P4P Emile Griffith or Oscar Del La Hoya?.

Dont act like you checked me Mcgrain. You dont got no pull with this vato:nono I was being facetious when i said that You never answered some of my questions about Emile do i have to keep reapeating them done it twice already, Why are you trying to shut this debate down with out answering me:huh

You think you can end storys and debates

 

Well I dont think Gavilan pisses all over Oscar and im sure i know more about the Kid than you. :yep:yep:yep Yey Mof you met your match here on ESB i just play with whatever the other posters have to tell me. Im SRR to you Non Peral Jack Dempsey. SO get the **** out here with your nostaligia.

Id put Walker Very high top 15. Gavilan and ODLH top 35.

 

A better question would be would DLH have been considered p4p1 in Griffith's era and the answer to that question is: :rofl

No, but this storming that Oscar did was not against fighters that were all that good. Would he have stomed through a lightweight division packed like Griffith's welterweight division? Of course not.

No. So does that mean that DLH is more durable than Griffith? What is it meant to show?

But getting blasted out once in so many fights can't be held too much against him.

You're mentioning lower level guys here on the whole, especially if we take into account the time at which Oscar beat some of them.

 

Most of what u said was agree to disagree, although Oscar might have not been PFP back then but i dont think Griffith would be PFP in the modern era, maybe for a brief moment by default, but he wasnt scinitilating like Oscar,Jones,Whittaker,May he was a solid great that was appreaciated more when his career was over. Kink of like a Mike Mccallum.

As far as Oscar blowing thru inferior fighters. Well thats your opinion i think Genaro,Leija,Ruelas,Gonzalez,Molina were high quality fighters that would have been top notch in any era. If you say no, i question your analyzation of talent.

So since you making excuses for Griffith being blown out by Carter, You can erase a drained ODLH getting stopped by Pac?

The guys OScar beat in the lower weight classes are being underrated, you are obviously biased towards modern day fighters.



If you want to say im the opposite this is not true I actually think Griffith and ODLH would be a real close fight (ODLH takin it) however PFP and legacy Oscar gets the nod.

 

Well Oscar himself was only p4p for a brief moment, and ironically, after a fight half the scribes felt he lost (Whitaker). He was transitional between Pea and Roy really.

None of those guys would be champions in the 60's. None would probably even be in the top handful of contenders in their respective divisions, I don't think. IF you think otherwise, please tell me who those guys would beat in the 60's.

Griffith getting knocked out is a more significant loss than Oscar's loss. Oscar's loss to Pac meant nothing - he was done.

The problem with Oscar's resume is that some of the best names on it he fought when they were past their best. Wins over Chavez are not that significant. The Whitaker win was a disputed decision with a naturally smaller guy that was past his prime. Guys like Paez, Carr, Leija were all past their prime and not really that good to begin with.

As far as talent goes, I don't think DLH is far behind Griffith, I could deal with someone saying they are on par, but as far as resumes go, it's just not arguable that DLH has a better one, even if you think he beat Whitaker, Quartey, Trinidad and Mosley in the rematch. I still don't think it's up there with Griffiths, even if you think Griffith lost all the Rodriguez fights and split fights with the other quality fighters he matched it with.

For every Tito, Mosley, Quartey and Whitaker there is a Benvenuti, Tiger, Archer, Paret on Griffith's ledger.

 

Just on this one SS, i'm not 100% sure Whitaker was the naturally smaller man. Well height and reach yes (If we went only on this Hearns for instance would be naturally bigger than numerous 175's of course) but Oscar won a world title a division under what Whitaker ever fought at. Maybe the weight draining was in by then but still even if so.

Whitaker had been bashing people at 147 for 4 years as well as popping in for a 154 pound title so he was sitting pretty well. Oscar by comparison had just 3 fights at 140 then went straight to 147 for Whitaker. He was a fully fledged lightweight 1 1/2 years earlier.

 

:good:good Lot of people here like to talk about Oscar fighting smaller foes, but fail to recognise that ODLH was moving up and beating guys that were already established in their weight.

 

That's true but consider:

Oscar fought for a title at 130 weighing in 2 and a half days before the fight.

Whitaker stayed at lightweight until he was 27, and didn't leave the division because he could no longer make weight.

Oscar, even at 135, was draining radically to make weight. He couldn't have stayed there for much longer than he did without his performances suffering as a result.

Whitaker was more established at welterweight sure, having fought there for a while, and I think he was heavier on the night than Oscar too, but when I say he was naturally smaller I mean that he had less capacities for growth than Oscar did. I don't think you could ever find Whitaker fighting at 160 without looking ridiculous. He looked fat at 154. Not so with Oscar, who easily was carrying 154 for years and fought at middleweight above that looking ok.

If we're talking ideal weights, I think Whitaker's was 135, Oscar's was 140.

