Rank these fighters in order - Arguello, Lewis, Hearns, DLH.

Not in mine. As he did beat Trinidad and Mosley the second time in my opinion, I give him the credit he deserves, and those wins make the difference in a close contest between two great fighters IMO. I am more of a Lewis fan, but Oscar's res is the factor which tips the balance.

 

He failed to get the benefit of the doubt in two razor thin fights. He should be especially pissed off with himself for the Trinidad decision, because he bewildered everybody by getting his track shoes on for the remaining few rounds. In any event, you shouldn't be acknowledging losses as wins, not unless we're talking Whitaker/Chavez. The De La Hoya losses are disputable, but close fights.

I give Lewis the nod because he beat more quality fighters than Oscar, he reigned at the top for a longer period of time, and for every loss he vindicated in the rematch.

Easy decision for me. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

i don't think oscar v trinidad was close at all. but i also give him points off for sturm performance which is fair imo.

 

Would you rank Oscar above Lewis?

One fighter lost all his biggest fights, and one guy beat every opponent he ever faced as a professional.

 

look at my previous answer.no.

 

Arguello
Hearns
De La Hoya
Lewis

 

Hearns
Arguello

Lewis



Oscar

 

Not his fault. Incompetent judging.

No, he shouldn't be pissed off at himself at all. He won 8 rounds. He could've took his gloves off and tap-danced for the last 3, he had already won the fight. Clearly. Inept officiating is not his fault, and I won't penalize him for it.

Er, who are you to tell me what I should and shouldn't be doing??

I will judge fighters whichever way I please. I thought Lewis clearly beat Holyfield first time out, so I can't pretend I thought it was a draw just because 3 idiots in suits did. Exact same standard applied to the aforementioned Oscar fights.

I scored Whitaker-Chavez 118-110. I scored Oscar-Tito 116-112. Where do you draw the line? I draw it wherever I think a clear victory has not been given. That applies to both of these fights.

Eh? I fail to see how anyone on this planet could legitimately dispute the verdict of the Oscar-Tito fight. Oscar 100% won that fight. No dispute possible.

I don't think he did. I think the opposite.

True, but this is balanced by the fantastic feat of Oscar winning titles from sfw to mw. Great performances at both lightweight and lightmiddleweight is not a feat easily replicated.

When did Oscar lose to men the calibre of McCall and Rahman? Never. When was Oscar KO'd? Never.

Not an easy decision for me. I don't see how it can be an easy decision for anyone. These guys have to be ranked closely by anyone who knows their careers. But I am fine with agreeing to disagree.

 

What's worse: losing on points to peak Shane Mosley (avenged), Bernard Hopkins (physically overmatched) and Floyd Mayweather (when past-prime) OR being one-punch KO'd by Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman??

Laughable.

And Oscar did not lose his biggest fights: Vargas, Quartey, Whitaker (who was p4p#2 at the time I believe), Trinidad (be serious), Mosley II

 

He only has himself to blame for blowing the Trinidad fight. Even if you think you have the fight won, you don't go out for the last few rounds running from your opponent. Ask any professional fighter what they think about this, and considering your an amateur, ask your coaches about this. Some responsibility lies on his shoulders, as well as the incompetence of the judges.

What I just said.

Once we start acknowledging losses as wins, we lose all perspective.

Thanks for the bringing that up. Another huge distinction between the greatness of the two fighters. One fighter avenged his losses or bad decisions, whereas Oscar couldn't.

I don't think I have ever spoken to a Boxing fan who thought that Chavez deserved even so much as a draw in that fight. We're nitpicking here, but I would consider that fight a clear robbery, whereas the Trinidad fight was unnecessary close as a result of not only the judges in competence, but De La Hoya's lack of honor.

It's all domestic anyhow, he lost these fights and history will record this.

I thought De La Hoya had done enough to win the fight, but De La Hoya made it unneccesarily disputable. He has himself to blame.

I think when talking about prime fighters, Lewis has the edge.

De La Hoya beat Whitaker (past prime), Chavez (past prime), Vargas (past prime), Quartey, and Mayorga (past prime).

Lewis beat Tyson (past prime), Holyfield (past prime), Vitali Klitschko, Andrew Golota, Ray Mercer, and anybody worth a lick in the 90s Heavyweight scene. The only man missing is possibly Bowe, and we all know what happened there.

Hey, consider your own criteria, but belts don't mean **** to me. Valero is a two weight world champion, and he hasn't fought anybody yet. This has been the common theme. Not to say De La Hoya didn't fight anybody, he clearly did, but I'm more concerned with who he beat, and how a fighter faired after a defeat or when up against solid competition.

Oscar, a fully fledged Light Middleweight was recently dominated and stopped by a fighter at his best as a Super Featherweight?

Oscar was stoppage by a former Flyweight, and by Bernard Hopkins.

I've explained to why it is an easy decision for me. I concern myself with who fighters fought and how they did. Oscar lost nearly every time he stepped up into elite status, and in rematches he failed to vindicate himself. Lennox Lewis beat every opponent put in front of him, and when he would lose, he'd have rematches and win desicively. Easy for me.

