Is fighting oscar de la hoya.......

I think Pac is a different era really. Oscar did most of his best work in the 1990's. Even with the loses, Oscar has a great resume, and those ten world titles at six different weights mean he has got some serious legacy as well, a fight with Oscar, and a 'w' over him, is very prestigious, whichever way you look at it.

 

Mosley, although I agree that he did beat Oscar in their first fight.... is definitely NOT the best fighter of that era. I honestly don't even consider Oscar and Pac to really be int he same Era. Oscar's era was the 90's. Oscar was an ATG before he was ever robbed against Tito. After that I honestly don't think that he was ever the same. You could see his love for the sport sucked right out of him that night. Everyone loves to overlook and discredit the work that Oscar did BEFORE the Tito fight. For god's sake that was his 4th weight division. Oscar was already a 4 division World Champ, and had already beat ATG's Chavez and Whitaker for their WBC titles... and also beat the likes of Ruelas, Quartey, Camacho, Paez, Gonzalez, Hernandez, Molina, Leija, Carr, ect....

 

I actually feel Pacquiao's win over Oscar wasn't so tremendous considering Oscar was a skeleton in there. He wasn't healthy in there.

As for the thread question, yes, a win over Oscar is solid.

 

I think early one they meant something. it got to a point where it was just cheesy everyone wants to fight Oscar and despite the fact that he has already lost so many times they all claim that it's because he is the best and try to play it up as some huge win.

 

It depends on what kinda DLH you're fighting. Is he drained?

 

De La Hoya/Mosley 1 was a great fight and a fight of the year candidate. It just came the same year as Barrera/Morales 1 and Trinidad/Vargas.

Like it or not the Quartey fight was another great fight.

 

Oscar lost against Trinidad, like it or not. Not only that, but he had plenty of chances to avenge it, but he didn't , using the excuse of money. IMHO, @ that point in your career, where you are almost an idol, it would've been more important to clear any doubts about his record than a bit more money in his bank account (he was already a rich man back then). Bottomline is he didn't avenge it ,EVER, AND THAT'S WHAT IT IS!......... TITO-1, DLH-0. BTW, I think there's little doubt (after DLH's last 2 performances) that if that fight would take place now @ any weight Tito would be the clear winner.

 

Aren't fighters expected to come in their best physical condition? Why discredit Pac's win when he did his best to come physically two divisions higher? Why do we always do that in boxing? Why can't we here anything that discredit the victories of Michael Phelps in swimming or Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant in basketball?

 

Noooooooooooo, .......except for the Tito fight... and subsequent possible rematch...:yep

 

Freddy, you said before that Pac should be able to brag about beating Oscar. You act like that is a huge win for Pac. Well... Oscar was a 36 year old, inactive, non-Champ who has lost 50% of his last 6 fights. Only having won 3 fights in the last 5 years. Chavez was a 33 year old WBC Champion, who only had one loss, and was very active. He had a lot of fights throughout his career but most were nothing more than glorified sparring sessions, not anything that was taxing his body horribly. Not only that but Chavez wasn't defeated again by anyone other than DLH for another 3 1/2 years after. Quite the double standard there.

BTW... I think that Pac was great against Oscar, and I also give him major credit for that win. Just as I do Oscar over Chavez.