P4P Emile Griffith or Oscar Del La Hoya?.

atsch ****ing Lora:? Ive agreed with all of your posts for the most part but you are completely in ":nutFunky brain:nut"" mode.

Quartey like Bruno? You ever thought that Oscar had something to do with that? Likewise with Oscar both of them fought tentative"save the few fireworks"

But the most outrageous statement was the comment about Oscar pickinhg guys in the declineatsch If there is one thing that noooooooooooooone should dis Oscar, is that he fought the elite figtghers of his era.


Answear me this!!!

Who has for more quality fighters tha n ODLH in the last 25 years? Nobody!!!!!!!! any fighter fights the quality of guys he fought is gonna come out with a few losses, Do you think May,Pac would come out unscathed with the quality of fighters that he fought?

Oscar is an ATG and much better than a lot of the guys on Esb talk about.

On the Aussie forum some "so called expert rated Dullio Loi over Oscar atsch

 

You know i just talked to my pops about this, and he is from ther Griffith era. I told him to post on here but he thinks ESB is full of ****.

My pops said Oscar was definitely a better fighter than Emile, said Emile didnt have the speedl,Power and was not as consistant as Oscar. He did give an advantage to Emile on the intagibles as far as the era and fighting on a frequent basis,but im telling you ill take my Pops opinon who has lived thru both eras, and in a heartbeat he told me Oscar is the better fighter.

 

That's cool,and it's not like anyone should feel persecuted for taking Oscar, but i don't think many posters have the old-timers bias you are saying Anarci.I just see honest opinions for the most part.

oen thign i would say about Griffith is i tend to agree he might not have performed as well in the modern era(even from say mid-seventies on).especially if he had the misfortune to be fighting out of somewhere other than a boxing hotbed like New york.

Maybe it takes him a good five or 6 years to get a title shot, or that relatively unflashy technical style doesn't go over too well with the judges in a real close fight and he doesn't get the decision when he really needs it.Not as many chances to recuperate and re-establish yourself, which may not have suited him.

 

Arguably Holyfield, Lewis, Pacquaio, Toney, Whitaker and FMJ is catching up

 

But he didn't look very good at all against them. Chavez never beat anyone at 147 and looked bad in his performances at the weight. At the time Chavez fought De La Hoya at 147, he was 36, comparable to the De La Hoya who lost to Pacquiao. As a welterweight win it doesn't really count, at light welterweight yes. When you think of the top welterweights of the past 20 years, Chavez shouldn't really count.

I did not find De La Hoya's win over Whitaker to be impressive. It was a close fight where De La Hoya never truly took charge and Whitaker's record post-1996 consisted of two close fights with Rivera, one of which he arguably lost, a come-from-behind KO win over Hurtado, the loss to De La Hoya, a close decision win over unknown Pestriaev which was turned into a no contest due to Whitaker testing positive for the use of cocaine as well as the one-sided loss to Trinidad. I question, on hindsight, if Whitaker was truly a top pound for pound fighter at this stage.

In Griffith's case he did fight pretty much everyone from welterweight to middleweight. I don't think he is leagues above Oscar, nor is Oscar leagues above him. I think the case to rank Griffith over De La Hoya is stronger and thus am a bit surprised that anarci is feeling insulted that people are rating Griffith above Oscar. Both of them competed at top level during the respective eras and while neither established themselves as the clear number 1, they made up for it by fighting everyone, scoring some very good wins while also suffering some losses, at times in controversial and indecisive fashion.

 

How long is 'a while'?

I think they'd more have a chance in a non-title fight to jag a win off a champ. Doubt it would happen in a championship fight.

Chavez was still a good fighter, but a cut put a spanner in the works that first fight. I don't see many people giving Billy Backus or LC Morgan that much credit for beating PRIME versions of Jose Napoles. Do you acknowledge them as better wins than Oscars? Napoles was prime after all, Chavez was not.

Whitaker got up for the fight true, but let's stop this convincing stuff. That was not a convincing performance by Oscar. At best he outhustled Whitaker.

Ok.

Oscar was exemplary at the weight. Molina gave him a hard fight though.

To me, Rodriguez was clearly better than Shane Mosley. Again, better resume being the key factor there.

If Oscar drained himself down to welterweight, the way Griffith did for the Napoles fight, he may not have done so well. Look how completely inept Oscar was when fighting Pac as a welterweight. Weight cutting in old age in particular doesn't go down well.

Agree to disagree on their resumes. Oscar has an excellent one, but Griffith's has more quantity and a tad more quality too.

 

The Chavez that fought Whitaker was a good fighter and would have had some success there against some styles. The Chavez that fought DLH at welterweight was doing nothing but cashing in his chips.

 

Yes but Quartey was a superb boxer and if he was promoted aswell as Oscar and kept dedicated we'd have lots of threads about him on the Classic forum and talk about him as a great. Its a shame he didnt get the fights on his terms and was kept innactive

I actually had Quartey winning this and thought he put in a good showing, he made Oscar look silly and ineffective allot, he made Winky and Forrest look silly when he was a part time boxer, which says allot about him. Oscar did pull out an amazing end to the fight, but on round by round basis its not enough

 

Agree to a degree, Chavez will have wanted Oscars scalp but was too old and small to do anything, still might have beat a top10 contender or 2. The 140lb win was an excellent one given the manner of it though despite the insatisfactory end and Chavez being past prime

 

Yes the 147 rematch wasnt that great a win but it was somewhat important given the unsatisfactory

Whitaker certainly was past prime but his skills and ability he dispayed against DLH were stunning at times. He was in better shape against Hoya than he was in his prior fights that I dont think he was particularly up for. Whitakers Tito loss was 2years later in which time he'd been completely inactive, I'm not convinced Tito beats the version of Whitaker Oscar fought, although I thought Whitaker won anyway for the record

 

Griffith by miles and miles and miles.

 

I was gonna say GTFOH, but instes i will sayGet the **** out **** out of hereatschatsch

Only Holyfield can compare and still he doesnt match it.

FMJatsch WTF i give the kid his props but you are obviously a Floyd nuthugger to compare his opponents to ODLH.

 

Imo the only one is Whitaker and perhaps Holyfield and Pac. But DLH lost too many of those fights to rank as high as you have him. IMO.

 

Read Ancari, I said 'catching up', if he can add Pacquaio, Mosley, Berto to Delahoya, Corrales, Castillo, Judah, Hatton, Hernandez, Chavez, JMM he is catching up

Toney/Lewis/ resume are amazing in terms of the names, all the best of the best, Toneys probably trumps Hoyas for quality