How do classic posters feel about Whitaker's comment on Oscar?

B+ Seems about right. Maybe A-.

 

I mean considering there is a strong chance whitaker was yipped up on Yay when he made those comments, Ill be inclined to not take him seriousely.

 

I agree with the comments, there was nothing at all out of line. In the grand scheme of things, Oscar was pretty much a B+ fighter. That's not an insult.

 

Whitaker isn't being too harsh on his assessment of a B+ for De La Hoya. Afterall it's three below an A+, so he's very fair with his grade IMO. I agree that De La Hoya wasn't a real hitter at welterweight. And when De La Hoya fought Whitaker he hadn't yet grown into the weight. But excluding that, natural power is always there and De La Hoya never showed it enough at welterweight to be considered a puncher. Even at jr welterweight his power wasn't chilling. Apart from stopping Tyson with a body shot during the 2nd round he never knocked anyone else down, including both Chavez and Gonzalez. His power at that weight wasn't like Tyszu's for example.

If De La Hoya is to termed a puncher at anytime during his career it would be at lightweight and super-featherweight where he really had size and strength advantages over his opponents.

Stamina hasn't always been an issue for him. Up until he was tired against Trinidad during the last three rounds his stamina was one of his main attributes down the stretch.

 

I don't consider great fighters B+. Going by resume, Pernell Whitaker would only be a B-, and If you want to be strict on rating ability by "whitakers" standards, whitaker himself was not an A.

On my own scale, Oscar and Sweet Pea are both As

 

I thought Whitaker was saying DLH had B+ power as a welter but he had pretty good skills (better skills than power). I didn't think Whitaker was giving an overall grade on Oscar. If he was I would probably disagree with him.


But ultimately, how we should grade DLH depends on what grades like 'A' and 'B' connote (what features you have to have to be of those grades) and what grades like 'A' & 'B' denote (who falls into the class of those grades).


I'd be inclined to say all top 100 fighters are at least A grade and so DLH is A grade too. He isn't in the A+ category (what I'd classify as a top 30 or 40 or so fighter all time), but he is a solid A fighter.

 

Ithought whitaker was saying the same as what SS thought.

Anyway, i totally agree on what Wanderer said, about thw 'lying in limbo between very good and all-time great'

 

He was talking solely about punch power, Whitaker is a level above Oscar skill wise though

 

suzieq has had an obivious bias against whitaker for a long time. Anyone in their right mind who watches a fighter on film knows that whitaker at least in a technical and h2h sense is an atg. He may not have had the greatest accomplishments which puts him in to question but entirely based on his skillset and technical proficiency whitaker is nothing short of amazing whereas fighters like de la hoya or very good but definitely not on the level of whitaker.

 

I would Say Oscar had power at 147 not one punch ko power but defo enough to keep u honest, Also he koed Vargas at 154.

 

De La Hoya is probbly a top 100 mabey as high as top 50 boxer. That would put him in the B+ - A- range.

 

Wow, seriously?

Strange.

 

Whats strange? Your strange for questioning McCullough's chin against Larios when he wasn't hurt, floored or wobbled. The doctor stopped the fight based on McCullough being so far behind on the cards and taking too many punches. You need to look at the circumstances why the fight was stopped inside the distance. It doesn't automatically mean a fighter has a bad chin because he never lasted the distance. Not all the time anyway.

De La Hoya never had lethal power at welterweight or jr welterweight. Only at lightweight and super-featherweight can he be considered a lethal puncher. And where do you disagree?