P4P Emile Griffith or Oscar Del La Hoya?.

[Gesta]

P4P Emile Griffith or Oscar Del La Hoya?.

[red cobra]

Emile Griffith is not only the greater fighter, but head to head, he'd easily decision Oscar over 15 rounds.

[IntentionalButt]

Emile Griffith is not only the greater fighter, but head to head, he'd easily decision Oscar over 15 rounds.

:good

[Flea Man]

RedCobra summed it up as well as I could.

[junior-soprano]

emile by a clear UD

[kidargentine]

Emile Griffith is greater, better than Oscar in everyway. I Agree with the guy that said that he'd decisioned Oscar.

[PowerPuncher]

Emile Griffith is not only the greater fighter, but head to head, he'd easily decision Oscar over 15 rounds.

Just like he schooled Napoles

[The Funny Man 7]

In terms of greatness, its clearly Griffith. Head to head, I could see Oscar win maybe 3 in a 10 fight series.

[teeto]

Do we mean pound for pound, as in who is the better fighter pound for pound?

Who is the better fighter? Emile Griffith.

[Jorodz]

it's griffith by a chunk. head to head he wins to, resume and accomplishments look at the ATG and HOF guys on his resume? griffith is a true legend. i love oscar but he's a notch below

[rm36]

Griffith, without a doubt.

[Manassa]

Hope this helps. Griffith's win record over Ring rated contenders:

Gaspar Ortega (x2)
Denny Moyer (x2)
Jorge Jose Fernandez (x3)
Florentino Fernandez
Willie Toweel
Benny Paret (x2)
Yama Bahama
Isaac Logart
Ralph Dupas (x2)
Don Fullmer
Teddy Wright
Jose Monon Gonzalez
Holly Mims
Stan Harrington
Brian Curvis
Dave Charnley
Jose Stable
Gabe Terronez
Manuel Gonzalez (x2)
Joey Archer (x2)
Gypsy Joe Harris
Stanley Hayward
Doyle Baird
Tom Bogs
Rafael Gutierrez
Ernie Lopez (x2)
Armando Muniz
Bennie Briscoe
Leo Saenz

Luis Rodriguez (x3)
Dick Tiger (x2)
Nino Benvenuti

[kidargentine]

^ Thanks for that. Joey Archer was a legend too.

[Gesta]

Do we mean pound for pound, as in who is the better fighter pound for pound?

Who is the better fighter? Emile Griffith.

Teeto, I mean who is greater P4P, Who do people have higher is their P4P rankings.

[WhataRock]

Griffith by a long shot...though I dont think he would easily deal with Oscar..but he would win.

[sweet_scientist]

Both fought the best of their eras, both had some dicey decisions over the best of their eras, but Griffith's era was better, and hence Griffith is better.

Is he a more talented fighter than Oscar p4p? I'm not sure, perhaps by the slightest margin, but there isn't much in it.

Is Emile Griffith a better welterweight? Sure. But Oscar wasn't a natural welter imo and in fact he did his best work before he even got to welterweight. More a jr. welter really.

[El Bujia]

Just like he schooled NapolesI don't see the relevance.

[Gesta]

I think that in time , fight fans might have them a bit closer together, than they do now.

[Ezzard]

DLH gets overly criticised but Griffith was a special fighter. Emile comfortably.

[anarci]

Emile top 50
ODLH top 35

[WhataRock]

Emile top 50
ODLH top 35

Reasoning Anarci?

The fact I think thats ridiculously high for Hoya can be saved for another thread...but to have Emile not only lower but a fair bit lower needs some clarification for me..I cannot for the life of me see it.

[bodhi]

Reasoning Anarci?

The fact I think thats ridiculously high for Hoya can be saved for another thread...but to have Emile not only lower but a fair bit lower needs some clarification for me..I cannot for the life of me see it.

Agreed, I know anarci is a DLH fan but this is ... :yikes

[lora]

Griffith easy.

Ocar was a really good fighter, maybe even excellent at his best, but for me he's more in the running for best managed and marketed amatuer talent into pro transition of all-time than anything else.

the fact he had not a single impressive performance whenever the competition stepped up from good fighters like Gonzalez etc is what turns me off him.

I don't mind someone always being in very close fights against the best of their era and being unable to really score a signature dominating win or two, as long as the fighters are giving impressive showings, but Oscar was always fighting the wrong fight, underwhelming or stinking the joint out in his fights with other really good to excellent fighters.

Vargas at 154 might have been his best to me, that was a fine win because of the size difference.Tito, quartey, Pea, both Mosley fights...all good but hardly special, great or even excellent performances htat told me this guy's reputation and hype far exceeded his ability.

Lightweight/junior welter were likely where he would be at his most formidable in an all-time sense.He had size, range and excellent power there, but his opposition hardly compares to Griff's.



Griffith has loads of close debatable fights too, but they were usually fought at a clearly higher standard from him than OScar showed us imo.

Griff an all-time great.Even if it is through sheer toughness, longevity and ability to consistently grind out very good to excellent performances rather than as an awesome dazzling talent.

Oscar a very good borderline/near great.ie. the same category i'd have Buchanan, Laguna etc...

[jaffay]

It has to be Emile

[red cobra]

I don't see the relevance.
I don't either. Jose Napoles, besides being a great fighter, who also is greater p4p and head to head than Oscar, was at his near peak as welter champ, and Griffith was at that time a middleweight and had to melt off pounds to make that fight..I don't think he was at his best for Napoles, and he quite possibly could have nade it closer had he been at his best at 147.

[red cobra]

Griffith easy.

Ocar was a really good fighter, maybe even excellent at his best, but for me he's more in the running for best managed and marketed amatuer talent into pro transition of all-time than anything else.

the fact he had not a single impressive performance whenever the competition stepped up from good fighters like Gonzalez etc is what turns me off him.

I don't mind someone always being in very close fights against the best of their era and being unable to really score a signature dominating win or two, as long as the fighters are giving impressive showings, but Oscar was always fighting the wrong fight, underwhelming or stinking the joint out in his fights with other really good to excellent fighters.

Vargas at 154 might have been his best to me, that was a fine win because of the size difference.Tito, quartey, Pea, both Mosley fights...all good but hardly special, great or even excellent performances htat told me this guy's reputation and hype far exceeded his ability.

Lightweight/junior welter were likely where he would be at his most formidable in an all-time sense.He had size, range and excellent power there, but his opposition hardly compares to Griff's.



Griffith has loads of close debatable fights too, but they were usually fought at a clearly higher standard from him than OScar showed us imo.

Griff an all-time great.Even if it is through sheer toughness, longevity and ability to consistently grind out very good to excellent performances rather than as an awesome dazzling talent.

Oscar a very good borderline/near great.ie. the same category i'd have Buchanan, Laguna etc...
:deal

[red cobra]

Emile top 50
ODLH top 35
:patsch

[round15]

I see a fight somewhat like the DelaHoya vs Quartey fight. Only Emile Griffith would make certain not to get robbed by the judges, but in reality how much more could he do to thwart Oscar's popularity. I thought Quartey did more than enough to win the fight despite being knocked down twice. Oscar would land some decent shots and just might give Emile a bit of trouble, but I'd still favour Emile to win a convincing UD over 12 or 15 rounds.

[red cobra]

Of course..it would be a dull, but solid 15 roiund points win for Griffith. The old mechanic would just be too smart for Oscar.

[anarci]

I don't either. Jose Napoles, besides being a great fighter, who also is greater p4p and head to head than Oscar, was at his near peak as welter champ, and Griffith was at that time a middleweight and had to melt off pounds to make that fight..I don't think he was at his best for Napoles, and he quite possibly could have nade it closer had he been at his best at 147.
Yeah OK:patsch

[anarci]

I see a fight somewhat like the DelaHoya vs Quartey fight. Only Emile Griffith would make certain not to get robbed by the judges, but in reality how much more could he do to thwart Oscar's popularity. I thought Quartey did more than enough to win the fight despite being knocked down twice. Oscar would land some decent shots and just might give Emile a bit of trouble, but I'd still favour Emile to win a convincing UD over 12 or 15 rounds. Overall Griffith is rated waaaaaaaaay higher than Quartey(and rightly so although HTH it would be a tight fight for both) however they were 2 totally different fighters Griffith was busier and better overall ring technician, but Ike had more Power and the better jab, both were real physically strong. You think quartey was robbed:patsch Well it was closer than Whittaker/Oscar, and i had Quartey up by 1 point going into the last round but Oscar had a huge round 10-8 so he wins by 1. Hey you can even make a case for it being a 10-7 round.
Any ways one day Oscar will be rated higher than Griffith by most, in fact i wouldnt doubt that a survey of boxing writers might have him higher right now.

[anarci]

You know whats funny?


Your opinions will be lauged at in 25 or 30 years when Oscar will be recogniZed for the great fighter that he is.:yep


Do you know in 1976 Ali was rated 6 among atg heayweights:lol:


Get a clue young fans:roll:

[bodhi]

You know whats funny?


Your opinions will be lauged at in 30 or 40 years when Oscar will be recogniZed for the great fighter that he is.:yep


Do you know in 1976 Ali was rated 6 among atg heayweights:lol:


Get a clue young fans:roll:

Well, some people get old and wise others just get old. It seems you are one of the latter :good :D :lol:

[anarci]

Well, some people get old and wise others just get old. It seems you are one of the latter :good :D :lol::lol::lol: Actually Bodhi im wise enough to know that your opinions will change someday. I have more of reason to be biased towards the old timers since im guessing that i got about 70% of you guys in the age department.

I see it how it is bro, ive been a historian of this game way before the internet even came around, and i hold many of the past time greats resumes in high regard, but i dont disregard the modern time fighters like many of you puppys do:lol:

In the last 30 years we have come across some extraordinary fighters who should make up at least a 3rd of the list but yet your opinons are of crusty old fucks that cant see that,when in reality most of you are wet behind the ears boxing fans that got your info from box rec and youtube:yep

Many of you wannabe(not alllof you:good) "Historians" have a hard time ranking fighters of the last 30 years in the top 50:patsch Yes do not reply to me about how much competition there was back then and how many quality fighters there were back then. I know that!!!

