I agree with you here.... Oscar boxing at his best was really difficult to solve..... he would outbox you and try to ko you after....
To sum up Oscar as a boxer one only has to look at old Oscar vs Floyd and how hard it was for Floyd to land on Oscar as well. Most people remember Floyd landing the right hand but it was only three rounds. The fight was a chess match and Oscar looked very good, outside of throwing his jab out the window. His defense is incredible in that fight.
yes it should be mentioned that it was still his body of achievements. barrera was not as meaningless as you think because a great fighter barrera was, he deserves a rematch. it was pointless for pac but not moneywise and at the time, it was demanded by barrera himself and some mab hardcore's still believes that camp interruption was the cause of mab's defeat. morales 3 should not have happened but looking back, it was morales camp who was in control and has an option for rematches. they could not have taken the rematch but the warrior in morales coupled with the money it generated made it impossible for it not to happen.
I understand what you are trying to say... and I agree at some point, but the end remains the same.... 1- The Pac-Barrera II fight happend but there was no need for that. The vast majority of fans and posters at that time never gave MAB a real chance to beat Pac.... maybe just fanatics thought he could win... It doesn't matter if Barrera deserved a rematch or not... but Pac fans did not see that fifght as a great one.. 2- Morales III ...... No need to go over that again.... My point is..... why every time that Pac's resume is on discussion, Pac fans have to mention the Pac vs Barrera II fight and the Pac vs Morales III fight as if both of them were the best fights ever..... and not only that but try to make it look like if both of them were great, when actually they did not.... Is it possible for Pac fans to avoid or try not to make a big deal of these two particular fights that in reallity are nothing and means nothing to most of the boxing fans.....
it should be mentioned because it took a couple of months away from pac's career where he could fight other more meaningful fights. in both cases, pac was almost not in control of it. barrera2 was not actually bad because barrera just had a close loss against jmm and it set a rematch against marquez after. pac stock could be much better if he had beat soto, valero or guzman instead of MAB rematch? could be yes, but not that much imo.
i think DLH wins this. DLH in his younger years had stiffed jab, quick enough, has power, chinny to trade with pac. his reach advantage will be obvious in that fight.
I dont think OScar was in his prime at 154. He was still great but didnt have the power he did at 147 or the lower weights. He was a good puncher at JM,an excellent puncher at 147 and a great puncher at lightweight he was a beast at lightweight although not a finished product. Id say 140 and 147 were Oscars prime years.
oscar was a hard of nails fighter who took on all comers, but the truth is that he's never been a great fighter. i think people who compare oscar with pac are forgetting that oscar wouldnøt have had half the fights he got if he wasn't the P4P golden goose.