P4P Emile Griffith or Oscar Del La Hoya?.

Both fought the best of their eras, both had some dicey decisions over the best of their eras, but Griffith's era was better, and hence Griffith is better.

Is he a more talented fighter than Oscar p4p? I'm not sure, perhaps by the slightest margin, but there isn't much in it.

Is Emile Griffith a better welterweight? Sure. But Oscar wasn't a natural welter imo and in fact he did his best work before he even got to welterweight. More a jr. welter really.

 

I don't see the relevance.

 

DLH gets overly criticised but Griffith was a special fighter. Emile comfortably.

 

Emile top 50
ODLH top 35

 

Reasoning Anarci?

The fact I think thats ridiculously high for Hoya can be saved for another thread...but to have Emile not only lower but a fair bit lower needs some clarification for me..I cannot for the life of me see it.

 

Agreed, I know anarci is a DLH fan but this is ... :yikes

 

Griffith easy.

Ocar was a really good fighter, maybe even excellent at his best, but for me he's more in the running for best managed and marketed amatuer talent into pro transition of all-time than anything else.

the fact he had not a single impressive performance whenever the competition stepped up from good fighters like Gonzalez etc is what turns me off him.

I don't mind someone always being in very close fights against the best of their era and being unable to really score a signature dominating win or two, as long as the fighters are giving impressive showings, but Oscar was always fighting the wrong fight, underwhelming or stinking the joint out in his fights with other really good to excellent fighters.

Vargas at 154 might have been his best to me, that was a fine win because of the size difference.Tito, quartey, Pea, both Mosley fights...all good but hardly special, great or even excellent performances htat told me this guy's reputation and hype far exceeded his ability.

Lightweight/junior welter were likely where he would be at his most formidable in an all-time sense.He had size, range and excellent power there, but his opposition hardly compares to Griff's.



Griffith has loads of close debatable fights too, but they were usually fought at a clearly higher standard from him than OScar showed us imo.

Griff an all-time great.Even if it is through sheer toughness, longevity and ability to consistently grind out very good to excellent performances rather than as an awesome dazzling talent.

Oscar a very good borderline/near great.ie. the same category i'd have Buchanan, Laguna etc...

 

It has to be Emile

 

I don't either. Jose Napoles, besides being a great fighter, who also is greater p4p and head to head than Oscar, was at his near peak as welter champ, and Griffith was at that time a middleweight and had to melt off pounds to make that fight..I don't think he was at his best for Napoles, and he quite possibly could have nade it closer had he been at his best at 147.

 

:deal

 

atsch

 

I see a fight somewhat like the DelaHoya vs Quartey fight. Only Emile Griffith would make certain not to get robbed by the judges, but in reality how much more could he do to thwart Oscar's popularity. I thought Quartey did more than enough to win the fight despite being knocked down twice. Oscar would land some decent shots and just might give Emile a bit of trouble, but I'd still favour Emile to win a convincing UD over 12 or 15 rounds.

 

Of course..it would be a dull, but solid 15 roiund points win for Griffith. The old mechanic would just be too smart for Oscar.

 

Yeah OKatsch