Who's greater : Jose Napoles or Oscar de La Hoya ?

Oscar Dela Hoya. He´s looking better in fishnet-stockings.

 

Classic will probably do bad things to your bottom for this thread.

 

Skills- Napoles

Resume- depends on how you saw a lot of Oscar's close fights.

 

Napoles... and it's not close.

 

I agree with Teeto.

I loved watching DelaHoya in his prime; he was my man...

But on retrospect, he blew most of the big fights he was in, and in one of his best performances (I'll wait for the return fire on this) against Quartey, it was a very tough fight for him, very controversial, and he wouldn't give a rematch.

Oscar gets credit for fighting every contemporary worth mentioning except Forrest and Wright. As far as Napoles' resume, I don't know the contemporary fighters he didn't fight, but as far as skills go, he's right with Oscar.

I'm interested to hear accounts of Napoles' resume, as I've seen him fight, but I'm just not familiar enough with the early 70's welter scene...

 

I think you're being just a little too kind to Oscar.

 

Eddie Perkins was apparently a very talented light-welterweight, he disputes the loss to Napoles, he actually said something to the effect of the decision being a joke, something like that, but who knows how reliable that is? He was one of the top light-welters of his era. Napoles wasn't really a welter himself, it's said that he moved up because nobody wanted a piece of him at 135. He shared the ring with and beat a 30/31 year old Griffith, who must be one of the top ten welters in history on ability. Napoles' era wasn't great but the likes of Lopez, Cokes, Backus were all title/title challenging quality.

 

Definitely

 

The one edge Oscar has is his fame and good looks. A hell of a fighter too. But in overall skill, Napoles has my vote.

 

I think Napoles would have done better against DLH's comp than DLH did.

I think Napoles would clearly beat Mosley, Quartey, an old Pea and Trinidad. Even if we grant that in one of those fights Napoles's cuts would have cost him a fight, it still would be a better overall outcome than what DLH did (given that he lost once to Mosley clearly, merely held his own against Pea and Quartey and was dudded against Tito and Shane the second time around, though not really fighting complete fights in either case).

 

You can't get cut if you don't get hit

 

Seriously??? Napoles by a great deal.

 

I think this is a very astute comment. For me Napoles is the greater fighter, but DLH will be remembered by more people (particularly by borderline fans) for the reasons above. Unfair perhaps, but that's the way of the world, I'm afraid.