http://www.buzzle.com/articles/240131.html Oscar De La Hoya Was the Golden Boy, But Never Truly Great John Rawling: Oscar De La Hoya was a very good fighter, but throughout his career he never lived up to the hype Watching Oscar De La Hoya being battered to defeat against Manny Pacquiao on Saturday night, it might have seemed superficially sad that this once outstanding fighter had hung on too long. But sympathy can only be extended so far because De La Hoya had ultimately received what was always likely to come his way. Was De La Hoya a great fighter? Certainly not in the five years or so since he lost to Sugar Shane Mosley for a second time. There followed a highly debatable points win over the German Felix Sturm, a result that enabled De La Hoya to be able to boast he was a six-weight world champion as he picked up the WBO middleweight title. Then there was the defeat against Bernard Hopkins, with De La Hoya halted in the ninth round, beaten by body shots. He did beat the overrated and crude Ricardo Mayorga, before being out boxed by Floyd Mayweather in May 2007, at which point he should surely have called it a day. But that was not De La Hoya's way. Propelled by a sizable ego and as the glamor name behind Golden Boy Promotions, Oscar remained boxing's biggest cash cow. He looked bad beating Steve Forbes earlier this year, but took no heed. The back slappers argued he was not properly motivated and the bigger test would see him rekindle the snap and vigor of his youth. And his Golden Boy partner, the former Swiss banker Richard Schaefer helped him formulate the Pacquiao event. The theory undoubtedly was that De La Hoya was naturally by far the bigger man and that a good big 'un will always beat the little man. It seemed plausible that he might prevail. The punters bought it, as did the pay-per-view television audience. The only problem was that Pacquiao clearly failed to read the script. And so, as the Ricky Hatton fight that had been penciled in for next summer seemingly disappears, the question might rightly be posed as to whether De La Hoya was ever a truly great fighter, or just a brilliantly matched talent who was also fortunate to have the sort of film star good looks that ensured he would appeal to an audience far wider than those addicted to the blood and sweat of the boxing ring. The Olympic gold medal he won in Barcelona in 1992 established him as the Golden Boy of the Games in the days when the US was still unearthing talented fighters. And the promotional nous of Bob Arum brought him brilliantly through the professional ranks. He won his titles, starting with the WBO super-featherweight crown which he took from the light-punching Dane Johnny Bredahl in 1994. His wins over John John Molina, Rafael Ruelas and Jesse James Leija marked him as a very fine lightweight. There were the wins over Julio Cesar Chavez in 1996 and 1998, but they came when Chavez was past his best. Similarly, he beat Pernell Whitaker when he was on the slide. He lost for the first time to Shane Mosley in 2000, having already lost a massively hyped match-up with Felix Trinidad the previous year. For me this is the career resumé of a fighter who was brilliantly marketed. He was a great interviewee, photogenic and, to his credit, he never ducked anybody. His best performances? Maybe in beating Ruellas or perhaps Ike Quartey in 1999. He had fast hands, good reactions and a decent dig. But he is not one to be ranked with Roberto Duran or Sugar Ray Leonard. A great televisual success, most certainly, De La Hoya was always entertaining and he was great box office. But was he a truly great fighter? For me, the answer has to be no simply because the most intriguing matches of his long career were by and large the ones he lost.
You know, in fairness to Oscar he came out on the winning end of controversial fights (Quartey, Sturm, maybe Pernell) and he also came out at the wrong end. (Tito, Mosley2) To me he was a great fighter, he was an exciting fighter in the ring as well, he fought the best.. To me his most memorable win was agianst Ruelas and Vargas, just because of the pre-fight animosity. Oscar proved he was a true Mexican fighter in those fights.
To me oscar is close to a great fighter... fought just about everyone there was to fight and never once was outclassed until he fought Pac. If he was merely a 'good' fighter.... he wouldnt have been competetive with the other greats he fought. Mayweather would not have been held to a SD against an old 'good' fighter. Mayweather schools and fools good fighters. Hopkins would have toyed with Hoya even more then he did if oscar was merely a 'good' fighter. Trinidad would have knocked Hoya out if Hoya was merely a 'good' fighter That is what those guys do to 'good' fighters.... the fact that oscar remained competetive with them shows me what class he is in.
The problem with Oscar is that he lacks a defining win in his career, like the kind Hopkins has against Tito or Pavlik, or Roy Jones has against Toney or Ruiz. Most of his superfights have ended in losses or close, indecisive decisions going either way. The closest he comes to having a defining win is probably against Vargas, but that was not a fight on the level of Whitaker, Tito, Mosley, etc. At the same time, he's given fighters like Mosley and Pacquiao their own defining wins by losing to them.
Pacman is a black mark on Oscars career. It clearly is a case of a fighter with a ego to big for his skills. Oscars attempt to pick a fighter which he had huge advantages over in order to try end his career as a top pound for pound blew up in his face. Not a good way to end a great career.
:good Oscar was a great fighter. The decisions in Trinidad and Mosley 2 could have easily gone his way, and ordinary fighters don't win those matchups at 147.
He was really good in his prime but I personally rank Tito higher. (I admit I am really biased hehe) True, their fight could have gone to Oscar, (7-5) it was close, but I honestly don't see it as the huge robbery people in this forum play it out to be. The way Oscar fought those last rounds was truly embarassing. I saw the Mosley2 fight more in Oscar's favor. But he also got a HUGE GIFT in the Sturm fight (and the Sweet Pea and Quartey wins are also disputed by some) Oscar beat Pernell first, but Tito beat Camacho, Campas(undefeated), Oba Carr(undefeated), Fernando Vargas(undefeated), and Mayorga(first to KO him and Tito was coming out of a 2-3 year layoff) first. Oscar won more titles in more divisions, true, but Tito was one of the longest reigning welters, about 17 defenses, (correct me if i'm wrong please). If you compare them in the wights they both fought Tito was DEFINITELY BETTER at 154 and at middleweight even though he was not too good, he did beat Joppy, Mayorga, and Cherifi. Oscar "won" against Sturm (highly debatable) and got beat by BHOP just like Tito. At 147 it is more debatable , both were really good there, but I see few welters (with the exception of ATG's) that were better than Tito in that category, at least from his generation.
At his peak Oscar was great, if you analyze everyones career its no perfect , even undeteated champions like Joe Calzaghe are criticised.
Ofcourse he is...i dont think losing against great fighters narrowly, makes you a lesser fighter. Especially if that fighter is being praised for holding a win against you.