A huge diffeence between Oscar and Leonard

[teeto]

There are similarities here, in terms of the Golden Boy aspect, and personality, fanbase and the rest. There have been times in both men's careers when people have felt that these two have attempted to 'trick' the purists with the desired result being an enhanced legacy.

Before i get into this, i would like to say im not a fan of either, but am unbiased and respect both for what they did achieve in their respective careers.

Leonard

His preparation and approach to the Duran rematch has een questioned, i personally dont like to get into such subject, as a big Duran fan it comes cross as bitter! He won, but in the interest of this topic maybe a bit devious on the part of Leonard. Also, the strategy in the Hagler one, people aren't too happy with, but he never cheated, i personally had a draw.

Now telling the world he got titles at 168 and 175, that one annoys me.

So, Leonard has been a bit snakish at times, certainly looks as though he picked fights at times and under circumstances that suited him. But personally, i believe he the sport has always had a big place in his hart. Remember his initial retirement when he provided colour commentary? He was really insightful and good to listen to i thought.

At the end of the day, despite his shrewdness, he was a very top tier pugilist alongside history's elite.

De La Hoya

Now Oscar tricked the world into thinking he was of the same skillset as the sport's greats:deal

[Caponecartels]

heh, i was thinking you'd have another paragraph explaining how oscar was different. but you pretty much summed up right there.

[teeto]

heh, i was thinking you'd have another paragraph explaining how oscar was different. but you pretty much summed up right there.

:lol: :lol:

Just a fun thread really, not to be taken seriously as you can see i havent been fair or objective, though i do agree with it:good

[Caponecartels]

so you feel as if oscar isn't as good as people hype him up to be or.....

[teeto]

so you feel as if oscar isn't as good as people hype him up to be or.....
Oh most definitely, well nowhere near the level he would have you believe. I dont Oscar has fooled many in this forum (the classic) though.

[Caponecartels]

i like to look at oscar as a poor mans version of leonard(skills wise anyway)
and that he had a determination in his younger days that wasn't rivaled by many in his era.

[teeto]

i like to look at oscar as a poor mans version of leonard(skills wise anyway)
and that he had a determination in his younger days that wasn't rivaled by many in his era.
I used to say on Oscar threads that he was not a poor man's, but a poverty stricken man' Kid Gavilan!

I really question the greatness of Oscar, actually, for me personally, its beyond that now. I just think he's never looked great in a fight that he won against a great or top level fighter in his natural weight class. I never had him beating Pea, and i had Quartey beating him. Vargas fell short of greatness. He looked brilliant while smashing up shorter/smaller guys, who he was faster than. Imo his arsenal up close is overrated also, he looked great when he could smash guys up from a distance that suited him well, he just flurried the helll outta them.

I respect Oscar for what he did achieve though, and i would likely take him over most of the fighters that are a level below the top tier (in fantasy matchups), but i really dont favour him over any of history's elites, none.

And you are right in saying that in his younger days his willingness to mix it with the top guys was great, i always liked that of him. For the record i had him beating Trinidad by 2 points, but then again he couldnt convince everyone.

[brownpimp88]

There's a huge difference, leonard was pushed based more on his skills, de la hoya was pushed more based on his looks.

[teeto]

There's a huge difference, leonard was pushed based more on his skills, de la hoya was pushed more based on his looks.
Good point

[Caponecartels]

i can dig it teeto. :good

[teeto]

Thanks, man it looks like im becomin an Oscar hater these days! See how i keep throwing in stuff like 'i respect Oscar for what he did do', so that the reader will think im not hatin on him, but it looks blatant by the rest of the post!

Ha, seriously though, i do respect Oscar and your point about his willingness to mix it at the top in his younger days may be his biggest plus for me. The rest of my argument stands.

[brownpimp88]

I think it's a good idea that oscar is fighting manny pacquiao because this is a big fight that he can actually win, lol.

[teeto]

I think it's a good idea that oscar is fighting manny pacquiao because this is a big fight that he can actually win, lol.
Or get stopped brutally!

Kidding!

[Caponecartels]

well teeto i do got a question for ya.

[teeto]

well teeto i do got a question for ya.
Fire away!

[Caponecartels]

how do you classic posters know so much about so many boxers?

[teeto]

how do you classic posters know so much about so many boxers?
First of all, if it's meant as a compliment, im flattered.

Not sure on everyone, but mine comes from reading initially, that's what broadened my horizons. Once i had the knowledge of who to get footage of, i just started buying, got piles of videos from years ago, and books. Then when i got on the internet its just as if thw world is your oyster!

I mean this when i say it, i have come across the greatest insights on ESC classic, this place has the best and most knowledgeable guys when it comes to analysing fighters, and in terms of analysing greatness and legacy, you can have your world yurned upside down here!

[Caponecartels]

i gotta start watching more fighters......
I really do like the 70's heavyweights though.

[teeto]

i gotta start watching more fighters......
I really do like the 70's heavyweights though.
I can see, thats a very good avatar you have there.

Frazier your fave? There was a great video someone posted somewhere, a tribute to Frazier as a warrior, really good, you might have seen it on youtube.