Guys that are automatics for atgs in the last 30 years

Leonard Should be on everyones atg10list
Duran should be on everyones top 5 list
CHAVEZ you guys sound like ridiculous old farts putting certain ATGs over him . I have him 10 or 11, he should be on every ones top 20.
Jones
Holyfield
Sanchez
Hagler
Whittaker
Spinks
are the 30% that belong here. If you want to replace certain guys than you can put Holmes,Hearns,Odlh and a few other unretired guys on here. You know quit being old fucks, when i know you a lot of you guys started watching boxing 10 years ago. PUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuulease!!!!!!


Get a clue Classic, just cause this is the classic forum doesnt mean you have to automacilly go for the older fighter:-(

[TommyV]

Griffith easily.

[Bummy Davis]

Griffith wins a UD, different level of experience

[anarci]

Griffith easily.

Get a new Avi pendejo:patsch

[TommyV]

Get a new Avi pendejo:patsch

You get a new avatar, yours is gay as fuck.

[anarci]

You get a new avatar, yours is gay as fuck.

:lol::lol: You dont have a clue mof:verysad


Why are you promoting a scapegoat:huh You cant pic on anyone in your neighborhood?

[WhataRock]

:lol::lol: Actually Bodhi im wise enough to know that your opinions will change someday. I have more of reason to be biased towards the old timers since im guessing that i got about 70% of you guys in the age department.

I see it how it is bro, ive been a historian of this game way before the internet even came around, and i hold many of the past time greats resumes in high regard, but i dont disregard the modern time fighters like many of you puppys do:lol:

In the last 30 years we have come across some extraordinary fighters who should make up at least a 3rd of the list but yet your opinons are of crusty old fucks that cant see that,when in reality most of you are wet behind the ears boxing fans that got your info from box rec and youtube:yep

Many of you wannabe(not alllof you:good) "Historians" have a hard time ranking fighters of the last 30 years in the top 50:patsch Yes do not reply to me about how much competition there was back then and how many quality fighters there were back then. I know that!!!

Guys that are automatics for atgs in the last 30 years

Leonard Should be on everyones atg10list
Duran should be on everyones top 5 list
CHAVEZ you guys sound like ridiculous old farts putting certain ATGs over him . I have him 10 or 11, he should be on every ones top 20.
Jones
Holyfield
Sanchez
Hagler
Whittaker
Spinks
are the 30% that belong here. If you want to replace certain guys than you can put Holmes,Hearns,Odlh and a few other unretired guys on here. You know quit being old fucks, when i know you a lot of you guys started watching boxing 10 years ago. PUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuulease!!!!!!


Get a clue Classic, just cause this is the classic forum doesnt mean you have to automacilly go for the older fighter:-(



Well when you put it that way anarci....you're still wrong :lol:

Having Griffith over De la Hoya is hardly ridiculous nor means the person who does so is an old fart....it just means they arent of a certain heritage that blindly supports fighters who also belong to that certain heritage. :lol:

Im all ears for your reasoning why you have him so much higher anarci, any time you are ready. ;)

[TheGreatA]

Rankings are subjective. I don't see why it's such a big deal. No one has any obligation to put modern fighters nor old fighters in their top 20. Your rankings are no more right than the others' are.

Having Emile Griffith, an all-time great, over De La Hoya is hardly an insult to today's group of boxers. Griffith was just happened to be pretty good, that's all.

[McGrain]

Get a clue Classic, just cause this is the classic forum doesnt mean you have to automacilly go for the older fighter:-(


It's generally considered good form to explain your position visa vis win ledger before you dismiss the entire forum's make-up.

[anarci]

It's generally considered good form to explain your position visa vis win ledger before you dismiss the entire forum's make-up.

Check this out Mcgrain:mad: I respect your opinion on boxing as ive seen that you are one of the only ones that come close to me in knowledge of the sweet science.

Ive explained this a Ziiiiiiilion times here on why Oscar is a legit ATG, im not gonna type this shit again.

One thing thought ask any old knowledegeabe old timer(if you know any) if Emile was regarded as the elite fighter of his era?

You know what just look at freeeeekin Video!!!!! Without being an unbiased observer you cannot tell me that Emile would have beat Oscar at Welter:nono:nono You know what and im not even talking about Oscar being a dominant force in the lower weights.

Dont bother listing Griffiths resume cause ive been very aware of it for at least 25 years:bart

[bodhi]

:lol::lol: Actually Bodhi im wise enough to know that your opinions will change someday. I have more of reason to be biased towards the old timers since im guessing that i got about 70% of you guys in the age department.

It would be strange if I wouldn´t. I change my opinions on fighters on a daily basis.


I see it how it is bro, ive been a historian of this game way before the internet even came around, and i hold many of the past time greats resumes in high regard, but i dont disregard the modern time fighters like many of you puppys do:lol:

Well, you know, I have collagues that are 10-15 years older than me, have more experience and I´m still better in their job than them. Age and experience mean shit if you can´t use it properly. You at times can´t. Proof is your list down there or your opinion on DLH here.
And puppys? Sorry, you don´t know how old I am. I´m younger than you but I ain´t no puppy :bart


In the last 30 years we have come across some extraordinary fighters who should make up at least a 3rd of the list but yet your opinons are of crusty old fucks that cant see that,when in reality most of you are wet behind the ears boxing fans that got your info from box rec and youtube:yep

I disagree. There were some fine fighters in tha last 30 years no doubt. But 24-48 hours weigh-ins, numeral belts, less fights, less proving themselves aginst the best, a drop of competition, manufactured careers and doping hurts their legacies.
That has nothing to do with prefering old timers. There are plenty of fighters out of the last 30 years I like. Even more than old-time fighters but I can´t rate them higher than I do.


Many of you wannabe(not alllof you:good) "Historians" have a hard time ranking fighters of the last 30 years in the top 50:patsch Yes do not reply to me about how much competition there was back then and how many quality fighters there were back then. I know that!!!

I never did a Top50. I don´t go further than 10 tiers and these include 4 fighters out of the last 30 years with one beeing not included because he is still active.


Guys that are automatics for atgs in the last 30 years

Leonard Should be on everyones atg10list - I rate him in my Top20, can´t see the Top20, he has great top wins but lacks the depth.
Duran should be on everyones top 5 list - I have him Top10, alongside Pep. Can´t put him in my Top5, there are more deserving fighters imo.
CHAVEZ you guys sound like riidiculous old farts putting some og the guys you do over him I have him 10 or 11, should be on every ones top 20. - I have him borderline Top20. There are arguments for him., I don´t think he is a lock.
Jones - Top50 for sure, perhaps Top35/40. Was sets him back is that he chose money over legacy. He could have been a Top10.
Holyfield - hm, I rank him very high. Top8 at hw, Top1 at cw and probably Top35 in an atg list.
Sanchez - I think he lacks the depth to be ranked highly. Probably Top50 but I never tried to rank him.
Hagler - Top5 mw, Top40 all-time.
Whittaker - I have him Top20, right next to SRL. Like Leonard he has qwuality but lacks in the quantity departement.
Spinks - I rank him Top5 at lhw but not that high all-time. His stint at hw was pretty short and I think he is 1-1 against Holmes. Probably would make my Top50.
are the 30% that belong here.

Imo Tommy Hearns, Wilfred Benitez, Bernard Hopkins, Floyd Mayweather, Manny Pacquiao deserve a Top50 or even higher ranking. Others like DLH, Toney, and a few others are borderline.


Get a clue Classic, just cause this is the classic forum doesnt mean you have to automacilly go for the older fighter:-(

Why do you assume people do so? Just because they disagree with you? Sorry but I don´t see it. To me it seem boxing was at his height between the 30s and 60s and then slowly quantity and quality drops. There are still exceptions to the rule though.


btw. I think I wrote it again in the pas, you thinking that others opinions are less worth than yours because they are younger is hilarious. You sound like a grumpy old man. Like Seamus.

[anarci]

Well when you put it that way anarci....you're still wrong :lol:

Having Griffith over De la Hoya is hardly ridiculous nor means the person who does so is an old fart....it just means they arent of a certain heritage that blindly supports fighters who also belong to that certain heritage. :lol:

Im all ears for your reasoning why you have him so much higher anarci, any time you are ready. ;)

Hey rock it dont have to do with heritage:nono I give on honest opinon or if its not in my guys favor i just wont give one:lol: see (Yaqui Lopez-Moorer)

Not a chance dude i think you guys overrate Zarate and Saldivar so dont come at me with that cultural bias shit.

[WhataRock]

Hey rock it dont have to do with heritage:nono I give on honest opinon or if its not in my guys favor i just wont give one:lol: see (Yaqui Lopez-Moorer)

Not a chance dude i think you guys overrate Zarate and Saldivar so dont come at me with that cultural bias shit.

Im playing anarci but it must be said you only say that about Saldivar and Zarate because some put them over your other favorite Mexicans :lol:

But instead of debating the topic and answering questions being asked of ya, namely mine..you seem to be happy to go on an old vs modern rant and drag the topic away from the simple discussion of Griffith and De La Hoya...all I want to know is why you have him so much higher, with a little bit of detail and why you think its such sacrilege to consider Emile the greater fighter?

Thats all...we can cover the other stuff another day mate.

[McGrain]

Ive explained this a Ziiiiiiilion times here on why Oscar is a legit ATG, im not gonna type this shit again.

But he can be a legit ATG and still below Griffith. The reason people are surprised at your very aggressive position is that it seems obvious to most that Griffith is the greater fighter. Explaining why he is great and why is greater than Griffiith are two different things.

