Originally Posted by NoNeck
He sustained his greatness for a longer period and over a larger range of weightclasses. Both fought great fighters, winning some and losing some. Benitez fought the harder ones in Hearns and Leonard, but lost clearly to. Oscar fought more of them and fared better in general, either winning or losing controversially. Oscar's depth sets him apart.
by your criteria, that makes sense. thanks for elaborating. the one thing is, benitez often looked brilliant even in his losses. oscar looked good in "losing" to trinidad and even mosley 1. oscar does have a depth to his resume from 130-160, fighting tremendous opposition really from 135-154.
two things set benitez a bit apart for me:
1)oscar never (imo) looked BRILLIANT. benitez's skill is evident in film. oscar was very very good, i have just never been in awe of his skills
2)benitez has looked a bit better against top, top opposition. Watching him dismantle duran is amazing, add that to palimino and cervantes and that is a fine record against pretty elite guys. Sure he lost to hearns and leonard but the consensus is, they were pretty close. on the flip side, his prime was short and when he started losing his skills, it went downhill QUICK
for oscar, no one really counts his loss to tito, the mosley fight was close and he has quartey, vargas and a past prime chavez on his resume to. pretty damn good. oscar was never dominated until hopkins, in a silly money fight and by the time pac got to him he was shot.
closer comparison than I felt at first glance, have to give it some thought