 

Theres allot of rose tinted glasses and shitting on Oscar while hyping Griffith. Let examine some of the comments:

'Griffith was in a better WW division' - was he, with, Mosley/Trinidad/Quartey/Whitaker/Chavez/Forrest, Rodriguez and co were a load better? BULL****

'Delahoya has big size advantages in many of his wins' - well yes so? Being big and conditioned at a weight is part of the sport, I dont see anyone here downgrading Monzon, Foster and Arguello for the same reason so show some consistancy. Its not like Delahoya didnt fight similar sized or bigger men

'DLH fought past prime wins so they don't count' - being past prime degrades the win but they still are excellent wins/performances

I can't believe I've been forced to defend Oscar now I want to vomit

 

The names do look good but it must also be acknowledged that Chavez was never any good at 147 and was past his prime, Whitaker was also on the decline (just look at him against Rivera/Hurtado) and Oscar never fought Forrest/Winky. He had close fights with Trinidad, Mosley and Quartey but didn't truly establish himself as a level above them. Had he done that, De La Hoya being rated above Griffith could surely be justified.

 

Dude check out some publications of Ring and Ko"before Oscar owned the ring" you will see that Oscar was top notch for a while.


I was probably reaching with Rafeal Ruelas but the rest would have been very good in any era. Hernandez,Molina,gonzalez,Leija yey i can honestly say that on a good night they would have been champs against even those very good old timers all of these^^^ guys were very good fighters eve when Oscar fought them.

Your right Griffith getting blown out in 1 round was more tell tale than a zombie oscar fighting Pac


Chavez was definitely past his best but he was still a very good fighter no longer great but very good and a helluva a accomplishment for a young Oscar

I think Whittaker proved to be a difficult fight and made Oscar look bad, but Whittaker did do enought to win and imo Ocar won convincingly. Also i hate hearing the crap about PW being washed up, he turned back the clock for that fight , there was a huge difference in his reflexes from the Hurtado fight to his fight with Oscar.


Il give u Paez i was at that fight:yep
As for Leija I know he wasnt past it i talked to Leija after that fight and Jesse told me he felt better than ever and was very confident he was gonna beat Oscar, he just said he was overwhelmed, said Oscar hit harder than the MWs that he was sparring with. No matter what Oscar was a beast at that weight, even a slick technichian like Genaro hernandez got overwhelmed after a few round. You guys wanna dis Oscar for being a Overblown LW. Well why dont you guy s start dissin Hearns and other modern day fighters that came in big.

you wanna talk about his triology with Rodriguez and how great he was? Well i agree that Rodriguez wa great but he wasnt any better than Mosley. Another thing Griffith was dominated by Naopoles. Oscar fought a similar great opponent in Mayweather and did a helluva alot better than Griffith.

In all honesty here there resumes are kind of equal. Griffith has som bigger names at the higher weights, but we got to look atwhere oscar started at. IMO he was such a dominant force in the lighter weights and to take that as he moved up i s a big accomplishment.



Emile great fighter

Oscar greater fighter:bbb:bbb:bbb

 

You are doing some serious nit picking here:-(

If used your strategy i could tear apart Robinson,Armstrong,Duran,Ali,Pep:-(

 

Quartey was inactive by the time he fought Oscar and looked like a Welterweight Frank Bruno, yet somehow possibly even less dynamic.He was a far cry from the fighter that took on Espana, carr and Vince.Oscar was always good at picking fighters who looked on the steep decline though, it was the same with Whitaker.He rarely went into any big fight without things seemingly stacked in favour of him before the fight, and even then rarely impressed as a talent on the level he was being sold as.I was actually more impressed with his loss againt Mosley than most of his big wins, that at least was a damn good quality fight.

maybe i'm too harsh on Oscar, but i've genuinely never thought he was a true great.A ****ing good fighter, but not an all-timer, henjust didn't ever show that kind of talent when it mattered.And unlike loads of damn good fighters who had far inferior backing and might only get one or two shots, he had tons of chances to do so.

 

I'm not sure I buy the 'Chavez was never good at 147', he faced whitaker and oscar, how many would look good against them? Was Whitaker past his best, yes, but hes top10 P4P of all time and got himself back into great shape for the Oscar fight. No Oscar never faced Forrest/Winky but you cant face everyone and he beat Mayorga who beat Forrst and offered WInky 6million for a fight

Griffith had loads of close fights/losses himself against the elite so that levels things up in my view. The difference is and usually came out top in a series, discounting Benvenuti. I certainly thought Oscar got lucky decisions, but he certainly deserved the Trinidad fight. It would have been nice to see trilogies against Whitaker, Tito, Quartey, Mosley and I think he may have won most of those trilogies given Whitakers age.

Griffith certainly had the superior skill level, but Oscar was a greater athlete at his best. Ability wise maybe Griffith edges it overall, but the fact Oscar was so HUGE at 135/140 makes him an excellent H2H fighter at those weights

Oscars 135-140lb career gets glosses over, he did show himself to be the best at those weights in his short stay there even if his comp wasnt top notch. I dont think anyone proved themselves the best WW of his era but he did hold his own against the best. At 154 he was arguably the best and 160 was just a bridge too far

I would still probably go with Griffith on this but its not the massive gulf in class some here portray it to be