Don't bother listing Griffith's resume

Because it's clearly better than Oscar's? It is, isn't it?

[anarci]

It would be strange if I wouldn´t. I change my opinions on fighters on a daily basis.



Well, you know, I have collagues that are 10-15 years older than me, have more experience and I´m still better in their job than them. Age and experience mean shit if you can´t use it properly. You at times can´t. Proof is your list down there or your opinion on DLH here.
And puppys? Sorry, you don´t know how old I am. I´m younger than you but I ain´t no puppy :bart Well im not gonna throw no names out there but last time one of the " Gurus" on the classic tried to test my knowledge i sent him back home to his baby sitter:yep Check one of"kirks" threads on the General:yep You just think im biased and dont see my brilliance that is why you think i dont know:-( Im only 39 but ive been a hard fan and eventually on the inside since i was a kid. I dont put a lot of my experience in the boxing game out there but im know what im talking about.



I disagree. There were some fine fighters in tha last 30 years no doubt. But 24-48 hours weigh-ins, numeral belts, less fights, less proving themselves aginst the best, a drop of competition, manufactured careers and doping hurts their legacies.
That has nothing to do with prefering old timers. There are plenty of fighters out of the last 30 years I like. Even more than old-time fighters but I can´t rate them higher than I do.

Bottom line if your rating fighters from back to the Queenseberry etc ets, that is just a little over a 100 years, why not consider 30% as for the ratio. When you know deep down that any of the 80s greats would have slaugtered the turn of the century fighters, Now i understand we have to rate them according to that era , but you have to take into consideration that the modern fighters like Duran,Leonard,Chavez,Whittaker,Hagler,Spinks,Sanchez,Holyfield,Holmes,Hearns
Jones,Hopkins,Mayweather,Pac, etc etc would have been great in any era.


I never did a Top50. I don´t go further than 10 tiers and these include 4 fighters out of the last 30 years with one beeing not included because he is still active.
I wasnt directing mu comment towards u specifically it was to all of the classic, although you are one of the culprits.


Imo Tommy Hearns, Wilfred Benitez, Bernard Hopkins, Floyd Mayweather, Manny Pacquiao deserve a Top50 or even higher ranking. Others like DLH, Toney, and a few others are borderline.

Hearns top 25 to 30, Benitez top 60, Hopkins top 25, Mayweather ????????? i will hold my opinion till May 1st, Pac top 15, DLH top 35, Toney top 60.



Why do you assume people do so? Just because they disagree with you? Sorry but I don´t see it. To me it seem boxing was at his height between the 30s and 60s and then slowly quantity and quality drops. There are still exceptions to the rule though.

I understandt the golden erasm, but many of the posters here on the classic dont think i do :patsch Ive known about all these old time greats for years. Im very aware of the quality of fighters,(ESPECIALLY QUANITY)


btw. I think I wrote it again in the pas, you thinking that others opinions are less worth than yours because they are younger is hilarious. You sound like a grumpy old man. Like Seamus.

:lol: Old ha when you guys see my picture you will think im alot younger than you think. I dont consider your guys knowledge low in fact i think The classic guys are pretty knowledgeable, My only complaint is the bias. Can you guy let come in your time machine:smoke

[anarci]

Check this out Mcgrain:mad: I respect your opinion on boxing as ive seen that you are one of the only ones that come close to me in knowledge of the sweet science.

Ive explained this a Ziiiiiiilion times here on why Oscar is a legit ATG, im not gonna type this shit again.

One thing thought ask any old knowledegeabe old timer(if you know any) if Emile was regarded as the elite fighter of his era?

You know what just look at the freeeekin videor!!!! Without being an unbiased observer you cannot tell me that Emile would have beat Oscar at Welter:nono:nono U know what and im not even gonna start on Oscar being a PFP best at one time and being the best fighter from JL to JM, Oscar was a beast at in the lower weights and a dominant force, Griffith was not dominant in that way. Griiffith was a legit atg but he worked his way up he didnt devastate and dominate guys the way Oscar did in his prime. ou know what just look at freeeeekin Video!!!!! Without being an unbiased observer you cannot tell me that Emile would have beat Oscar at Welter:nono:nono You know what and im not even talking about Oscar being a dominant force in the lower weights.

Dont bother listing Griffiths resume cause ive been very aware of it for at least 25 years:bart


Ok ROck im not going all out again but see this Post^^^^^^^^^^^^

[McGrain]

Bennie Brisco
Dick Tiger x2
Nino Benvenuti
Joey Archer
Jose Stable
Holy Mims
Benny Parrett X2
Gasper Ortega x2
Denny Moyer

:tong

[anarci]

Bennie Brisco
Dick Tiger x2
Nino Benvenuti
Joey Archer
Jose Stable
Holy Mims
Benny Parrett X2
Gasper Ortega x2
Denny Moyer

:tong

John Molina-- Better than Moyer,Ortega,Archer and Stable,Mims,Parett equal
Rafeal Ruelas- Moyer,Ortegas equal
Jesse Leija-------- See Molina
Genaro Hernadez--- Good win over a prime possible future HOF
Miguel Gonzalez- See Molina
Julio C Chavez- Even this version of Chavez was better than Molina
Pernell Whittaker- Close but clear win imo
Ike QuarteY- great win better than lot of the guys you mentioned Oscar pulled it out in one of his only clutch wins
Fernado Vargas- Still a very good fighter and a pfp on every ones list
Felix Trinidad- Roooooobed:patsch
And i can name quite a few other quality names here Camacho,Gatti etc etc.
Shane Mosley- Since you mentioned Nino who beat him 2 0ut of 1 than i cam mention Oscar who should be 1-1 with Mosley Javier Castellejo- Yey talk shit but he was a 2x chAMP AND KOD STURM

[McGrain]

Sturm beat Oscar.

[sweet_scientist]

Fuck, I think Griffith lost every fight to Luis Rodriguez, lost to Dick Tiger once, lost to Gaspar Ortega once, lost to Benny Paret once, lost to Joey Archer once, and I STILL have him ranked higher than DLH.

Simply a better wins resume, simply a better welterweight, and Oscar does not look any better on film and arguably he looks worse, especially in big fights, as has already been pointed out by Lora in this thread.

Oh and Griffith has the edge in longevity too, just in case he needed anything to clinch a higher ranking.

[anarci]

Sturm beat Oscar.
Yey and Griffith got ktfo by the Hurricane in the first round:yep

Yey but that comment wasnt about Oscars fight with sturm, i was talking about how Castellejo(oscar victim) knocked out Sturm

[McGrain]

Yey and Griffith got ktfo by the Hurricane in the first round:yep

Yey but that comment wasnt about Oscars fight with sturm, i was talking about how Castellejo(oscar victim) knocked out Sturm


Hard to imagine how Oscar would get on with additional world class middleweights given the way Hopkins handled him, though.

[anarci]

Fuck, I think Griffith lost every fight to Luis Rodriguez, lost to Dick Tiger once, lost to Gaspar Ortega once, lost to Benny Paret once, lost to Joey Archer once, and I STILL have him ranked higher than DLH.

Simply a better wins resume, simply a better welterweight, and Oscar does not look any better on film and arguably he looks worse, especially in big fights, as has already been pointed out by Lora in this thread.

Oh and Griffith has the edge in longevity too, just in case he needed anything to clinch a higher ranking.

I guess im alone here:patsch Im i gonna have to call Uli uli on you crusty old fucks:lol::lol:

[sweet_scientist]

Bennie Brisco
Dick Tiger x2
Nino Benvenuti
Joey Archer
Jose Stable
Holy Mims
Benny Parrett X2
Gasper Ortega x2
Denny Moyer

:tong

You can add to that:
Tom Bogs
Ernie Lopez
Bennie Briscoe
Jorge Jose Fernandez X 2
Ralph Dupas
Isaac Logart
Yama Bahama
Willie Toweel
Florentino Fernandez

Guys at least as good as some of the names anarci is bringing up for DLH.

[McGrain]

I guess im alone here:patsch Im i gonna have to call Uli uli on you crusty old fucks:lol::lol:


It doesn't matter who you call; it doesn't actually matter what you think of Oscar's opponents. The facts are that Griffith's top end wins are at a higher level against opponents who are naturally bigger - even if you are right (and I think you are wrong) and history is kinder to Oscar than the judgement of his peers, the names of the men you list will not be similarly enhanced. Griffith has a longer list of better fighters to his name, and that's the end of this particular story.

[anarci]

You can add to that:
Tom Bogs
Ernie Lopez
Bennie Briscoe
Jorge Jose Fernandez X 2
Ralph Dupas
Isaac Logart
Yama Bahama
Willie Toweel
Florentino Fernandez

Guys at least as good as some of the names anarci is bringing up for DLH.

Yey all of you have conviently forgot my question? Was Emile ever considered the best PFP? Did he ever storm thru divisions the way Oscar did? Was Oscar ever blown out in 1 round( yey i know:lol: Just had to throw that in)
If you want to bring up ODLH fight with Sturm well what about Kitten Hayward and Manuel Gonzalez? Dont act like Emile didnt have his slip ups and as for those other guys you brought up well Paez,Campas,Kamau,Dorsey,Bredahl, and a few other guys that slipped my mind were decent wins too, on top of the guys i already mentioned

[McGrain]

Yey all of you have conviently forgot my question? Was Emile ever considered the best PFP?


Not forgotten so much as ignored.

It doesn't matter who was considered p4p the best of their era for what length of time, it matters how the two compare directly. Kid Gavilan wasn't considered p4p #1 at any stage of his career, I believe, and he, too, pisses all over Oscar. Walker, too.

[anarci]

It doesn't matter who you call; it doesn't actually matter what you think of Oscar's opponents. The facts are that Griffith's top end wins are at a higher level against opponents who are naturally bigger - even if you are right (and I think you are wrong) and history is kinder to Oscar than the judgement of his peers, the names of the men you list will not be similarly enhanced. Griffith has a longer list of better fighters to his name, and that's the end of this particular story.

