P4P Emile Griffith or Oscar Del La Hoya?.

Wasnt Griffith 143/144, which would indicate 147 wasnt murderous to get to for him. The age probably didn't help him but Napoles was getting on a bit himself by then

 

De La Hoya was 145 against Pacquiao.

It probably wasn't murderous for him to get down to welterweight, but he seemed to leave the fight on the scales. It was not the traditional Emile Griffith effort that I've seen of him, although admittedly Napoles had a lot to do with that as well. In his next fight 3 months later, Griffith weighed 161.

 

YOu know what at least im backing a underrated but great fighter. That will one day be recognized as an elite atg, but all these other "historians" nodt hink high of him

Anyways dont tell me Nigel benn is your man?


If he is he would be lucy to be ODLHs butler.

 

I don't say they became shot because of those fights, it's not like they were grueling wars, but they became shot after those fights due to one reason or another. Whitaker probably due to drug abuse, De La Hoya due to weight-draining, as well as simple age of course. Also Trinidad and Pacquiao unlike Mayweather and De La Hoya took the fight to their opponents.

It's easier for an old fighter to deal with an opponent who is trying to box with them than an opponent who is relentlessly trying to overwhelm them.

 

You say Oscar is underrated here, but i can guarantee you that he'll be overrated in larger circles than this one. What annoys me sometimes is that people get pissed off with views in this small corner of the boxing world when you have masses of fans in other areas with outright insane opinions.

 

I agree Hurtado dominated him and Whitaker barely got past him in a lousy performance.

Whitaker often overlooked his competition. I am tired of people saying Pernell was so great when he had quite a few close fights in his prime: Azumah Nelson, Jorge Paez, McGirt I, Wilfredo Rivera I. Look at his resume carefully and you will see that Whitaker was not a consistent fighter.

 

I don't think the Nelson or Paez fights were particularly close. The McGirt fight was close, but McGirt was very good. It was one of the great technical fights. I wouldn't say he was in his prime against Rivera.

 

Nelson got thrashed for the most part.Marching forward in straight lines winging clubbing hooks and right hands that mostly missed.IF he wasn't such an imposing fighter physically he probably wouldn't have won 30 seconds of the fight.

 

Rewatch those fights and tell me that they were easy efforts on the part of Pernell.

Funny how you dismiss evidence by saying they were not close...

Whitaker Paez cards 116-110, 115-111. and 115-112
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW5GwCgT7CY[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZLD7JG2UzY&feature=related[/ame]

Whitaker Nelson cards 116-114, 115-113, and 116-111...considering Nelson went up 5 lbs to fight whitaker and the scores were real close I would say this is an embarrassment.

 

There's no way either fight could be scored against Whitaker. 116-110 in the Paez fight and 116-111 in the Nelson fight seem to represent the most reasonable scorecards in those fights. Whitaker also had a point taken away both times by the referee.

Beating Azumah Nelson in clear fashion is far from an embarrassment.

 

Emile Griffith no contest

 

I think you are just being biased...

 

Not that Lederman is the most reliable judge but he too scored the Nelson fight 117-110 for Whitaker and The Paez fight 116-110 for Whitaker. There was really no question about who won those fights. I think most people would agree.

 

LMFAO@Whitaker vs. Nelson being close.

It's about as funny as Whitaker vs. Chavez being a draw.

But that's Don King for you.

Oh and that's idiotic people that equate walking forward with being effective for you.

 

Anytime you defeat the RING Magazine # 1 p4p fighter in the world, it should be an impressive win, GreatA.