Greater fighter: George Foreman or Oscar De La Hoya

I don't actually see how De La Hoya doesn't have the better résumé. Foreman's win over Frazier is the best between the two of them, but let's not pretend like the version of Frazier he fought was still the freak who managed to beat Ali. Obviously still a great win, but is it enough to overrule Oscar's resume? No.
De La Hoya's work below welterweight is more impressive to me than the vast majority of Foreman's come back. Sure, rewinning the title at such an advanced age is really impressive but I'll never be particularly impressed about beating Michael Moorer. Foreman stopped a chinny, light-heavyweight who was easy to hit. DLH beating Ruelas, Hernandez, Chavez, MAG, Bredhal, etc is a more impressive portion of a career IMO.

Foreman in his prime really only has three good wins, those being Frazier, Norton and Lyle. De La Hoya at welterweight and above has much more depth, if not as dominant wins or any as good as Foreman's over Frazier. Whitaker, Quartey, Carr, Rivera, Vargas, Castillejo and Campas as a collection is definitely more impressive than Frazier, Norton, Lyle and Chuvalo IMO.

De La Hoya has so much more to his record, it's obviously close. I'd question a person's objectivity if they really thought De La Hoya didn't win ANY of those close fights.

I don't know why De La Hoya is being accused of cherry picking when he was involved in more high profile fights than anyone in his era; and clearly fought the highest level of opposition. Foreman on the other hand both massively cherry picked in his second career, and avoided challengers on his first career, choosing to sit on his ranking after beating Chuvalo. Just for some perspective, Foreman is 6-4 against ranked fighters, Oscar is 10-4, and a third of DLHs win didn't come again Peralta and a washed Chuvalo.

This forum comes down to hard on DLH. He's every bit as much as an all-time great as Foreman is, and if Foreman did what he did at a weight other than heavyweight, nobody would be saying this is a wash.

 

It's debatable if Oscar is even greater than Shane. That should be the question here.

Foreman's short, devastating reign and his win over Moorer trump Oscar's career in terms of greatness.

 

De La Hoya's legacy is clearly better than Mosley's. Different level tbh.

 

Lol. That's the Mosley hater in you saying that.

How in the living Hell can Oscar be 0-2 against Shane, and not have a single win as dominant as Shane's win over Marg, and be "different level"?

Make it make sense. The two of them are on the same tier.

Foreman is greater than both.

 

LMAO I'm a Mosley hater now? No, you just rate the guy ridiculously highly.

De La Hoya on most cards is 1-1 with Mosley, not 0-2 and I'll take a close win over Whitaker over a clear win over Margatio any day of the week. Hell, I'd take a win over Vargas over a win over Margarito. Mosley would've gotten battered against Tito, and he isn't beating Whitaker.

De La Hoya and Foreman are on the same tier of greatness, Foreman was a better fighter. Mosley was similar in ability to De La Hoya, but his achievements don't compare.

 

Going by that thinking, most people having Oscar losing to Whitaker...

Shane was an overwhelming underdog to Marg. Huge. We all thought Marg would stop him. You might not have context for how highly regarded Marg was post-Cotto 1, but it was a substantial upset at the time.

And no, I wouldn't consider a rightful loss to an aged Whitaker (in a fight where Oscar was the favorite) over annihilating a prime Marg.

Where is Oscar defining win?? Where??

Trinidad has Vargas. Mosley has Oscar and Marg as his defining wins.

Oscar has... nothing.

 

LOL. Stop it.

Chavez was a shell of the fighter he was in 1990, and Camacho's prime was the mid-80s.

Oscar has no clear win over an elite fighter.

His whole career is controversial.

Foreman has perhaps THE defining title-winning desruction.

It's the title-winning destruction that all others are measured by.

This is no Oscar hating here, cause I fuckin hate Foreman more.

I would rather be around Oscar anyday of the week before I would choose to be around Foreman's phony ass.

But George was just objectively greater.

 

I'm moving on though, because it's unlikely either of you are gonna budge.

We'll just agree to disagree. I don't see Oscar in Foreman's league of greatness.

 

This is true and somehow funny as hell.

 

Oscar was an okay fighter who needed some shakey judging to make him a superstar. I think he won the Quartey and Tito fights but lost to Whitaker by 3 rds. The reason he lost to Mosley in the second fight is the same reason he lost to Tito. When you fade and choke your last three rounds away on all the judges score cards, you can pretty much kiss the win goodbye. The judges are going to disagree on different rds but those three they all agree on are going to add up to your demise.

 

If Oscar has a career defining if win it would be the Quartey and the Vargas fight.

But I thought he lost clearly to Ike, and Vargas was on the slide by the time Oscar finally agreed to take that fight, so there is luster taken off.

None of Oscar’s wins compare to the greatness that was displayed by Foreman beating Frazier, Norton, and Moore at age 45 to become the oldest heavyweight champion.

 

LMAO!!!!