Dont act like you checked me Mcgrain. You dont got no pull with this vato:nono I was being facetious when i said that :lol: You never answered some of my questions about Emile do i have to keep reapeating them done it twice already, Why are you trying to shut this debate down with out answering me:huh

You think you can end storys and debates:lol::lol:

[anarci]

Not forgotten so much as ignored.

It doesn't matter who was considered p4p the best of their era for what length of time, it matters how the two compare directly. Kid Gavilan wasn't considered p4p #1 at any stage of his career, I believe, and he, too, pisses all over Oscar. Walker, too. Well I dont think Gavilan pisses all over Oscar and im sure i know more about the Kid than you. :yep:yep:yep Yey Mof you met your match here on ESB i just play with whatever the other posters have to tell me. Im SRR to you Non Peral Jack Dempsey. SO get the fuck out here with your nostaligia.

Id put Walker Very high top 15. Gavilan and ODLH top 35.

[sweet_scientist]

Yey all of you have conviently forgot my question? Was Emile ever considered the best PFP?

A better question would be would DLH have been considered p4p1 in Griffith's era and the answer to that question is: :rofl

Did he ever storm thru divisions the way Oscar did?

No, but this storming that Oscar did was not against fighters that were all that good. Would he have stomed through a lightweight division packed like Griffith's welterweight division? Of course not.

Was Oscar ever blown out in 1 round( yey i know:lol: Just had to throw that in)No. So does that mean that DLH is more durable than Griffith? What is it meant to show?

But getting blasted out once in so many fights can't be held too much against him.

If you want to bring up ODLH fight with Sturm well what about Kitten Hayward and Manuel Gonzalez? Dont act like Emile didnt have his slip ups and as for those other guys you brought up well Paez,Campas,Kamau,Dorsey,Bredahl, and a few other guys that slipped my mind were decent wins too, on top of the guys i already mentionedYou're mentioning lower level guys here on the whole, especially if we take into account the time at which Oscar beat some of them.

[McGrain]

You think you can end storys and debates:lol::lol:

To put it another way; Griffith's superior resume is going to be the last word in deciding who ranks higher for the vast majority of people.

[anarci]

A better question would be would DLH have been considered p4p1 in Griffith's era and the answer to that question is: :rofl



No, but this storming that Oscar did was not against fighters that were all that good. Would he have stomed through a lightweight division packed like Griffith's welterweight division? Of course not.

No. So does that mean that DLH is more durable than Griffith? What is it meant to show?

But getting blasted out once in so many fights can't be held too much against him.

You're mentioning lower level guys here on the whole, especially if we take into account the time at which Oscar beat some of them.

Most of what u said was agree to disagree, although Oscar might have not been PFP back then but i dont think Griffith would be PFP in the modern era, maybe for a brief moment by default, but he wasnt scinitilating like Oscar,Jones,Whittaker,May he was a solid great that was appreaciated more when his career was over. Kink of like a Mike Mccallum.

As far as Oscar blowing thru inferior fighters. Well thats your opinion i think Genaro,Leija,Ruelas,Gonzalez,Molina were high quality fighters that would have been top notch in any era. If you say no, i question your analyzation of talent.

So since you making excuses for Griffith being blown out by Carter, You can erase a drained ODLH getting stopped by Pac?

The guys OScar beat in the lower weight classes are being underrated, you are obviously biased towards modern day fighters.



If you want to say im the opposite this is not true I actually think Griffith and ODLH would be a real close fight (ODLH takin it) however PFP and legacy Oscar gets the nod.

[sweet_scientist]

Most of what u said was agree to disagree, although Oscar might have not been PFP back then but i dont think Griffith would be PFP in the modern era, maybe for a brief moment by default, but he wasnt scinitilating like Oscar,Jones,Whittaker,May he was a solid great that was appreaciated more when his career was over. Kink of like a Mike Mccallum.

Well Oscar himself was only p4p for a brief moment, and ironically, after a fight half the scribes felt he lost (Whitaker). He was transitional between Pea and Roy really.

As far as Oscar blowing thru inferior fighters. Well thats your opinion i think Genaro,Leija,Ruelas,Gonzalez,Molina were high quality fighters that would have been top notch in any era. If you say no, i question your analyzation of talent.None of those guys would be champions in the 60's. None would probably even be in the top handful of contenders in their respective divisions, I don't think. IF you think otherwise, please tell me who those guys would beat in the 60's.

So since you making excuses for Griffith being blown out by Carter, You can erase a drained ODLH getting stopped by Pac?Griffith getting knocked out is a more significant loss than Oscar's loss. Oscar's loss to Pac meant nothing - he was done.

The guys OScar beat in the lower weight classes are being underrated, you are obviously biased towards modern day fighters.

If you want to say im the opposite this is not true I actually think Griffith and ODLH would be a real close fight (ODLH takin it) however PFP and legacy Oscar gets the nod.The problem with Oscar's resume is that some of the best names on it he fought when they were past their best. Wins over Chavez are not that significant. The Whitaker win was a disputed decision with a naturally smaller guy that was past his prime. Guys like Paez, Carr, Leija were all past their prime and not really that good to begin with.

As far as talent goes, I don't think DLH is far behind Griffith, I could deal with someone saying they are on par, but as far as resumes go, it's just not arguable that DLH has a better one, even if you think he beat Whitaker, Quartey, Trinidad and Mosley in the rematch. I still don't think it's up there with Griffiths, even if you think Griffith lost all the Rodriguez fights and split fights with the other quality fighters he matched it with.

For every Tito, Mosley, Quartey and Whitaker there is a Benvenuti, Tiger, Archer, Paret on Griffith's ledger.

[JohnThomas1]

The Whitaker win was a disputed decision with a naturally smaller guy that was past his prime.

Just on this one SS, i'm not 100% sure Whitaker was the naturally smaller man. Well height and reach yes (If we went only on this Hearns for instance would be naturally bigger than numerous 175's of course) but Oscar won a world title a division under what Whitaker ever fought at. Maybe the weight draining was in by then but still even if so.

Whitaker had been bashing people at 147 for 4 years as well as popping in for a 154 pound title so he was sitting pretty well. Oscar by comparison had just 3 fights at 140 then went straight to 147 for Whitaker. He was a fully fledged lightweight 1 1/2 years earlier.

[anarci]

Just on this one SS, i'm not 100% sure Whitaker was the naturally smaller man. Well height and reach yes (If we went only on this Hearns for instance would be naturally bigger than numerous 175's of course) but Oscar won a world title a division under what Whitaker ever fought at. Maybe the weight draining was in by then but still even if so.

Whitaker had been bashing people at 147 for 4 years as well as popping in for a 154 pound title so he was sitting pretty well. Oscar by comparison had just 3 fights at 140 then went straight to 147 for Whitaker. He was a fully fledged lightweight 1 1/2 years earlier.

:good:good Lot of people here like to talk about Oscar fighting smaller foes, but fail to recognise that ODLH was moving up and beating guys that were already established in their weight.

[sweet_scientist]

Just on this one SS, i'm not 100% sure Whitaker was the naturally smaller man. Well height and reach yes (If we went only on this Hearns for instance would be naturally bigger than numerous 175's of course) but Oscar won a world title a division under what Whitaker ever fought at. Maybe the weight draining was in by then but still even if so.

Whitaker had been bashing people at 147 for 4 years as well as popping in for a 154 pound title so he was sitting pretty well. Oscar by comparison had just 3 fights at 140 then went straight to 147 for Whitaker. He was a fully fledged lightweight 1 1/2 years earlier.

That's true but consider:

Oscar fought for a title at 130 weighing in 2 and a half days before the fight.

Whitaker stayed at lightweight until he was 27, and didn't leave the division because he could no longer make weight.

Oscar, even at 135, was draining radically to make weight. He couldn't have stayed there for much longer than he did without his performances suffering as a result.

Whitaker was more established at welterweight sure, having fought there for a while, and I think he was heavier on the night than Oscar too, but when I say he was naturally smaller I mean that he had less capacities for growth than Oscar did. I don't think you could ever find Whitaker fighting at 160 without looking ridiculous. He looked fat at 154. Not so with Oscar, who easily was carrying 154 for years and fought at middleweight above that looking ok.

If we're talking ideal weights, I think Whitaker's was 135, Oscar's was 140.

[PowerPuncher]

Theres allot of rose tinted glasses and shitting on Oscar while hyping Griffith. Let examine some of the comments:

'Griffith was in a better WW division' - was he, with, Mosley/Trinidad/Quartey/Whitaker/Chavez/Forrest, Rodriguez and co were a load better? BULLSHIT

'Delahoya has big size advantages in many of his wins' - well yes so? Being big and conditioned at a weight is part of the sport, I dont see anyone here downgrading Monzon, Foster and Arguello for the same reason so show some consistancy. Its not like Delahoya didnt fight similar sized or bigger men

'DLH fought past prime wins so they don't count' - being past prime degrades the win but they still are excellent wins/performances

I can't believe I've been forced to defend Oscar now I want to vomit

[TheGreatA]

Theres allot of rose tinted glasses and shitting on Oscar while hyping Griffith. Let examine some of the comments:

'Griffith was in a better WW division' - was he, with, Mosley/Trinidad/Quartey/Whitaker/Chavez/Forrest, Rodriguez and co were a load better? BULLSHIT

'Delahoya has big size advantages in many of his wins' - well yes so? Being big and conditioned at a weight is part of the sport, I dont see anyone here downgrading Monzon, Foster and Arguello for the same reason so show some consistancy. Its not like Delahoya didnt fight similar sized or bigger men

'DLH fought past prime wins so they don't count' - being past prime degrades the win but they still are excellent wins/performances

I can't believe I've been forced to defend Oscar now I want to vomit

The names do look good but it must also be acknowledged that Chavez was never any good at 147 and was past his prime, Whitaker was also on the decline (just look at him against Rivera/Hurtado) and Oscar never fought Forrest/Winky. He had close fights with Trinidad, Mosley and Quartey but didn't truly establish himself as a level above them. Had he done that, De La Hoya being rated above Griffith could surely be justified.

