Who gives a damn. His fights from 140 and down was great marketing by Bob Arum. He fought a lot of former/ex-champs and some champs, but his advantage was always that they were either past-their-primes or naturally smaller men who were not that great to begin with. So his record glows at 140 and below. Once he started fighting boxers his age, size (and bigger), and better fighters, his wins weren't so spectacular or they ceased to exist. He's a good fighter, but falls short of being called great. However, he gets more credit than he deserves just because he is a big draw. Although he is a bigger draw with the casual fans than the hardcore aficiondados because they know the real deal.
for me this is a misleadng topic. oscar's resume is sound but who he beat (or didn't) resonates louder than any resume. why be so hooked up on who he fought, even though he legitimately took on all comers, when he will be remembered for never winning the biggest fights of his career?
If there's such a thing as a moderator on this board, I nominate this thread be closed after this spot on post!:good
you asking or offering a better resume? bottom line is that oscar is the muscle man of boxing and he can pick and choose his fights pretty much. right or wrong (i think it's justified because people wouls be crying out for mainstream exposure if it wasn't for oscar), oscar's the main man in boxing and we could be waitng a long time for someone wth that sort of ability and charisma to come around again....even if he is a bit too 'golden tonsilled'.
They can't counter it all they'll say is he tried to fight the best. I'm going to quote Ring Kings post evertime I get into it with an Oscarsexual.