Who do you rank higher at welterweight: De La Hoya or Trinidad?

I get your argument, it is the only one that can be made for Oscar, but i just disagree for the reasons i outlined

 

Look my number 1 criteria when I rate guys is proving yourself against the top 5 best of your era, That way it gives us an adequate way to determine just how good they are. If a fighter doesnt prove himself vs the best of his era, how do we know how good he is?


if you look at my top 5 heavyweights

Louis
Ali
Liston
Tyson
Marciano

You will see each of the top proved themselves against most of the best of there era, and almost all these men did very well against the best of there era. Liston dominated the best of his era machen, folley, williams, patterson, valdez. tyson beat holmes spinx, tucker, thomas, tubbs, etc. Marciano beat the best of his era louis, charles, walcott moore. ali beat the best of his era frazier, foreman, norton, young, lyle, etc. you get the picture?


Same goes with all my lists.........to get into my top 5 you must prove yourself against the best of your era. tito outside of oscar at 147 whom he lost too, did not fight many of the top 147lbers of his era dating all the way back to 93.

 

One of the better ways to assess greatness Suzie i must say, but a counter-argument could be that this somewhat depends on who a guy fought/didnt fight (if you dnt prove yourslef against the top guys you dont get in), but we can only look at what someone DID do and fight rather than penalise for not fighting some. And then there is always the point to be made that one fighter fought in a better era than another, fighter A might have fought just 1 of his era's best, but fought in a better time in general, fighter B might have been dominant but fpught in a lesses era. Who's to say who was greater?

Im not being argumentative Suzie, your criteria is one of the better ones, but im just saying that greatness is SO subjective it is unreal almost, so imo you must have more than just one aspect of criteria to analyse and interpret it before compiling lists.

Personally, the thing that has always impressed me most, is dominance, that takes some showing of character to man-up and be number 1 whenever imo. But i try to look at all aspects of greatness, its really difficult though

 

Thanx for the props, and I agree with everything you just wrote.

 

o teeto, shane did earn points at 147lb with that close points loss to Top prime welterweight miguel Cotto at age 36.

 

I voted Oscar but its a tough call,

best opposition: Oscar by far (Quartey/Whitaker/Mosley)
head 2 head: Oscar, 95% had OScar taking it
Controversal Verdicts: OScar has 2, Tito has 1
Official Losses: Delahoya 2, Tito 0
PPs Unofficial Losses: Delahoya 3, Tito 1
Dominance of opposition: Tito
The fighter that isnt a complete ****: Tito

 

Oh yea, forgot about that, did you watch that? I think he was low on confidence for a while after Vernon, i know he 'beat' Oscar at 154, but i dont think even he believes that!! He looks better now than he did during that bad-patch! Ever since Collazo seems to have a bit of fire back.

 

:good :good

 

1. Its not at 147
2. It wont happen

 

I thought it was at 147? What weight is it?

 

154 I believe

 

The 1999 affair was a big one Oscar let get away...I feel.

 

Wait I am pretty sure oscar is fighting floyd at 147lb

 

^^Exactly bro I agree 100%^^
But I got a solution, De La Hoya Vs. Trinidad II & the winner get's the edge.
(They are far along enough in their career's to make it a Standup fight this time, I would not expect as much running from Oscar in a rematch, More of a Counter style with angles than anything.)

Someone get Tito some slimfast...(So he can make Jr. Middleweight)
And call Mili De La Hoya and tell her it's gonna happen regardless of the promise Oscar has made to her.

(For sakes of the vote tho, I gave it to Trinidad even tho I personaly thought Oscar pulled it out almost easy, the records will forever show an L next to De La Hoya's name...)