[Caponecartels]

This is my personal favorite Highlight video of Frazier.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

sorry don't know how to show videos here.

[Caponecartels]

This is my personal favorite Highlight video of Frazier.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

sorry don't know how to show videos here.

[Caponecartels]

aghh.... is esb messing up for you guys too?

[Maxmomer]

how do you classic posters know so much about so many boxers?

Read.

[Robbi]

Many people may disagree but one area where I feel De La Hoya is better than Leonard is combinations. Thats it though. When Leonard put his punches together they were usually flurries. De La Hoya's combinations had more behind them even though he wasn't as powerful as Leonard. If you watch his punches in bunches against Duran in their rematch they were the same kind all the time. Short quick punches from both hands to the head. And against Hagler his 4-5 punch bursts were again short compact flurries. He did throw some nice combos at times, the finish against Lalonde was impressive. But when looking at their entire careers, De La Hoya was more varied in terms of his combinations. Just watch the Trinidad fight among others.

[Pat_Lowe]

Many people may disagree but one area where I feel De La Hoya is better than Leonard is combinations. Thats it though. When Leonard put his punches together they were usually flurries. De La Hoya's combinations had more behind them even though he wasn't as powerful as Leonard. If you watch his punches in bunches against Duran in their rematch they were the same kind all the time. Short quick punches from both hands to the head. And against Hagler his 4-5 punch bursts were again short compact flurries. He did throw some nice combos at times, the finish against Lalonde was impressive. But when looking at their entire careers, De La Hoya was more varied in terms of his combinations. Just watch the Trinidad fight among others.

I don't know if I agree with that, In recent times especially DLH's flurries have had very little on them. For example in the Mayweather fight they were light pitty patter punches where the crowd went wild when he threw them but they weren't effective.

[Robbi]

I don't know if I agree with that, In recent times especially DLH's flurries have had very little on them. For example in the Mayweather fight they were light pitty patter punches where the crowd went wild when he threw them but they weren't effective.

De La Hoya when fighting Mayweather was the same age as Leonard was against Norris. His combinations aren't what they were when he was in his prime. But no doubt about it IMO De La Hoya's combos when at his best were more varied than Leonards and just plain better.

[birddog]

i gotta start watching more fighters......
I really do like the 70's heavyweights though.

Welcome to the forum Capon, lot's of good stuff here and good posters. This is a place to get acquainted with fighters from the past. I learn something new most every day here.

[Robbi]

De La Hoya when fighting Mayweather was the same age as Leonard was against Norris. His combinations aren't what they were when he was in his prime. But no doubt about it IMO De La Hoya's combos when at his best were more varied than Leonards and just plain better.

Watch the combination De La Hoya throws at 2.57, thats youtube time, not the round time, on this clip during the 9th round, and also a few seconds after it another combination to the body. It looks even better on a TV with clearer picture quality. Those are not shoe-shine flurries trust me. Solid punches downstairs and he smacks Trinidad with an uppercut, although the last punch to the head misses just. And the handspeed. It's a solid 4 punch combination in just over a second. If you compare those punches with Leonard's punches in bunches against Duran in the rematch and even the first Hearns fight, no contest.


J_7DQmG88T8

[BlackWater]

how do you classic posters know so much about so many boxers?

Many of these guys have been here for years.

[Xplosive]

The differance between them is that Leonard was better in every way possible.

[Xplosive]

Oscar throws better combos than Leonard? Jesus Christ are you high, or just ignorant?

[RafaelGonzal]

Leanord for all his faults had Atg skills, he was always willing to take a chance, yes he was a calculating fuck and usually got his way as he was the darling of the media then. But fighting Hagler after being out of the ring for years regardless of Haglers eroding skills at the time still took balls and getting drubbed by Norris you see Ray had confidence in his abilities and so he was drubbed and beaten on a few occasion. But DLH' whole career is one of carefull matchmaking where he usually either had a height or power advantage. He feasted on Tito retreads Hasnt fought a meaningful fight in years and is exiting the sport like a bitch instead of on his sword like a real man.

[teeto]

In a way they both flurried rather than threw combos at times imo. If i had to say who threw the better combos though, i'd edge towards Leonard... personally.

[Loewe]

Careful matchmaking? That´s why fought Tito, Hopkins and Mayweather right?

Imo DLH is a bit underrated on here, he´s one of the greatest of his time, his resume is a who is who of his weightclasses and his time, yeah he lost some of them but why do fighters of the past get excused for it and get praised for picking on everyone but DLH is held to a different standard? I´m by no means a fan of him but you guys should be more objective.

Leonard is an atg. DLH maybe isn´t one but he was a damned good fighter and is up there with Jones, Hopkins, Pacman and Mayweather.

[teeto]

Careful matchmaking? That´s why fought Tito, Hopkins and Mayweather right?

Imo DLH is a bit underrated on here, he´s one of the greatest of his time, his resume is a who is who of his weightclasses and his time, yeah he lost some of them but why do fighters of the past get excused for it and get praised for picking on everyone but DLH is held to a different standard? I´m by no means a fan of him but you guys should be more objective.