[anarci]

Well Oscar himself was only p4p for a brief moment, and ironically, after a fight half the scribes felt he lost (Whitaker). He was transitional between Pea and Roy really.

None of those guys would be champions in the 60's. None would probably even be in the top handful of contenders in their respective divisions, I don't think. IF you think otherwise, please tell me who those guys would beat in the 60's.

Griffith getting knocked out is a more significant loss than Oscar's loss. Oscar's loss to Pac meant nothing - he was done.

The problem with Oscar's resume is that some of the best names on it he fought when they were past their best. Wins over Chavez are not that significant. The Whitaker win was a disputed decision with a naturally smaller guy that was past his prime. Guys like Paez, Carr, Leija were all past their prime and not really that good to begin with.

As far as talent goes, I don't think DLH is far behind Griffith, I could deal with someone saying they are on par, but as far as resumes go, it's just not arguable that DLH has a better one, even if you think he beat Whitaker, Quartey, Trinidad and Mosley in the rematch. I still don't think it's up there with Griffiths, even if you think Griffith lost all the Rodriguez fights and split fights with the other quality fighters he matched it with.

For every Tito, Mosley, Quartey and Whitaker there is a Benvenuti, Tiger, Archer, Paret on Griffith's ledger.
Dude check out some publications of Ring and Ko"before Oscar owned the ring" you will see that Oscar was top notch for a while.


I was probably reaching with Rafeal Ruelas but the rest would have been very good in any era. Hernandez,Molina,gonzalez,Leija yey i can honestly say that on a good night they would have been champs against even those very good old timers all of these^^^ guys were very good fighters eve when Oscar fought them.

Your right Griffith getting blown out in 1 round was more tell tale than a zombie oscar fighting Pac


Chavez was definitely past his best but he was still a very good fighter no longer great but very good and a helluva a accomplishment for a young Oscar

I think Whittaker proved to be a difficult fight and made Oscar look bad, but Whittaker did do enought to win and imo Ocar won convincingly. Also i hate hearing the crap about PW being washed up, he turned back the clock for that fight , there was a huge difference in his reflexes from the Hurtado fight to his fight with Oscar.


Il give u Paez i was at that fight:yep
As for Leija I know he wasnt past it i talked to Leija after that fight and Jesse told me he felt better than ever and was very confident he was gonna beat Oscar, he just said he was overwhelmed, said Oscar hit harder than the MWs that he was sparring with. No matter what Oscar was a beast at that weight, even a slick technichian like Genaro hernandez got overwhelmed after a few round. You guys wanna dis Oscar for being a Overblown LW. Well why dont you guy s start dissin Hearns and other modern day fighters that came in big.

you wanna talk about his triology with Rodriguez and how great he was? Well i agree that Rodriguez wa great but he wasnt any better than Mosley. Another thing Griffith was dominated by Naopoles. Oscar fought a similar great opponent in Mayweather and did a helluva alot better than Griffith.

In all honesty here there resumes are kind of equal. Griffith has som bigger names at the higher weights, but we got to look atwhere oscar started at. IMO he was such a dominant force in the lighter weights and to take that as he moved up i s a big accomplishment.



Emile great fighter

Oscar greater fighter:bbb:bbb:bbb

[anarci]

That's true but consider:

Oscar fought for a title at 130 weighing in 2 and a half days before the fight.

Whitaker stayed at lightweight until he was 27, and didn't leave the division because he could no longer make weight.

Oscar, even at 135, was draining radically to make weight. He couldn't have stayed there for much longer than he did without his performances suffering as a result.

Whitaker was more established at welterweight sure, having fought there for a while, and I think he was heavier on the night than Oscar too, but when I say he was naturally smaller I mean that he had less capacities for growth than Oscar did. I don't think you could ever find Whitaker fighting at 160 without looking ridiculous. He looked fat at 154. Not so with Oscar, who easily was carrying 154 for years and fought at middleweight above that looking ok.

If we're talking ideal weights, I think Whitaker's was 135, Oscar's was 140.

You are doing some serious nit picking here:-(

If used your strategy i could tear apart Robinson,Armstrong,Duran,Ali,Pep:-(

[lora]

Quartey was inactive by the time he fought Oscar and looked like a Welterweight Frank Bruno, yet somehow possibly even less dynamic.He was a far cry from the fighter that took on Espana, carr and Vince.Oscar was always good at picking fighters who looked on the steep decline though, it was the same with Whitaker.He rarely went into any big fight without things seemingly stacked in favour of him before the fight, and even then rarely impressed as a talent on the level he was being sold as.I was actually more impressed with his loss againt Mosley than most of his big wins, that at least was a damn good quality fight.

maybe i'm too harsh on Oscar, but i've genuinely never thought he was a true great.A fucking good fighter, but not an all-timer, henjust didn't ever show that kind of talent when it mattered.And unlike loads of damn good fighters who had far inferior backing and might only get one or two shots, he had tons of chances to do so.

[PowerPuncher]

The names do look good but it must also be acknowledged that Chavez was never any good at 147 and was past his prime, Whitaker was also on the decline (just look at him against Rivera/Hurtado) and Oscar never fought Forrest/Winky. He had close fights with Trinidad, Mosley and Quartey but didn't truly establish himself as a level above them. Had he done that, De La Hoya being rated above Griffith could surely be justified.

I'm not sure I buy the 'Chavez was never good at 147', he faced whitaker and oscar, how many would look good against them? Was Whitaker past his best, yes, but hes top10 P4P of all time and got himself back into great shape for the Oscar fight. No Oscar never faced Forrest/Winky but you cant face everyone and he beat Mayorga who beat Forrst and offered WInky 6million for a fight

Griffith had loads of close fights/losses himself against the elite so that levels things up in my view. The difference is and usually came out top in a series, discounting Benvenuti. I certainly thought Oscar got lucky decisions, but he certainly deserved the Trinidad fight. It would have been nice to see trilogies against Whitaker, Tito, Quartey, Mosley and I think he may have won most of those trilogies given Whitakers age.

Griffith certainly had the superior skill level, but Oscar was a greater athlete at his best. Ability wise maybe Griffith edges it overall, but the fact Oscar was so HUGE at 135/140 makes him an excellent H2H fighter at those weights

Oscars 135-140lb career gets glosses over, he did show himself to be the best at those weights in his short stay there even if his comp wasnt top notch. I dont think anyone proved themselves the best WW of his era but he did hold his own against the best. At 154 he was arguably the best and 160 was just a bridge too far

I would still probably go with Griffith on this but its not the massive gulf in class some here portray it to be

[McGrain]

Griffith certainly had the superior skill level, but Oscar was a greater athlete at his best. Ability wise maybe Griffith edges it overall, but the fact Oscar was so HUGE at 135/140 makes him an excellent H2H fighter at those weights


Good summary, actually.

[anarci]

Quartey was inactive by the time he fought Oscar and looked like a Welterweight Frank Bruno, yet somehow possibly even less dynamic.He was a far cry from the fighter that took on Espana, carr and Vince.Oscar was always good at picking fighters who looked on the steep decline though, it was the same with Whitaker.He rarely went into any big fight without things seemingly stacked in favour of him before the fight, and even then rarely impressed as a talent on the level he was being sold as.I was actually more impressed with his loss againt Mosley than most of his big wins, that at least was a damn good quality fight.

maybe i'm too harsh on Oscar, but i've genuinely never thought he was a true great.A fucking good fighter, but not an all-timer, henjust didn't ever show that kind of talent when it mattered.And unlike loads of damn good fighters who had far inferior backing and might only get one or two shots, he had tons of chances to do so.
:patsch Fucking Lora:? Ive agreed with all of your posts for the most part but you are completely in ":nutFunky brain:nut"" mode.

Quartey like Bruno? You ever thought that Oscar had something to do with that? Likewise with Oscar both of them fought tentative"save the few fireworks"

But the most outrageous statement was the comment about Oscar pickinhg guys in the decline:patsch If there is one thing that noooooooooooooone should dis Oscar, is that he fought the elite figtghers of his era.


Answear me this!!!

Who has for more quality fighters tha n ODLH in the last 25 years? Nobody!!!!!!!! any fighter fights the quality of guys he fought is gonna come out with a few losses, Do you think May,Pac would come out unscathed with the quality of fighters that he fought?

Oscar is an ATG and much better than a lot of the guys on Esb talk about.

On the Aussie forum some "so called expert rated Dullio Loi over Oscar :patsch

[anarci]

You know i just talked to my pops about this, and he is from ther Griffith era. I told him to post on here but he thinks ESB is full of shit.

My pops said Oscar was definitely a better fighter than Emile, said Emile didnt have the speedl,Power and was not as consistant as Oscar. He did give an advantage to Emile on the intagibles as far as the era and fighting on a frequent basis,but im telling you ill take my Pops opinon who has lived thru both eras, and in a heartbeat he told me Oscar is the better fighter.

[lora]

That's cool,and it's not like anyone should feel persecuted for taking Oscar, but i don't think many posters have the old-timers bias you are saying Anarci.I just see honest opinions for the most part.

oen thign i would say about Griffith is i tend to agree he might not have performed as well in the modern era(even from say mid-seventies on).especially if he had the misfortune to be fighting out of somewhere other than a boxing hotbed like New york.

Maybe it takes him a good five or 6 years to get a title shot, or that relatively unflashy technical style doesn't go over too well with the judges in a real close fight and he doesn't get the decision when he really needs it.Not as many chances to recuperate and re-establish yourself, which may not have suited him.

[PowerPuncher]

Who has for more quality fighters tha n ODLH in the last 25 years?

