Felix T. or ODH. In other words, who would you expect to do better against a solid crop of WW throughout history
I think they were so close, as their fight showed, it's too hard to pick a clear 'winner'. It depends on who the crop were. Oscar probably the more versatile boxer, Felix the harder hitting slugger. Someone posted something interesting about boxing's trinity the other day - boxer beats slugger beats swarmer beats boxer. So, using that logic, I envisage Oscar doing better against some of the bigger hitters but struggling against the likes of an Armstrong or Basilio whom Felix would have had more firepower to keep at a distance. Felix on the other hand may have struggled more with boxers that Oscar, with his greater fleet of foot, may have had an easier time with - I say 'easier'; I hope people know what I mean. I'm thinking the likes of Luis Manuel Rodriguez or Billy Graham. I'm afraid I don't know enough boxers to flesh my point out so welcome thoughts and constructive pointers. My point is that I see each winning a similar proportion of fights against the same crop of welters. Just that they would probably have achieved some of their wins - and suffered some of their losses - against different opponents.
Oscar. I think that most of the top welterweights would outbox Trinidad pretty convincingly more often than not. Oscar has enough speed, mobility, and ability to at least have a chance in some of those fights.
I felt like DLH pretty much outclassed him regardless of the official result. Trinidad was always terrible against mobile boxers but did better than DLH against any other type of fighter.