Leonard is an atg. DLH maybe isn´t one but he was a damned good fighter and is up there with Jones, Hopkins, Pacman and Mayweather.
Loewe, i didnt wanna come across biased, thats really not what it is. But see the last line of my initial post, 'he tricked the world into thiking he was of the same skillset as the greats', i believe that and it just annoys me.

Hopkins, Jones, Pacman and Mayweather for me are all true greats and in time will be remembered as so rightfully, greater than DLH imo. Im not excusing old time fighters moreso than DLH. You should hear me when i see guys trying to pass off Archie Moore as the number 1 LHW of all time! But its subjective when comparing eras, someone like Archie can be excused more than Oscar, when you really look at it.

[GazOC]

Anyone remember on The Contender when a 50 year old Leonard schooled a still active De La Hoya on the rope?

[teeto]

Anyone remember on The Contender when a 50 year old Leonard schooled a still active De La Hoya on the rope?
Yeah!! By the way, your location, The Spion Kop??

[Loewe]

Loewe, i didnt wanna come across biased, thats really not what it is. But see the last line of my initial post, 'he tricked the world into thiking he was of the same skillset as the greats', i believe that and it just annoys me.

Well, he had some good skills, didn´t he. Look at his resume. It´s great. He took on everyone who was supposed to be someone in his weightclasses. Some of them he beat and some of them beat him but he took them on and that´s very rare today. That shows the desire to be called great and that counts a lot to me today.

Hopkins, Jones, Pacman and Mayweather for me are all true greats and in time will be remembered as so rightfully, greater than DLH imo. Im not excusing old time fighters moreso than DLH. You should hear me when i see guys trying to pass off Archie Moore as the number 1 LHW of all time! But its subjective when comparing eras, someone like Archie can be excused more than Oscar, when you really look at it.

Why don´t you give DLH than credit for facing everyone? I mean the only one you could say he "ducked" was Zoo.

Regarding the other 4 fighters. I´m very strict in who is an atg or a great. Of those 4 only Pac is an atg since I think there are only 25 of them - and that just barely. Hopkins is a great mw, Mayweather is a great sfw. Well, Jones fell short on my lists, he just missed out the top10 at lhw - meaning he isn´t great there - and missed out my top20 p4p - meaning he is no p4p great - so he comes out as not great at all which is a bit unfair I think because he was but well that´s the rules I decided to go by.

[GazOC]

Yeah!! By the way, your location, The Spion Kop??

[Only registered and activated users can see links](stadia)

I'm a Liverpool fan.:D

[sweet_scientist]

I'm no fan of DLH, but the man has a reasonable argument for having beat Tito, Whitaker, Mosley, Mayweather, Quartey as well as Chavez, Vargas, Hernandez and Molina. That's nothing to sneeze at - that's the best ACCOMPLISHMENTS resume in the last 20 years.

It leaves the likes of Mayweather and Pac SQUARELY in the dust.

Oscar isn't as great as Leonard for me, not as great as Jones, but right now, he sits above above Mayweather and Pac, easy.

[Robbi]

Oscar throws better combos than Leonard? Jesus Christ are you high, or just ignorant?


Oscar throws better combos than Leonard. WITHOUT HESITATION.

Check out the Trinidad clip as a sample.

[teeto]

[Only registered and activated users can see links](stadia)

I'm a Liverpool fan.:D
Oh yeah, im from Liverpool, im a fan aswell, just asking if you meant the Spion Kop as in the one at Anfield, rather than the original!

YNWA

[teeto]

Well, he had some good skills, didn´t he. Look at his resume. It´s great. He took on everyone who was supposed to be someone in his weightclasses. Some of them he beat and some of them beat him but he took them on and that´s very rare today. That shows the desire to be called great and that counts a lot to me today.



Why don´t you give DLH than credit for facing everyone? I mean the only one you could say he "ducked" was Zoo.

Regarding the other 4 fighters. I´m very strict in who is an atg or a great. Of those 4 only Pac is an atg since I think there are only 25 of them - and that just barely. Hopkins is a great mw, Mayweather is a great sfw. Well, Jones fell short on my lists, he just missed out the top10 at lhw - meaning he isn´t great there - and missed out my top20 p4p - meaning he is no p4p great - so he comes out as not great at all which is a bit unfair I think because he was but well that´s the rules I decided to go by.
Loewe, you gotta read my posts on the previous pages, i give Oscar credit for taking on the best around, ive said all this already. Im not saying anything other than what ive said on the first pages here. I dont want any words being put in my mouth. Just read my posts and them arguments stand, i would not take Oscar over any of the top (and i mean history's elite) welters ever, i never said he ducked anyone, dunno where you got that from. And yes, he definitely had a great willingness to mix it with the top guys of his era, that doesnt mean he was a greater fighter than what he was though. Im not dissing anyone here.

On the point of the others, for me, Bernard Hopikns has been a truly great MW and a great man by my reckoning. Floyd i have at number 1 at SFW all time, i have him edging Arguello, Nelson, Elorde etc. Pac has been great in terms of legacy jumping weights, but in terms of h2h, a truly great SBW, and maybe at other weights? Jones you can make the argument for, but i consider him great personally, most definitely in terms of h2h, which is largely where this argument against Oscar is being made.