Arguably Holyfield, Lewis, Pacquaio, Toney, Whitaker and FMJ is catching up

[TheGreatA]

I'm not sure I buy the 'Chavez was never good at 147', he faced whitaker and oscar, how many would look good against them? Was Whitaker past his best, yes, but hes top10 P4P of all time and got himself back into great shape for the Oscar fight. No Oscar never faced Forrest/Winky but you cant face everyone and he beat Mayorga who beat Forrst and offered WInky 6million for a fight

But he didn't look very good at all against them. Chavez never beat anyone at 147 and looked bad in his performances at the weight. At the time Chavez fought De La Hoya at 147, he was 36, comparable to the De La Hoya who lost to Pacquiao. As a welterweight win it doesn't really count, at light welterweight yes. When you think of the top welterweights of the past 20 years, Chavez shouldn't really count.

I did not find De La Hoya's win over Whitaker to be impressive. It was a close fight where De La Hoya never truly took charge and Whitaker's record post-1996 consisted of two close fights with Rivera, one of which he arguably lost, a come-from-behind KO win over Hurtado, the loss to De La Hoya, a close decision win over unknown Pestriaev which was turned into a no contest due to Whitaker testing positive for the use of cocaine as well as the one-sided loss to Trinidad. I question, on hindsight, if Whitaker was truly a top pound for pound fighter at this stage.

In Griffith's case he did fight pretty much everyone from welterweight to middleweight. I don't think he is leagues above Oscar, nor is Oscar leagues above him. I think the case to rank Griffith over De La Hoya is stronger and thus am a bit surprised that anarci is feeling insulted that people are rating Griffith above Oscar. Both of them competed at top level during the respective eras and while neither established themselves as the clear number 1, they made up for it by fighting everyone, scoring some very good wins while also suffering some losses, at times in controversial and indecisive fashion.

[sweet_scientist]

Dude check out some publications of Ring and Ko"before Oscar owned the ring" you will see that Oscar was top notch for a while.

How long is 'a while'?

I was probably reaching with Rafeal Ruelas but the rest would have been very good in any era. Hernandez,Molina,gonzalez,Leija yey i can honestly say that on a good night they would have been champs against even those very good old timers all of these^^^ guys were very good fighters eve when Oscar fought them.I think they'd more have a chance in a non-title fight to jag a win off a champ. Doubt it would happen in a championship fight.

Your right Griffith getting blown out in 1 round was more tell tale than a zombie oscar fighting Pac


Chavez was definitely past his best but he was still a very good fighter no longer great but very good and a helluva a accomplishment for a young OscarChavez was still a good fighter, but a cut put a spanner in the works that first fight. I don't see many people giving Billy Backus or LC Morgan that much credit for beating PRIME versions of Jose Napoles. Do you acknowledge them as better wins than Oscars? Napoles was prime after all, Chavez was not.

I think Whittaker proved to be a difficult fight and made Oscar look bad, but Whittaker did do enought to win and imo Ocar won convincingly. Also i hate hearing the crap about PW being washed up, he turned back the clock for that fight , there was a huge difference in his reflexes from the Hurtado fight to his fight with Oscar.Whitaker got up for the fight true, but let's stop this convincing stuff. That was not a convincing performance by Oscar. At best he outhustled Whitaker.


Il give u Paez i was at that fight:yep
As for Leija I know he wasnt past it i talked to Leija after that fight and Jesse told me he felt better than ever and was very confident he was gonna beat Oscar, he just said he was overwhelmed, said Oscar hit harder than the MWs that he was sparring with.Ok.
No matter what Oscar was a beast at that weight, even a slick technichian like Genaro hernandez got overwhelmed after a few round. You guys wanna dis Oscar for being a Overblown LW. Well why dont you guy s start dissin Hearns and other modern day fighters that came in big.Oscar was exemplary at the weight. Molina gave him a hard fight though.

you wanna talk about his triology with Rodriguez and how great he was? Well i agree that Rodriguez wa great but he wasnt any better than Mosley.To me, Rodriguez was clearly better than Shane Mosley. Again, better resume being the key factor there.
Another thing Griffith was dominated by Naopoles. Oscar fought a similar great opponent in Mayweather and did a helluva alot better than Griffith.If Oscar drained himself down to welterweight, the way Griffith did for the Napoles fight, he may not have done so well. Look how completely inept Oscar was when fighting Pac as a welterweight. Weight cutting in old age in particular doesn't go down well.

In all honesty here there resumes are kind of equal. Griffith has som bigger names at the higher weights, but we got to look atwhere oscar started at. IMO he was such a dominant force in the lighter weights and to take that as he moved up i s a big accomplishment.Agree to disagree on their resumes. Oscar has an excellent one, but Griffith's has more quantity and a tad more quality too.

[sweet_scientist]

I'm not sure I buy the 'Chavez was never good at 147', he faced whitaker and oscar, how many would look good against them?

The Chavez that fought Whitaker was a good fighter and would have had some success there against some styles. The Chavez that fought DLH at welterweight was doing nothing but cashing in his chips.

[PowerPuncher]

Quartey was inactive by the time he fought Oscar and looked like a Welterweight Frank Bruno, yet somehow possibly even less dynamic.He was a far cry from the fighter that took on Espana, carr and Vince.Oscar was always good at picking fighters who looked on the steep decline though, .

Yes but Quartey was a superb boxer and if he was promoted aswell as Oscar and kept dedicated we'd have lots of threads about him on the Classic forum and talk about him as a great. Its a shame he didnt get the fights on his terms and was kept innactive

I actually had Quartey winning this and thought he put in a good showing, he made Oscar look silly and ineffective allot, he made Winky and Forrest look silly when he was a part time boxer, which says allot about him. Oscar did pull out an amazing end to the fight, but on round by round basis its not enough

[PowerPuncher]

The Chavez that fought Whitaker was a good fighter and would have had some success there against some styles. The Chavez that fought DLH at welterweight was doing nothing but cashing in his chips.

Agree to a degree, Chavez will have wanted Oscars scalp but was too old and small to do anything, still might have beat a top10 contender or 2. The 140lb win was an excellent one given the manner of it though despite the insatisfactory end and Chavez being past prime

[PowerPuncher]

But he didn't look very good at all against them. Chavez never beat anyone at 147 and looked bad in his performances at the weight. At the time Chavez fought De La Hoya at 147, he was 36, comparable to the De La Hoya who lost to Pacquiao. As a welterweight win it doesn't really count, at light welterweight yes. When you think of the top welterweights of the past 20 years, Chavez shouldn't really count.

I did not find De La Hoya's win over Whitaker to be impressive. It was a close fight where De La Hoya never truly took charge and Whitaker's record post-1996 consisted of two close fights with Rivera, one of which he arguably lost, a come-from-behind KO win over Hurtado, the loss to De La Hoya, a close decision win over unknown Pestriaev which was turned into a no contest due to Whitaker testing positive for the use of cocaine as well as the one-sided loss to Trinidad. I question, on hindsight, if Whitaker was truly a top pound for pound fighter at this stage.

In Griffith's case he did fight pretty much everyone from welterweight to middleweight. I don't think he is leagues above Oscar, nor is Oscar leagues above him. I think the case to rank Griffith over De La Hoya is stronger and thus am a bit surprised that anarci is feeling insulted that people are rating Griffith above Oscar. Both of them competed at top level during the respective eras and while neither established themselves as the clear number 1, they made up for it by fighting everyone, scoring some very good wins while also suffering some losses, at times in controversial and indecisive fashion.

Yes the 147 rematch wasnt that great a win but it was somewhat important given the unsatisfactory

Whitaker certainly was past prime but his skills and ability he dispayed against DLH were stunning at times. He was in better shape against Hoya than he was in his prior fights that I dont think he was particularly up for. Whitakers Tito loss was 2years later in which time he'd been completely inactive, I'm not convinced Tito beats the version of Whitaker Oscar fought, although I thought Whitaker won anyway for the record

[Popkins]

P4P Emile Griffith or Oscar Del La Hoya?.

Griffith by miles and miles and miles.

[anarci]

Arguably Holyfield, Lewis, Pacquaio, Toney, Whitaker and FMJ is catching up

I was gonna say GTFOH, but instes i will sayGet the fuck out fuck out of here:patsch:patsch

Only Holyfield can compare and still he doesnt match it.

FMJ:patsch WTF i give the kid his props but you are obviously a Floyd nuthugger to compare his opponents to ODLH.

[bodhi]

I was gonna say GTFOH, but instes i will sayGet the fuck out fuck out of here:patsch:patsch

Only Holyfield can compare and still he doesnt match it.

FMJ:patsch WTF i give the kid his props but you are obviously a Floyd nuthugger to compare his opponents to ODLH.

Imo the only one is Whitaker and perhaps Holyfield and Pac. But DLH lost too many of those fights to rank as high as you have him. IMO.

[PowerPuncher]

Read Ancari, I said 'catching up', if he can add Pacquaio, Mosley, Berto to Delahoya, Corrales, Castillo, Judah, Hatton, Hernandez, Chavez, JMM he is catching up

Toney/Lewis/ resume are amazing in terms of the names, all the best of the best, Toneys probably trumps Hoyas for quality

[anarci]

But he didn't look very good at all against them. Chavez never beat anyone at 147 and looked bad in his performances at the weight. At the time Chavez fought De La Hoya at 147, he was 36, comparable to the De La Hoya who lost to Pacquiao. As a welterweight win it doesn't really count, at light welterweight yes. When you think of the top welterweights of the past 20 years, Chavez shouldn't really count.

I did not find De La Hoya's win over Whitaker to be impressive. It was a close fight where De La Hoya never truly took charge and Whitaker's record post-1996 consisted of two close fights with Rivera, one of which he arguably lost, a come-from-behind KO win over Hurtado, the loss to De La Hoya, a close decision win over unknown Pestriaev which was turned into a no contest due to Whitaker testing positive for the use of cocaine as well as the one-sided loss to Trinidad. I question, on hindsight, I really questinon if wHITTAKER WAS TRULY A TOP POUND FOR POUND FIGHTER AT THIS STAGE.

