Can Oscar EVER say that he beat a top fighter in thier primes? Beat a washed up Chavez twice. CONTROVERSIAL decision over an old Pernell. CONTROVERSIAL decision to Ike. CONTROVERSIAL decision loss to Tito in a fight he coulda won if he showed more balls. Clearly lost the first Shane fight. BULLSHIT decision over Sturm! CONTROVERSIAL decision loss in the Shane rematch. Clearly beaten by B-Hop, conversial ending(D I V E). Clearly beaten by Floyd, yet some of his groupies are starting controversy. Yet he's an all time great right?:: When its all said and done the only top fighter Oscar has ever beaten WITHOUT question was Vargas, and Nando wasnt even at his best! Making his best ever win probably Rueles, or MAG.
He KOed Vargas, clean. He beat Genaro Hernandez stupid. He beat Rafael Ruelas stupid. If you're going to include Sturm in this conversation, these guys belong as well and the thread is now over.
He was also MUCH bigger than Hernandez and Ruelas. When he moved up to 147 and fought guys his own size, you see what happened. I'll give you the Vargas fight, although Nando was never the same after the Tito fight. Regardless even in his prime, I still think Oscar would have beaten him though for the record.
the same can be said of Floyd though he's contempt to win rounds by landing a couple more punches than the opponent even at lightweight, how can you pick him over workhourses like Duran ________ WELLBUTRIN PROBLEMS
Another thing about Goldie, he's one of the DUMBEST great fighters of all time. Anybody hear the post-fight when he was talking about his jab being effective, but it "just wasnt a jab night". WTF does that mean? Of course if they have a remach, Goldie will claim he'll use his jab more, but he wont. He'll fight the same way he did tonight. And if he does use his jab, the moment Floyd counters it, he'll revert back to the way he fought tonight. He makes the poorest adjustments of any so called "great" fighter in history.
You got an answer for everything huh? You mention Sturm, a legit middleweight. You mention Hopkins, a guy obviously bigger than De La Hoya. So its OK when Oscar is smaller and loses, but when he's bigger and wins, its not? Call it down the line for christs sake.
Did I not mention Ruelas, and MAG in my original post? I also gave him Vargas. My point was, when DLH started fighting guys his own size, he wasnt his master the media always portrayed him as.
Nobody could be the master that the media portrayed Oscar as. But you're biased as fuck in this thread, mate. I'm not going to go any further than this though, you're entitled to it.
Still can't believe people actually think De La Hoya won. I mean it really just makes me think that maybe I didn't watch the fight. I had a few drinks last night and all but I must have missed something I guess because alot of people down here think Oscar won.
I agree, but he beat Pernell easily and handily. Anyone who thinks Pernell won is an idiot or cannot score a fight. The same is true if people think DLH won last night. The story of his career is he is a guy who took more risks than just about anyone but he never really had a huge win in a superfight. Even if he won, there is something. He beat Tito easily, but got robbed. Beat Shane in the rematch and got robbed. He got sodomized by Sturm gets a gift. Takes on the middleweight champion and takes a dive in a competetive fight. De la Hoya =controversy.
That is his legacy. He whupped Tito and Shane in the rematch. Generally, yeah, that is his legacy. A dude who was competetive with the best and rarely having a decisive ending. Some of the controversy is hate. Again, the Pea fight was just as controversial as the fight last night, meaning without an agenda the winner was clear.
Yeah, who's the haters? Oscar clearly beat Pernel and Tito and Mosley, at least he fought the best and at least tried to fight last night unlike most :dunno:
X..i would favor oscar over floyd in a rematch? what do you think? oscar when he wanted owned mayweather pretty good when he used his jab
Yesterday's fight might be the most manufactured "controversy" since Jones-Tarver I or Lewis-Klitschko.
Oscar was, in his prime, competitive and up amongst a very talented set of lightweight-welterweights...he never separated himself from that cohort, he was simply the only one with the financial clout (and ambition, you have to give him that) to make fights with most of them...he's now nowhere near that prime, his career now becomes collateral for HBO's continued support for G...
I compare it to Lewis-Holyfield II when it seemed there was a large contingent who thought Holyfield won just because he was more competitive then in the first fight. That logic boggled my mind.
He beat Tito. He beat Mosley in the rematch. He only lost a CLOSE decision to Mosley in the first fight and Hopkins. Not bad at all. And he came in a hair short against Floyd, without his trainer of 7 years. Lampley said saturday that all Floyd's wins were convincing. NOT TRUE.