Please dont take my posts for something they're not here, just read all of them on this thread if you want and you'll see there's nothin irrational about my case.

[teeto]

I'm no fan of DLH, but the man has a reasonable argument for having beat Tito, Whitaker, Mosley, Mayweather, Quartey as well as Chavez, Vargas, Hernandez and Molina. That's nothing to sneeze at - that's the best ACCOMPLISHMENTS resume in the last 20 years.

In leaves the likes of Mayweather and Pac SQUARELY in the dust.

Oscar isn't as great as Leonard for me, not as great as Jones, but right now, he sits above above Mayweather and Pac, easy.
At face value SS, it seems logical what you're saying. But just check out some of my posts, if you havent already, you may not agree with me, im okay with that if so, but i feel strongly about it

[Loewe]

Loewe, you gotta read my posts on the previous pages, i give Oscar credit for taking on the best around, ive said all this already. Im not saying anything other than what ive said on the first pages here. I dont want any words being put in my mouth. Just read my posts and them arguments stand, i would not take Oscar over any of the top (and i mean history's elite) welters ever, i never said he ducked anyone, dunno where you got that from. And yes, he definitely had a great willingness to mix it with the top guys of his era, that doesnt mean he was a greater fighter than what he was though. Im not dissing anyone here.

Nah, I never said you wrote DLH ducked anybody but I had the impression you thought DLH was not on the level of the other good fighters of his era like Jones.
If you compare him to guys like Leonard or Robinson than he isn´t on their level but that´s obvious.
Imo in these times the desire to be great and the willingness to fight the best should count more than in the past because it´s much easier to duck opponents nowadays.

On the point of the others, for me, Bernard Hopikns has been a truly great MW and a great man by my reckoning. Floyd i have at number 1 at SFW all time, i have him edging Arguello, Nelson, Elorde etc. Pac has been great in terms of legacy jumping weights, but in terms of h2h, a truly great SBW, and maybe at other weights? Jones you can make the argument for, but i consider him great personally, most definitely in terms of h2h, which is largely where this argument against Oscar is being made.

Well, it comes all down to criteria - I don´t take h2h into account at all, too much speculation imo - and oppinion.

Please dont take my posts for something they're not here, just read all of them on this thread if you want and you'll see there's nothin irrational about my case.

I don´t, believe me. I think you are a pretty good poster and one of the more objective guys on here :good

[teeto]

Nah, I never said you wrote DLH ducked anybody but I had the impression you thought DLH was not on the level of the other good fighters of his era like Jones.
If you compare him to guys like Leonard or Robinson than he isn´t on their level but that´s obvious.
Imo in these times the desire to be great and the willingness to fight the best should count more than in the past because it´s much easier to duck opponents nowadays.



Well, it comes all down to criteria - I don´t take h2h into account at all, too much speculation imo - and oppinion.



I don´t, believe me. I think you are a pretty good poster and one of the more objective guys on here :good
Thanks Loewe, yeah, the thread is more about Oscar's h2h ability and how good he actually was in the ring rather than his greatness, maybe you're right and im just trying to express the obvious!!

I can see you've fit right in here yourself, very knowledgeable on the history of the sport,

[SuzieQ49]

Watch the combination De La Hoya throws at 2.57, thats youtube time, not the round time, on this clip during the 9th round, and also a few seconds after it another combination to the body. It looks even better on a TV with clearer picture quality. Those are not shoe-shine flurries trust me. Solid punches downstairs and he smacks Trinidad with an uppercut, although the last punch to the head misses just. And the handspeed. It's a solid 4 punch combination in just over a second. If you compare those punches with Leonard's punches in bunches against Duran in the rematch and even the first Hearns fight, no contest.


J_7DQmG88T8


beautiful shot of oscars combos at his best!


people forget just how devastating oscar was at 135lb, he was so much naturally bigger his power was devastating at the weight class. Top undefeated lightweights of the era got brutally knocked out by him. he did some impressive work at 135lb.

[SuzieQ49]

I used to say on Oscar threads that he was not a poor man's, but a poverty stricken man' Kid Gavilan!
.

shane moseley's is vernon forrest's bitch, whats your point?







And you are right in saying that in his younger days his willingness to mix it with the top guys was great, i always liked that of him. For the record i had him beating Trinidad by 2 points, but then again he couldnt convince everyone


I really question the greatness of Oscar, actually, for me personally, its beyond that now

yet u think roided up cheater shane moseley is a great fighter? not only did moseley take roids, he accomplished nowhere near the amount oscar did his whole career.

oscar was a clear great fighter.....i have 3 questions for you

1. What fighter of this generation fought the competition oscar de la hoya did? is it fair to say oscar legitemitley made it a point of fighting the best of his era?