In Griffith's case he did fight pretty much everyone from welterweight to middleweight. I don't think he is leagues above Oscar, nor is Oscar leagues above him. I think the case to rank Griffith over De La Hoya is stronger and thus am a bit surprised that anarci is feeling insulted that people are rating Griffith above Oscar. Both of them competed at top level during the respective eras and while neither established themselves as the clear number 1, they made up for it by fighting everyone, scoring some very good wins while also suffering some losses, at times in controversial and indecisive fashion.
A lot of Sweet Pea nuthuggers always like to claim that he was past it ,and i will be the first one to say that he wasnt the same Sweet Pea when he fought HurtaDPO. ................................ BUT Damn he turned back the clock for ODLH, and dont none of you MOFs try and tell me that he WAS WASHED UP THAT NIGHT.:nono:nono Sweat Pea was on his game that night and still lost a legitimate close but convincing decision.

Ive been watching boxing too long and Whittaker was on his AAAAAAAAA game that night and the fight what played out the same way , if you had the one that fought Buddy Mcgrit there.

[TheGreatA]

A lot of Sweet Pea nuthuggers always like to claim that he was past it ,and i will be the first one to say that he wasnt the same Sweet Pea when he fought HurtaDPO. ................................ BUT Damn he turned back the clock for ODLH, and dont none of you MOFs try and tell me that he WAS WASHED UP THAT NIGHT.:nono:nono Sweat Pea was on his game that night and still lost a legitimate close but convincing decision.

Ive been watching boxing too long and Whittaker was on his AAAAAAAAA game that night and the fight what played out the same way , if you had the one that fought Buddy Mcgrit there.

You could say that he "turned back the clock", or maybe it was just De La Hoya's timid effort that made Whitaker look better than he was at that point.

This version of Whitaker was still good enough to outpoint top 10 contenders in close fights, but he was no longer the dominating force he had been previously when he shut out almost every opponent he faced.

I don't think he just magically "turned back the clock", although he was likely in better shape and more motivated for a super fight with De La Hoya, but he was still suffering from the effects of age and past drug abuse. He brought whatever he had left in him and made a fight out of it, much like De La Hoya did against Mayweather. Oscar was later beaten badly by a buzzsaw in Pacquiao, so was Whitaker by Trinidad.

[anarci]

You could say that he "turned back the clock", or maybe it was just De La Hoya's timid effort that made Whitaker look better than he was at that point.

This version of Whitaker was still good enough to outpoint top 10 contenders in close fights, but he was no longer the dominating force he had been previously when he shut out almost every opponent he faced.

I don't think he just magically "turned back the clock", although he was likely in better shape and more motivated for a super fight with De La Hoya, but he was still suffering from the effects of age and past drug abuse. He brought whatever he had left in him and made a fight out of it, much like De La Hoya did against Mayweather. Oscar was later beaten badly by a buzzsaw in Pacquiao, so was Whitaker by Trinidad.


Come on dude:patsch Be honest with at least your self , Whittaker sucked balls against Hurtado until the end when he pulled out a clutch performance.

Oscars was in his prime but barely ad******g to Welter, and still IMO won that fight.

Delahoya had more left against May than Pea did against Tito, but dont even bring up Pac/ODLH :nono Thats like bringing up HOMES/ALI

[TheGreatA]

Come on dude:patsch Be honest with at least your self , Whittaker sucked balls against Hurtado until the end when he pulled out a clutch performance.

I don't think I denied that. However fighters don't usually go from sucking to being an ATG in their prime.

Oscars was in his prime but barely ad******g to Welter, and still IMO won that fight.

Delahoya had more left against May than Pea did against Tito, but dont even bring up Pac/ODLH :nono Thats like bringing up HOMES/ALII compared DLH/Mayweather to DLH/Whitaker and DLH/Pacquiao to Whitaker/Trinidad. Oscar left it all in the ring against Mayweather, so did Whitaker against De La Hoya, and both essentially became "shot" afterwards.

[anarci]

I think Oscar should go at a winner and comeback to beat up JC jr

[TheGreatA]

In doing so he would become the first person to beat up both father and son in professional boxing since Jersey Joe Walcott stopped Phil Jackson and his son Harold I believe.

[anarci]

In doing so he would become the first person to beat up both father and son in professional boxing since Jersey Joe Walcott stopped Phil Jackson and his son Harold I believe.:lol::lol: Oscar will never be an elite fighter again but he still has enought to beat up Chavez Jr, Duddy and guys like that. In fact if cotto lost a step i think ODLH would have a shot, I always liked ODLH style to handle Cotto:bbb

[TheGreatA]

:lol::lol: Oscar will never be an elite fighter again but he still has enought to beat up Chavez Jr, Duddy and guys like that. In fact if cotto lost a step i think ODLH would have a shot, I always liked ODLH style to handle Cotto:bbb

If he ever decides to make a comeback, and I do hope that he won't, he should forget about the 147 lb business and fight comfortably at 154-160. Aging fighters going down in weight has never worked.

It looks bad if he goes out on a loss against Pacquiao but we shouldn't forget that nearly all of the great fighters went out on losses. Eventually his later fights will be forgotten.

[teeto]

Griffith very clearly.

[anarci]

Griffith very clearly.
Oscar would to what Napoloes did :yep

[TheGreatA]

I thought Griffith too did the worst mistake an aging fighter could make, which was to drop down in weight at an advanced age. He had grown to a solid 154-160 lber and seemed drained at 147. I don't think he put up the best possible fight that a peak Emile Griffith could have against Napoles. Not saying he would have won anyway but Griffith had a tendency to make any fight a close one.

[teeto]

Oscar would to what Napoloes did :yep
Oscar would lose. He'd do well to box outside but i have no worries giving the hypothetical w to Griffith at all.

[teeto]

I thought Griffith too did the worst mistake an aging fighter could make, which was to drop down in weight at an advanced age. He had grown to a solid 154-160 lber and seemed drained at 147. I don't think he put up the best possible fight that a peak Emile Griffith could have against Napoles. Not saying he would have won anyway but Griffith had a tendency to make any fight a close one.
Yeah you could imagine them both doing well in a trilogy say. But even at his frst stint at 147 i'd take Napoles if asked.

[PowerPuncher]

I compared DLH/Mayweather to DLH/Whitaker and DLH/Pacquiao to Whitaker/Trinidad. Oscar left it all in the ring against Mayweather, so did Whitaker against De La Hoya, and both essentially became "shot" afterwards.

I dont think either became 'shot' because of those fights, they both just got older and less dedicated in the following years, in Oscars case going down to a weight he shouldnt be at and in Whitakers snorting cocaine and not training for 2years

[PowerPuncher]

the fight what played out the same way , if you had the one that fought Buddy Mcgrit there.

Congratulations you've just won the Nuthugging comment of the day :good

[PowerPuncher]

I thought Griffith too did the worst mistake an aging fighter could make, which was to drop down in weight at an advanced age. He had grown to a solid 154-160 lber and seemed drained at 147. I don't think he put up the best possible fight that a peak Emile Griffith could have against Napoles. Not saying he would have won anyway but Griffith had a tendency to make any fight a close one.

Wasnt Griffith 143/144, which would indicate 147 wasnt murderous to get to for him. The age probably didn't help him but Napoles was getting on a bit himself by then

[TheGreatA]

Wasnt Griffith 143/144, which would indicate 147 wasnt murderous to get to for him. The age probably didn't help him but Napoles was getting on a bit himself by then

De La Hoya was 145 against Pacquiao.

It probably wasn't murderous for him to get down to welterweight, but he seemed to leave the fight on the scales. It was not the traditional Emile Griffith effort that I've seen of him, although admittedly Napoles had a lot to do with that as well. In his next fight 3 months later, Griffith weighed 161.

[anarci]

Congratulations you've just won the Nuthugging comment of the day :good
YOu know what at least im backing a underrated but great fighter. That will one day be recognized as an elite atg, but all these other "historians" nodt hink high of him

Anyways dont tell me Nigel benn is your man?


If he is he would be lucy to be ODLHs butler.

[TheGreatA]

I dont think either became 'shot' because of those fights, they both just got older and less dedicated in the following years, in Oscars case going down to a weight he shouldnt be at and in Whitakers snorting cocaine and not training for 2years

I don't say they became shot because of those fights, it's not like they were grueling wars, but they became shot after those fights due to one reason or another. Whitaker probably due to drug abuse, De La Hoya due to weight-draining, as well as simple age of course. Also Trinidad and Pacquiao unlike Mayweather and De La Hoya took the fight to their opponents.

It's easier for an old fighter to deal with an opponent who is trying to box with them than an opponent who is relentlessly trying to overwhelm them.

[teeto]

YOu know what at least im backing a underrated but great fighter. That will one day be recognized as an elite atg, but all these other "historians" nodt hink high of him

Anyways dont tell me Nigel benn is your man?


If he is he would be lucy to be ODLHs butler.
You say Oscar is underrated here, but i can guarantee you that he'll be overrated in larger circles than this one. What annoys me sometimes is that people get pissed off with views in this small corner of the boxing world when you have masses of fans in other areas with outright insane opinions.

[ricardinho]

Come on dude:patsch Be honest with at least your self , Whittaker sucked balls against Hurtado until the end when he pulled out a clutch performance.

Oscars was in his prime but barely ad******g to Welter, and still IMO won that fight.

Delahoya had more left against May than Pea did against Tito, but dont even bring up Pac/ODLH :nono Thats like bringing up HOMES/ALI

I agree Hurtado dominated him and Whitaker barely got past him in a lousy performance.

