, and he REALLY looked very ROBOTIC. Definatelty he would have never, NEVER, EVER beat guys like Basilio, Gavilan or Griffith at welter nor beat Ortiz, Duran, Buchanan or Whitaker (PRIME) at lightweight.

vagabundo55 · Post by **vagabundo55** » 30 Mar 2006, 04:19

elmersalsa wrote:I have seen some of his fights, and he REALLY looked very ROBOTIC. Definatelty he would have never, NEVER, EVER beat guys like Basilio, Gavilan or Griffith at welter nor beat Ortiz, Duran, Buchanan or Whitaker (PRIME) at lightweight.

I agree with that assessment. I believe De La Hoya was a great fighter, but he did look robotic. A bit stiff as well. I believe Chavez in his prime would have destroyed De La Hoya. De La Hoya was not a complete fighter, there are very few of those, however he was a great fighter who was close to being a complete fighter.

john2345 · Post by **john2345** » 30 Mar 2006, 11:24

I hesiiate before posting my view, as I always had a feeling that ODLH's footwork or general movement was his weakness. When I see "robotic" from other posts that's probably the word I was looking for - a bit "stiff" and not really "flowing" in his moves.

Deadly once he started to let punches go when he found his range, though.

J

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 30 Mar 2006, 18:05

enrique wrote:Oscar was the best in his time but he could not have beaten Carmen Basilio, Emile Griffith, Luis Rodriguez, Kid Gavilan, Johnny Bratton and a bunch others...

I remeber someone started a thread older fighters verses current ones and who were the better fighters. The discussion became moderatly heated as some members thought that the older fighters were being shortchanged and were every bit as skillful as current fighters, or fighters from the nineteen eighties and up.

I think just the opposite that it is the fighters from the eighties who don't receive their just do. It is like if you are a fighter from the early part of the century that you were the better fighter due to the time frame you fought in.

It seems a lot of people identify with the bygone era and thought that fighters were tougher back then maybe because they had to endure tougher times. Also I think people could identify with their working class staus back then. Also stories of fighters are passed on they are embellished as time goes by transforming good fighters into imortal legends.

To some extent this sentiment for fighters of an earlier era is understanable given the fact that the title of this forum is Boxers of the Past. It's just sometimes that sentiment leads to bias.

enrique · Post by **enrique** » 30 Mar 2006, 19:18

I am not being nostalgic or biased. Oscar is the best of his time but quite honestly. not the same caliber as other monarchs.

Go watch a tape of Johnny Bratton and study his style watch him put combos together. Check out any Luis Rodriguez tape and read the record and the beasts he fought. Do the same with Emile Griffith.

As for Carmen Basilio....well, I don't have o explain that one. A heart the size of New York and all the fire of a wounded cougar.

Look, Oscar DLH would have held his own with a lot of good fighters... He would have beaten Gaspar Ortega, Adolph Pruitt, Ernie Red Lopez amd others.

But against the good champions of other eras: Rodriguez, Griffith, Bratton, Basilio, Napoles, Gavilan, Perkins or Locche..... no go amigo.

ferocity · Post by **ferocity** » 30 Mar 2006, 21:38

Im a say he was a complete fighter, he could do it all and had power and a good chin once he moved up in weight.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 03 Apr 2006, 18:27

I have never seen (DLH) him slug it out or go toe to toe warfare with anyone. Also, he could not take a good body shot.

adspath · Post by **adspath** » 06 Apr 2006, 08:04

De La Hoya is a great fighter, one of my favourites but I agree that past champions could beat him. with the boxers of today and boxers of the past theory its hard to determine who will win but the way i see it boxers of the past fought 15 round fights and they fought more often which shows in their records. the circumstance they were in where much harder to. It is still hard to say who could win.
With De La Hoya he is a great boxers and has won many world titles..i think in his early days his style was fantastic but when he changed trainers i think his style changed and he would drop his hands more which i dont like but still he is a great boxer.

Migz · Post by **Migz** » 06 Apr 2006, 08:10

well its true oscars style changed as he went from alcazar to mayweather i personally believe alcazar was more suited to oscars style but that my opinion in terms of beating greats like griffith. pryor whitaker prime, basilio or gavilan maybe not oscars style would of been outdone by fighters like that but dont assume an easy victory. The critical moment for oscar was the Trinidad fight it all changed from there and not reeli for the better. But this is my opinion you might disagree

adspath · Post by **adspath** » 06 Apr 2006, 08:12

also another critical moment when he fought quartey, rnd 12 was great