2. What 1990s fighter had better "pure technical" boxing skills than oscars? i dont think there are any

3. Name me a fighter of this generation that won title from 130 all the way up to 160!!!



I just think he's never looked great in a fight that he won against a great or top level fighter in his natural weight class.


umm.......Felix Trinidad? a great fighter undefeated at his peak, oscar won at least 7 or 8 of the first 9 rounds on any sane persons card. it was a boxing lesson at its finest.

how bout ur boy shane moseley? the roided up juice freak who got badly outboxed in the rematch, a clear decision for oscar de la hoya. oscar outlanded him by more than 100 punches and won 7 clear rounds at the very least. this fight should be changed to a NC.

also fernando vargas, who was young and hungry at the time(had beaten quartey and winky) and also another fighter on STEROIDS....oscar demolished him.


I also thought the 12th round vs quartey won him the fight in my eyes, i had oscar beating quartey by 1 point. take note quartey was a undefeated great fighter and champion, it was oscars 12th round that took the 0 away from quarteys record.

I never had him beating Pea,



you never had pea beating him either......dont forget that. take note sweet pea was the # 1 p4p at the time, and it was OSCAR who knocked him off the leaderboard.


He looked brilliant while smashing up shorter/smaller guys, who he was faster than.


im confused...like who? if your talking about his lightweight career, take note oscar made the weight limit of 135lb.....weight cutting is part of the game. use it to ur advantage.

Imo his arsenal up close is overrated also, he looked great when he could smash guys up from a distance that suited him well, he just flurried the helll outta them.

he didnt flurry, he threw elegant accurate free flowing combinations. I have yet to see a better combination puncher this decade at 147lb than oscar was in his prime.

Imo his arsenal up close is overrated also,


you mean his fast combos and underated body attack at 135-147lb are overated?

I respect Oscar for what he did achieve though, and i would likely take him over most of the fighters that are a level below the top tier (in fantasy matchups), but i really dont favour him over any of history's elites, none.

thats fine, i pick him over a few elites. take note unlike trinidad, moseley, quartey oscar was NEVER dominated in a fight.....all of his losses came to top fighters in very close decisions......he never got shutout the way tito did vs winky, or embarrased and twice blown out by vernon forrest the way moseley was. even at 35 years old far past his prime he gave a peak # 1 p4p floyd mayweather his closest toughest fight.


when u look at the guys of his era and go by career accomplishments you have to rank them like this

1. oscar

the rest

trinidad
quartey
moseley

[teeto]

shane moseley's is vernon forrest's bitch, whats your point?







yet u think roided up cheater shane moseley is a great fighter? not only did moseley take roids, he accomplished nowhere near the amount oscar did his whole career.

oscar was a clear great fighter.....i have 3 questions for you

1. What fighter of this generation fought the competition oscar de la hoya did? is it fair to say oscar legitemitley made it a point of fighting the best of his era?

2. What 1990s fighter had better "pure technical" boxing skills than oscars? i dont think there are any

3. Name me a fighter of this generation that won title from 130 all the way up to 160!!!






umm.......Felix Trinidad? a great fighter undefeated at his peak, oscar won at least 7 or 8 of the first 9 rounds on any sane persons card. it was a boxing lesson at its finest.

how bout ur boy shane moseley? the roided up juice freak who got badly outboxed in the rematch, a clear decision for oscar de la hoya. oscar outlanded him by more than 100 punches and won 7 clear rounds at the very least. this fight should be changed to a NC.

also fernando vargas, who was young and hungry at the time(had beaten quartey and winky) and also another fighter on STEROIDS....oscar demolished him.


I also thought the 12th round vs quartey won him the fight in my eyes, i had oscar beating quartey by 1 point. take note quartey was a undefeated great fighter and champion, it was oscars 12th round that took the 0 away from quarteys record.





you never had pea beating him either......dont forget that. take note sweet pea was the # 1 p4p at the time, and it was OSCAR who knocked him off the leaderboard.





im confused...like who? if your talking about his lightweight career, take note oscar made the weight limit of 135lb.....weight cutting is part of the game. use it to ur advantage.



he didnt flurry, he threw elegant accurate free flowing combinations. I have yet to see a better combination puncher this decade at 147lb than oscar was in his prime.




you mean his fast combos and underated body attack at 135-147lb are overated?



thats fine, i pick him over a few elites. take note unlike trinidad, moseley, quartey oscar was NEVER dominated in a fight.....all of his losses came to top fighters in very close decisions......he never got shutout the way tito did vs winky, or embarrased and twice blown out by vernon forrest the way moseley was. even at 35 years old far past his prime he gave a peak # 1 p4p floyd mayweather his closest toughest fight.


when u look at the guys of his era and go by career accomplishments you have to rank them like this

1. oscar

the rest

trinidad
quartey
moseley
I knew you'd turn up at some point! Who said Mosley was great?

He showed great footwork against Trinidad, but he couldnt convince everyone could he? Nowive already given him credit for taking on the best opposition of his time, so i dont know what else you want from me there. Taking them on doesnt make you a great fighter, it means you got balls. When you say you take him over some elite welters, i'd like to see who, im talikng history's finest here, straight up. Come on, he got his face tattooed by Ike's jab, was schooled at times by Pea, the only thing you could give him rounds on, was landing harder punches, nothin else, should be expected to be able to too, Oscar being a puncher and one of the best of the era fighting a past prime lightweight great. Moseley beat him and that is what happened when someone could match him for spped and relentlessness, and size.