Whitaker often overlooked his competition. I am tired of people saying Pernell was so great when he had quite a few close fights in his prime: Azumah Nelson, Jorge Paez, McGirt I, Wilfredo Rivera I. Look at his resume carefully and you will see that Whitaker was not a consistent fighter.

[TheGreatA]

I agree Hurtado dominated him and Whitaker barely got past him in a lousy performance.

Whitaker often overlooked his competition. I am tired of people saying Pernell was so great when he had quite a few close fights in his prime: Azumah Nelson, Jorge Paez, McGirt I, Wilfredo Rivera I. Look at his resume carefully and you will see that Whitaker was not a consistent fighter.

I don't think the Nelson or Paez fights were particularly close. The McGirt fight was close, but McGirt was very good. It was one of the great technical fights. I wouldn't say he was in his prime against Rivera.

[lora]

Nelson got thrashed for the most part.Marching forward in straight lines winging clubbing hooks and right hands that mostly missed.IF he wasn't such an imposing fighter physically he probably wouldn't have won 30 seconds of the fight.

[ricardinho]

I don't think the Nelson or Paez fights were particularly close. The McGirt fight was close, but McGirt was very good. It was one of the great technical fights. I wouldn't say he was in his prime against Rivera.

Rewatch those fights and tell me that they were easy efforts on the part of Pernell.

Funny how you dismiss evidence by saying they were not close...

Whitaker Paez cards 116-110, 115-111. and 115-112
[Only registered and activated users can see links]


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Whitaker Nelson cards 116-114, 115-113, and 116-111...considering Nelson went up 5 lbs to fight whitaker and the scores were real close I would say this is an embarrassment.

[TheGreatA]

Rewatch those fights and tell me that they were easy efforts on the part of Pernell.

Funny how you dismiss evidence by saying they were not close...

Whitaker Paez cards 116-110, 115-111. and 115-112


Whitaker Nelson cards 116-114, 115-113, and 116-111...considering Nelson went up 5 lbs to fight whitaker and the scores were real close I would say this is an embarrassment.

There's no way either fight could be scored against Whitaker. 116-110 in the Paez fight and 116-111 in the Nelson fight seem to represent the most reasonable scorecards in those fights. Whitaker also had a point taken away both times by the referee.

Beating Azumah Nelson in clear fashion is far from an embarrassment.

[BUDW]

Emile Griffith no contest

[ricardinho]

There's no way either fight could be scored against Whitaker. 116-110 in the Paez fight and 116-111 in the Nelson fight seem to represent the most reasonable scorecards in those fights. Whitaker also had a point taken away both times by the referee.

Beating Azumah Nelson in clear fashion is far from an embarrassment.

I think you are just being biased...

[TheGreatA]

I think you are just being biased...

Not that Lederman is the most reliable judge but he too scored the Nelson fight 117-110 for Whitaker and The Paez fight 116-110 for Whitaker. There was really no question about who won those fights. I think most people would agree.

[sweet_scientist]

LMFAO@Whitaker vs. Nelson being close.

It's about as funny as Whitaker vs. Chavez being a draw.

But that's Don King for you.

Oh and that's idiotic people that equate walking forward with being effective for you.

[SuzieQ49]

I did not find De La Hoya's win over Whitaker to be impressive.

Anytime you defeat the RING Magazine # 1 p4p fighter in the world, it should be an impressive win, GreatA.

[ricardinho]

Not that Lederman is the most reliable judge but he too scored the Nelson fight 117-110 for Whitaker and The Paez fight 116-110 for Whitaker. There was really no question about who won those fights. I think most people would agree.

I am not questioning who won.... I merely stated that those performances were not impressive. Your reply was simply no! I can't take your argument seriously... In the Paez fight Paez was able to slip and deflect quite a few of Pernell's punches. In the Nelson fight Whitaker was suprised that Azumah was able to compete at a weight higher than his natural weight.

I posted video for you to see the fights... and all you can tell me is what Lederman said great work:good

[ricardinho]

LMFAO@Whitaker vs. Nelson being close.

It's about as funny as Whitaker vs. Chavez being a draw.

But that's Don King for you.

Oh and that's idiotic people that equate walking forward with being effective for you.

The fight was a close fight!

Post your scorecard...

[anarci]

Anytime you defeat the RING Magazine # 1 p4p fighter in the world, it should be an impressive win, GreatA.

:good:good Exactly many posters here have short term memories.

Yet the "supposedly know everything" about fighters that fought before they were even born:patsch

[WhataRock]

Hey anarci.

[ricardinho]

:good:good Exactly many posters here have short term memories.

Yet the "supposedly know everything" about fighters that fought before they were even born:patsch

Yeah... how can these kids argue that they know Griffith real well when its obvious that they don't know Oscar. These so called You Newber Boxing Historians are funny!

[sweet_scientist]

:good:good Exactly many posters here have short term memories.

Yet the "supposedly know everything" about fighters that fought before they were even born:patsch

Can I see some evidence where it says Whitaker was the number 1 p4p leading up to the DLH fight?

Or are you and Suzie merely saying that he beat a former number 1? I think you were making out that the former was true, so let's see some evidence to jog all our memories, or even to school us for something we know nothing about.

[sweet_scientist]

The fight was a close fight!

Post your scorecard...

If Whitaker-Nelson was a close fight DLH vs. Miguel Angel Gonzalez could have gone either way :good

Oh, and my scorecard: 117-110 Whitaker
Nelson: 7 and 12 ( 10-8 ).
Whitaker: 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10 and 11.

[anarci]

Can I see some evidence where it says Whitaker was the number 1 p4p leading up to the DLH fight?

Or are you and Suzie merely saying that he beat a former number 1? I think you were making out that the former was true, so let's see some evidence to jog all our memories, or even to school us for something we know nothing about. At the time it was debated on Whittaker-Jones around the time of changing the guard, but one thing is for sure after Oscar beat sweet Pea he was widely regarded no#1 Pfp by Ring,Ko and many others.

[sweet_scientist]

At the time it was debated on Whittaker-Jones around the time of changing the guard, but one thing is for sure after Oscar beat sweet Pea he was widely regarded no#1 Pfp by Ring,Ko and many others.

It was debated, meaning some publications had Whitaker no.1, some had Jones no. 1?

A single source that had Whitaker no.1 p4p leading into the DLH fight will suffice as proof for me.

I'll wait :good

[bodhi]

I think you are just being biased...

Azumah NElson is one of my favs and I agree with TheGreatA that Whitaker beat him very clearly, schooled him at times. Nelson was above his best weight and it seems he missed something there. Still a great win.

[PowerPuncher]

YOu know what at least im backing a underrated but great fighter. That will one day be recognized as an elite atg, but all these other "historians" nodt hink high of him

Anyways dont tell me Nigel benn is your man?


If he is he would be lucy to be ODLHs butler.

Yes but you ca still remain objective, it like me saying 'Pacquaio would beat any version of Oscar the same as he beat that version', its clearly not true, neither is the 'clear decision' claim, given boxing fans are completely divided on the decision

And you really want to match Oscar with Benn at 160 :lol: Hell Benn could have made 154 in his younger years and would snap Hoya in half at either of those weights

[JohnThomas1]

That's true but consider:

Oscar fought for a title at 130 weighing in 2 and a half days before the fight.

Whitaker stayed at lightweight until he was 27, and didn't leave the division because he could no longer make weight.

Oscar, even at 135, was draining radically to make weight. He couldn't have stayed there for much longer than he did without his performances suffering as a result.

Whitaker was more established at welterweight sure, having fought there for a while, and I think he was heavier on the night than Oscar too, but when I say he was naturally smaller I mean that he had less capacities for growth than Oscar did. I don't think you could ever find Whitaker fighting at 160 without looking ridiculous. He looked fat at 154. Not so with Oscar, who easily was carrying 154 for years and fought at middleweight above that looking ok.

If we're talking ideal weights, I think Whitaker's was 135, Oscar's was 140.

Good counter points but the difference would be so small i personally wouldn't be putting too much stock in Whitaker being the smaller man. That's just my thoughts mate.

[PowerPuncher]

I always thought Oscar looked bigger in the ring against Whitaker, bearing in mind Oscar is a career weight drainer it isnt suprising

[TheGreatA]

Anytime you defeat the RING Magazine # 1 p4p fighter in the world, it should be an impressive win, GreatA.

I believe I explained my reasons for not finding it too impressive. On hindsight I question whether Whitaker was truly deserving of being a top pound for pound fighter at that stage in his career and I question whether De La Hoya proved that he was the better of the two in that fight.

I could be wrong but wasn't Ring Magazine rating De La Hoya and Roy Jones above Whitaker after Whitaker's dreadful performance against Hurtado?

1996:


Roy Jones Jr. ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Oscar De La Hoya ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Pernell Whitaker ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Felix Trinidad ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Ricardo Lopez ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Junior Jones ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Kostya Tszyu ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Terry Norris ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Evander Holyfield ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Mark Johnson ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

[TheGreatA]

I am not questioning who won.... I merely stated that those performances were not impressive. Your reply was simply no! I can't take your argument seriously... In the Paez fight Paez was able to slip and deflect quite a few of Pernell's punches. In the Nelson fight Whitaker was suprised that Azumah was able to compete at a weight higher than his natural weight.

I posted video for you to see the fights... and all you can tell me is what Lederman said great work:good

You don't need to post highlights of the fights when I've seen them in full several times. You did not believe me when I said the fights were closer to 117-111 type decisions rather than fights that could have gone either way so I brought up Lederman who scored both fights wide.

Paez slipped a few of Whitaker's punches and was also hit with over 300 of them. Of course CompuBox is not the most reliable either, but what's clear is that Paez got hit a ton.

I was impressed by Whitaker against Nelson.

[El Bujia]

I think you are just being biased...I think you have just not seen either fight. The Nelson win was one of the most impressive of Whitaker's career. I gave Nelson one round and scored another round even (the round in which Whitaker had a point taken away). It was a clinic.