 

How was Oscar a full fledged light-middleweight when he was previously a super-featherweight, lightweight, etc?. Vargas and Wright, I'd refer to them as fully fledged at the weight. De La Hoya grew into the division.

 

By the time of the Manny Fight, Oscar was easily a legitimate 154lb. The point remains, a legitimate 154lb was dominated and stopped by a legitimate 130lb at that time. Manny had one fight at 135lb, up to that point, you'd have to say he was really a Super Featherweight at best.

 

Why do you say 'agree to disagree', when you clearly don't mean it??

This is pointless and a waste of time since you are stuck on it being an "easy" decision, so why bother trying to engage me on the subject?

Yawn. Here goes anyway...

Utterly irrelevant. He won the fight clearly. End of story. Likes, dislikes, opinions, attitudes, mentalities, none of this matters when you clearly score a fight one way.

I disagree. As do most on this forum. Pretending Tito beat Oscar because three incompetent idiots in suits thought so does not make any sense to me. It is completely bizarre to base decisions on opinions that you do not share. I don't think Tito won, so why should I pretend that I do??

He did though - Mosley II. A better win than any on Lewis's res.

Your p-o-v that Lewis ranks higher is valid, but your point on their losses is dreadful.

So if Oscar had been KO'd by Rafael Ruelas and Miguel Angel Gonzalez then returned the favour, and then never managed to even fight anyone as good as Hopkins or Mayweather or Mosley, you would rank him higher than you do now??

Oh dear. :nut

The Trinidad fight was a clear, clear win for Oscar irrespective of anyone's personal opinion on his attitude/mentality/tactics/whatever.

I think you mean academic. However, boxing fans still remember dubious decisions from decades ago. They will still remember Trinidad-Oscar this way. That's the beauty of this sport. The fans are the truth!!

Maybe so, maybe not, irrelevant anyway. He still won clearly.

I don't. Yawn. This is dull and futile.

De La Hoya beat: Trinidad (prime), Mosley (prime), Quartey (prime), Whitaker (past-prime), Vargas (near-prime), and a raft of other good quality comp

Lewis beat: Tyson (shot to **** - virtually meaningless win), Holyfield (past-prime but still good level), V.Klitschko, Golota, and a raft of other good quality comp (I'd mention Tua before Mercer)

The only men missing from Lewis's res are Bowe and Tyson before he was a walking corpse.

I always do and always will, as will you, which makes this very boring.

De La Hoya beat better fighters than Lewis did, and when he lost he lost to the very very best, he was never sparked by mediocre alphabet titleists.

Manny Pacquiao is the best fighter in the world, and now an active lww. He beat a weight-drained and years past-prime Oscar. Still a great win for Manny, but it doesn't affect how good Oscar was career-wise. Had Oscar lost like that when peak, then I would hold it against him. But he never did. Despite the quality of the guys he fought. He never lost to a McCall or a Rahman. And the Pac loss won't look anywhere near as bad once Pac lays waste to Cotto. I feel the same about Pac-Oscar as I do about Tarver-Jones, it doesn't affect how good Jones was in his day. Had Jones been sparked by Reggie Johnson or Sugarboy Malinga, it obviously would.

Nope. Whitaker, Trinidad, Mosley II, Quartey, Vargas. ****, this is tedious.

Nope. Mosley II. He vindicated himself against a better opponent than Lewis ever faced.

No-one as good as ww Trinidad or ww Mosley though. Maybe no-one as good as ww Whitaker or Quartey either.

He'd get ****ing sparked cold by mediocre fighters.

Should anyone who can be ranked easily ahead of Oscar really need rematches to assert superiority over Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman?? :nono

Not easy for me. Good for you though. :good

 

One final point for you Selfkill as I have lost all interest in this futile debate:

You clearly believe that we should take Tito-Oscar as a loss for Oscar because he ran the last few rounds instead of trying to close the show.

OK, well please tell me how that differs from Lewis-Holyfield I??

By applying the same logic, we must consider that a draw for Lewis.

That fight is now known as a an exercise in over-caution. Lewis had Holyfield dazed and confused at numerous points in that fight, and everyone to a man was either willing Lewis to finish the job or resigned to it, and Lewis would not push through and land the killer blow.

He consciously chose not to go for the KO in that fight, it was patently obvious.

Therefore, is it not his fault the score was a draw? His tactics and mentality led to it.


Lewis needed rematches to assert his superiority over McCall, Rahman, and a years past-prime Holyfield (how good a version of Holy was that? Check out his fights before and after. LIGHT YEARS behind the version that Bowe beat, light years).

Oscar only failed to beat the very, very best. Lewis's losses are far more detrimental to his p4p greatness than Oscar's are. Surely this is obvious to everyone??

 

I stopped reading as soon as you listed Mosley and Trinidad in Oscar's win column. I wish I could list Pacquiao and Jones in Barrera's win column.

:good We'll agree to disagree.