I remember a while back we were talking about Napoles-DeLaHoya, and someone said (cant remember who) Oscar flurried, Napoles threw combos, sums up my argument on his offense on the inside really. If you really think Oscar can live with a true great inside/pressure man at 147 you're lying to yourself and you knw it.

When the playing field is levelled at the very highest level, Oscar comes up shprt in MOST, almost every situation imo, im talking fantasy matchups here, as i have been from the beginning, im not altering my debate here. Like i said, i thought Pea beat him by a point if it wasnt for a deduction i thought was wrong, so i officially had it a draw, either way, Oscar (who this debate is about) couldnt get it for me, i thought he beat Tito who can have trouble with someone who has top movement laterally, which Oscar has, Tito never learned how to cut off the ring, it was a stylistic thing, lets see him do that against welterweight Duran, Robinson, Gavilan, who is his superior absolutely everywhere. Thats all im saying, i pick him over most secnd tier greats, based on a stlye matchup, none above that though, but maybe i could make a one off though, afterall, styles make fights

[Robbi]

Come on, he got his face tattooed by Ike's jab, was schooled at times by Pea, the only thing you could give him rounds on, was landing harder punches, nothin else, should be expected to be able to too, Oscar being a puncher and one of the best of the era fighting a past prime lightweight great.

Whitaker was past his prime and a former lightweight. But when De La Hoya fought Whitaker the size difference was non-existent. Pea stands at 5' 6" and De La Hoya at 5' 10" 1/2. Thats the only area where De La Hoya was bigger, height. And De La Hoya never moved up in weight to fight Whitaker due to weight making difficulties at 140lbs. He moved up because thats where the money was at the time. Whitaker actually had the advantage over De La Hoya at welterweight because he had previously fought naturally larger fighters. Rivera twice and Vasquez as well at jr middleweight.

If you look at De La Hoya's upperbody against Whitaker then compare it to how it looked against Kamau in his next fight at welterweight you'll see a difference. He was broader across the shoulders against Kamau. Thicker set around the waist. Steward mentioned that De La Hoya was still a natural 140lb fighter when he took over as trainer. He was more then likely lifting weights under Steward.

[redrooster]

Dela Hoya would get into the ring with anyone at any time and anywhere whereas Ray needed several years to think about it. 3 years just to accept a rematch with Hagler :lol:

[teeto]

Whitaker was past his prime and a former lightweight. But when De La Hoya fought Whitaker the size difference was non-existent. Pea stands at 5' 6" and De La Hoya at 5' 10" 1/2. Thats the only area where De La Hoya was bigger, height. And De La Hoya never moved up in weight to fight Whitaker due to weight making difficulties at 140lbs. He moved up because thats where the money was at the time. Whitaker actually had the advantage over De La Hoya at welterweight because he had previously fought naturally larger fighters. Rivera twice and Vasquez as well at jr middleweight.

If you look at De La Hoya's upperbody against Whitaker then compare it to how it looked against Kamau in his next fight at welterweight you'll see a difference. He was broader across the shoulders against Kamau. Thicker set around the waist. Steward mentioned that De La Hoya was still a natural 140lb fighter when he took over as trainer. He was more then likely lifting weights under Steward.
The piint i was making was that Oscar was a natural welterweight and a puncher, Sweet Pea was a natural lightweight and though his power is underrated, he wasnt a puncher. ,

[Caponecartels]

:thumbsup learning alot from reading this debate..... please continue..... :good

[teeto]

Robbi, i never meant that Oscar had a weight advantage in terms of it being an unfair advantage. Oscar's shoulder's are broad i think, he has a bigger frame than Pea, but its irrelevant as both men made the weight and there's no excuses to be made once that has been done. I just meant that in that particular bout i personally only could give Oscar points for landing harder blows than his opponent, and that Oscar was a naturally harder hitter, and that seemed logical he would land harder blows. I thought that at times Pea schooled him though. If i was biased i would have not given Oscar close rounds that i did give him.

[Robbi]

The piint i was making was that Oscar was a natural welterweight and a puncher, Sweet Pea was a natural lightweight and though his power is underrated, he wasnt a puncher. ,

Not when they fought that wasn't the case. De La Hoya as he got older was more comfortable at the higher weights, jr middleweight especially. And De La Hoya wasn't a puncher at welterweight. He had respectable power at the weight.

Whitaker had four years under his belt at welterweight prior to meeting De La Hoya. He was fighting physically bigger fighters than De La Hoya before they fought regardless of De La Hoya previously being bigger than his opponents at lightweight, etc. While I confess that De La Hoya is naturally bigger than Whitaker, that wasn't really the case when they fought, maybe De La Hoya had the edge slightly. Height can be decieving and make peoples mind up that the taller fighter is naturally bigger, only in height though in some cases.

It was De La Hoya's first fight at the weight and according to his camp after the fight he could still have made 140lbs easily, thus not being a natural welterweight or grown into the weight.

[teeto]

Not when they fought that wasn't the case. De La Hoya as he got older was more comfortable at the higher weights, jr middleweight especially. And De La Hoya wasn't a puncher at welterweight. He had respectable power at the weight.
You can look in hindsight and say that at welter and above, he could hit, its not like he moved up and his power came along after. He hit harder than Pea, i never said he was a devastating puncher at 147, you actually know the point in making here is that he hit harder than Whitaker, something we could have expected before the fight. I feel that you still are under the impression that im making out he had an unfair advantage over his opponent, its clear thats not my implication.

[Robbi]

You can look in hindsight and say that at welter and above, he could hit, its not like he moved up and his power came along after. He hit harder than Pea, i never said he was a devastating puncher at 147, you actually know the point in making here is that he hit harder than Whitaker, something we could have expected before the fight. I feel that you still are under the impression that im making out he had an unfair advantage over his opponent, its clear thats not my implication.

You said "Oscar was a natural welterweight and a puncher" I do agree that De La Hoya had more power than Whitaker at the welterweight, but I would not term him a 'puncher' at the weight. Lightweight, yes. Your confusing me with your opening sentence above. Trinidad was a 'puncher' at welterweight and above, De La Hoya wasn't. His power was at it's most lethal in the divisions below welterweight.

You gave me the impression that De La Hoya had a massive advantage over Whitake because you said he beat a former lightweight. However, I countered that by explaining that De La Hoya wasn't much bigger at all when they fought as he was still a natural 140lb'er. And Whitaker had fought at the weight for four years and he had been in with physically more imposing fighters.

[teeto]

You said "Oscar was a natural welterweight and a puncher" I do agree that De La Hoya had more power than Whitaker at the welterweight, but I would not term him a 'puncher' at the weight. Lightweight, yes. Your confusing me with your opening sentence above. Trinidad was a 'puncher' at welterweight and above, De La Hoya wasn't. His power was at it's most lethal in the divisions below welterweight.

You gave me the impression that De La Hoya had a massive advantage over Whitake because you said he beat a former lightweight. However, I countered that by explaining that De La Hoya wasn't much bigger at all when they fought as he was still a natural 140lb'er. And Whitaker had fought at the weight for four years and he had been in with physically more imposing fighters.
I still think that Oscar was more suited to welter even then, his shoulders are big and broad, his frame etc. I would class Trinidad as a devastating puncher, but maybe i used the term puncher lightly, the weight was not the point i was making. I was simply saying that on the point of me only giving Oscar credit for landing harder punches in that bout, that maybe should be a given considering Pea was a natural 135 pounder who want a big puncher even there. Oscar hit hard even at welter, i believe it is not out of order to use hindsight in this one. I never thought Oscar outskilled Pea in any aspect other than that, I was just expressing my opinion that when all is considered, a fighter of the caliber of Pea, in my opinion is superior to De La Hoya. Dont want that being taken out of proportion, just for what it is,

[Robbi]

I still think that Oscar was more suited to welter even then, his shoulders are big and broad, his frame etc. I would class Trinidad as a devastating puncher, but maybe i used the term puncher lightly, the weight was not the point i was making. I was simply saying that on the point of me only giving Oscar credit for landing harder punches in that bout, that maybe should be a given considering Pea was a natural 135 pounder who want a big puncher even there. Oscar hit hard even at welter, i believe it is not out of order to use hindsight in this one. I never thought Oscar outskilled Pea in any aspect other than that, I was just expressing my opinion that when all is considered, a fighter of the caliber of Pea, in my opinion is superior to De La Hoya. Dont want that being taken out of proportion, just for what it is,

Teeto. I know your whole post wasn't about the weight. The post I first quoted you on before messaging back and forth, I picked a part out of it out and made a point that while Whitaker was a natural lightweight on De La Hoya's resume as you mentioned, at the time they fought the weight/size difference wasn't much and I expanded on that.

Thats cool Whitaker has grown on you recently. I read your posts about it on another thread.

[SuzieQ49]

Oscar is one of those guys whose legacy will grow overtime, and I think whitakers will lose steam.

[Bill Butcher]

Delahoya would have little chance vs Leonard in a match-up & if you rate boxers in a tier kind of way then SRL is tier 1 & DLH is tier 3 IMO.

[sweet_scientist]

At face value SS, it seems logical what you're saying. But just check out some of my posts, if you havent already, you may not agree with me, im okay with that if so, but i feel strongly about it

Is your main point really that Oscar never 'looked' great in any of his major fights?

I don't think DLH ever put on a 'complete' performance against a great opponent (Chavez fights excluded), but really, it has to be factored in that he was facing high, high quality opposition. It's hard to look great against such tough competition.

No doubt he isn't on Ray Leonard's level, but really, is that saying anything we didn't all know?

I think Oscar was a natural 140 pounder actually, and at that weight, I think he troubles most guys, even though quite a few would beat him. At welterweight he'd take a few drubbings but still be competitive with most.

[sweet_scientist]

Oscar is one of those guys whose legacy will grow overtime, and I think whitakers will lose steam.

Why?

[teeto]

Teeto. I know your whole post wasn't about the weight. The post I first quoted you on before messaging back and forth, I picked a part out of it out and made a point that while Whitaker was a natural lightweight on De La Hoya's resume as you mentioned, at the time they fought the weight/size difference wasn't much and I expanded on that.

Thats cool Whitaker has grown on you recently. I read your posts about it on another thread.
Thats fine Robbi, think i sort of give you the wrong impression with my post though.

[teeto]

Is your main point really that Oscar never 'looked' great in any of his major fights?

I don't think DLH ever put on a 'complete' performance against a great opponent (Chavez fights excluded), but really, it has to be factored in that he was facing high, high quality opposition. It's hard to look great against such tough competition.

No doubt he isn't on Ray Leonard's level, but really, is that saying anything we didn't all know?

I think Oscar was a natural 140 pounder actually, and at that weight, I think he troubles most guys, even though quite a few would beat him. At welterweight he'd take a few drubbings but still be competitive with most.
Not really that that's my main point, just that him not looking too great in my eyes was one of the things that provoked my thinking of him as not as great as others. To be honest, this thread actually is something that we all knew anyway, as you said. I basically just made the thread to express my feelings and thoughts that Oscar De La Hoya in my opinion attempted to trick the world into thinking that he was one of the greatest fighters ever, i reckon he'd still try abd pass that off even now. Can't remember what fight it was, think it was the build-up to Mayweather, he actually said no fighter has dominated 6 weight divisions like he had, he used the d word. I was just pissed off with him at the time and it was playing on my mind, maybe it's a pointless thread!

[Thread Stealer]

people forget just how devastating oscar was at 135lb, he was so much naturally bigger his power was devastating at the weight class. Top undefeated lightweights of the era got brutally knocked out by him. he did some impressive work at 135lb.


Like whom?

During his time at 135, he only fought one other world-class lightweight (not junior lightweights). Rafael Ruelas, which was a very good win.

[Thread Stealer]

The main difference is that Leonard did most things at a higher level than De La Hoya. DLH did almost everything at a high level, but Leonard even higher. DLH maybe had a better left jab and arguably had a better left hook.

Leonard left little doubt as to whom was the winner in most of his biggest fights, other than the controversial win against Hagler. He stopped Benitez, stopped Hearns, stopped Kalule, and made Duran quit. Yeah Duran had partied too much and Leonard's camp knew this in making the immediate rematch, but is that any worse than waiting until the guy who beat you (Mosley) has lost a couple fights in a row, looked low on confidence, and then rematched him then? DLH had some solid wins on his ledger like Ruelas, Hernandez, Gonzalez, and Chavez for instance, but against the best guys, he never proved he was much better (or worse) in fights with Whitaker, Quartey (a great finish doesn't make up for the rest of the fight when you stand there and do nothing), Mosley, etc...The Vargas one is an exception, but Vargas (especially post-Trinidad) isn't exactly a great like El Radar or The Hitman.

One thing I liked better about DLH than Gay Ray is that he was more active and continued to fight tough opposition. At age 33-34, Leonard was avoiding the top middleweights and instead fighting a supposedly shot Hearns, old Duran (even if he did beat Barkley), and Norris (big upset at the time). Fighting the p4p king Mayweather (even if he is smaller) is more impressive choice of opposition.

Fighting the midget Manny is rather crappy however.

[Loewe]

The main difference is that Leonard did most things at a higher level than De La Hoya. DLH did almost everything at a high level, but Leonard even higher. DLH maybe had a better left jab and arguably had a better left hook.

Leonard left little doubt as to whom was the winner in most of his biggest fights, other than the controversial win against Hagler. He stopped Benitez, stopped Hearns, stopped Kalule, and made Duran quit. Yeah Duran had partied too much and Leonard's camp knew this in making the immediate rematch, but is that any worse than waiting until the guy who beat you (Mosley) has lost a couple fights in a row, looked low on confidence, and then rematched him then? DLH had some solid wins on his ledger like Ruelas, Hernandez, Gonzalez, and Chavez for instance, but against the best guys, he never proved he was much better (or worse) in fights with Whitaker, Quartey (a great finish doesn't make up for the rest of the fight when you stand there and do nothing), Mosley, etc...The Vargas one is an exception, but Vargas (especially post-Trinidad) isn't exactly a great like El Radar or The Hitman.

One thing I liked better about DLH than Gay Ray is that he was more active and continued to fight tough opposition. At age 33-34, Leonard was avoiding the top middleweights and instead fighting a supposedly shot Hearns, old Duran (even if he did beat Barkley), and Norris (big upset at the time). Fighting the p4p king Mayweather (even if he is smaller) is more impressive choice of opposition.

Fighting the midget Manny is rather crappy however.

Why didn´t you mention Trinidad? DLH beat him also he wuz robbed.

[Thread Stealer]

Why didn´t you mention Trinidad? DLH beat him also he wuz robbed.

DLH beat him narrowly on my card. It wasn't this huge robbery. There were close rounds, even before DLH got tired and ran. Round 1 was close. Round 4 was close. Rounds 8 and 9 were close.

Hell, it was no worse a decision than the Quartey fight. That fight was even easier to score. The main difference is, Tito didn't score a 12th round KD and have Oscar in trouble to make people forget about how much of the fight he stood there and did nothing, like Oscar did for most of the Quartey bout.