Thread: De La Hoya, future hall of famer?

Another topic that sufficed within boxing conversation between my friends and I is the legacy of De La Hoya. We were torn, being that half of us thought he had a monumental career and the other half felt he was slightly less than great. Personally I was in between both arguments.

Without a doubt, he did not shy away from the big fights but he also rarely pulled those fights off. His notable wins come from Julio Caesar Chavez (old by that time), Pernell Whitaker, Ike Quartey, Arturo Gatti, Fernando Vargas, and Ricardo Mayorga. I feel that Gatti and Mayorga are just names, not good fighters. His losses come from Felix Trinidad, Shane Mosley (twice), Bernard Hopkins, and Floyd Mayweather. He did well against the "B"-Class fighters, but when it came to the "cream-of-the-crop" he couldn't win.

I feel if he didn't lose focus and go grammy hunting he could've been one of the best ever. I was wondering what everyone thought of Oscar's career?

The judges thought he lost to Tito & Shane twice. A lot of boxing fans thought he should have been 2-1 in these 3 fights instead of 0-3 as the record book shows. So the question would be, does he get kept out of the hall of fame because some judges might have been wrong in 2 of his biggest fights?

Hopkins was just too big for him but I think Oscar deserves some credit for taking that challenge.

de la hoya is an ATG, HOF, tbh i didn't even think this topic was even up for debate or that anyone other than a silly hater (not calling you one) would even question it...

world champion at 6weights, fought pretty much every big name in his eara... most have him 1-1 with shane and 1-0 over tito... even if you count him as lossing all there they were by razor thin descisons... and worthy of a shit load of respect, and as shane and tito are cert for the HOF razor thin losses to them is easily good enough to get in along with them...

Originally Posted by Preme

de la hoya is an ATG, HOF, tbh i didn't even think this topic was even up for debate or that anyone other than a silly hater (not calling you one) would even question it...

world champion at 6weights, fought pretty much every big name in his eara... most have him 1-1 with shane and 1-0 over tito... even if you count him as lossing all there they were by razor thin descisons... and worthy of a S*** load of respect, and as shane and tito are cert for the HOF razor thin losses to them is easily good enough to get in along with them...

I'm in no way a De La Hoya hater. I've been fan even before the grammy nomination. I'm just asking for the sake of debating. I totally forgot to mention he was champion at numerous weightclasses (i think he was champ in 5 not 6: lightweight, super lightweight, welterweight, junior middleweight and middlewieght)

Originally Posted by caleoh12

Originally Posted by Preme

de la hoya is an ATG, HOF, tbh i didn't even think this topic was even up for debate or that anyone other than a silly hater (not calling you one) would even question it...

world champion at 6weights, fought pretty much every big name in his eara... most have him 1-1 with shane and 1-0 over tito... even if you count him as lossing all there they were by razor thin descisons... and worthy of a S*** load of respect, and as shane and tito are cert for the HOF razor thin losses to them is easily good enough to get in along with them...

I'm in no way a De La Hoya hater. I've been fan even before the grammy nomination. I'm just asking for the sake of debating. I totally forgot to mention he was champion at numerous weightclasses (i think he was champ in 5 not 6: lightweight, super lightweight, welterweight, junior middleweight and middlewieght)

like i said, i wasn't say you were a hater

and it was 6.

Even with his record as is, he is still a lock in the Hall of Fame. He is still the only fighter to win world titles in 6 different weight divisions (if you count WBO which many now do). He still gave us great fights and remained competitive in the elite level for the better part of 10 years. He is arguably the most popular fighter since Sugar Ray Leonard. You can say that the last part has nothing to do with it, but I beg to differ, it is called the Hall of FAME not Hall of All Time Greats.

Just because he was not the best of his era does not mean he was not hall of fame material. His era was arguably one of the best in boxing. Whitaker, Trinidad, Quartey, Hopkins, Wright, Vargas, Mosley, Chavez, Forrest, Maywether, most of these guys would easilly make a top 30 P4P all time great list. Oscar fought most of them and won his share. The names on his record are a who's who of the greats of his time.

he did beat mosley in the second fight but wasn't given the decision

I think Delahoya whole career is suspect. He won fights he should have lost and he lost a couple that he should have won. At the same time he became the face of boxing and put it back on the map for ten plus years. I think he is a hall of farmer just off the strength of that.

Hall of Famer,DEFINTELY,all time great,I'm not so sure but most probably no. He has fought everyone there is to fight.

He beat alot of good names but just as you can say his losses were against guys who were just superb fighters(b hOP tITO,SSM ) his wins can easily be viewed as being more impressive than they were. He beat a Vargas who was just DESTROYED by Tito.Ditto Mayorga. He beat Quartey but alot of fans(not myself)think Ike should have got the decision.JCC was old as heck and had been through war after war,he had nothing left to give.He beat other good names at the lower weights but none were as big as the names mentioned above.

It's a double edged sword. You can't say,oh he lost to the best and he's an ATG at the same time,that doesn't make sense,especially seeing as his biggest wins were not as clear cut either. Hall of Famer for sure but for a guy who will be rememberd more for his losses than his wins,and as harsh as that sounds,it's true,you cannot classify him as an ATG,not imo.

And there is no way he would make top 30 ATG imo.Great fighter,great fighter,very skilled BUT lost his biggest fights and his biggest wins were close.

He's a shoe in for the Hall of Fame no doubt, he'll be a first ballot pick the moment he's eligable.

I'd also say he's an all-time great as well.

Boxing at the highest level if often about luck and there is every chance that if Oscar would have his career over, some of those controversial decisions would have gone his way and people would rank him up there with the likes of Pernell Whittaker and Leonard.

Imagine if the Trinidad and second Mosely fight had gone his way, he'd be probably seen as top 20 of all time.

As it is he must still surely make the top 50, probably top 40 and he's not done yet.

I'd give him every chance of beating Hatton, Cotto, Cintron, Forrest, possibly Mosely and who knows maybe even Floyd in a rematch.

Some people talk of him as if he didn't achieve anything and that's crazy. Winning belts in 6 different divisions isn't easy

Originally Posted by Bilbo

He's a shoe in for the Hall of Fame no doubt, he'll be a first ballot pick the moment he's eligable.

I'd also say he's an all-time great as well.

Boxing at the highest level if often about luck and there is every chance that if Oscar would have his career over, some of those controversial decisions would have gone his way and people would rank him up there with the likes of Pernell Whittaker and Leonard.

Imagine if the Trinidad and second Mosely fight had gone his way, he'd be probably seen as top 20 of all time.

As it is he must still surely make the top 50, probably top 40 and he's not done yet.

I'd give him every chance of beating Hatton, Cotto, Cintron, Forrest, possibly Mosely and who knows maybe even Floyd in a rematch.

Some people talk of him as if he didn't achieve anything and that's crazy. Winning belts in 6 different divisions isn't easy

Agree CC very well put...

You look at his losses, and they have come agasint guys who could of beaten basicaly anyone of the greats at that weight, they may of been a slight underdog or what not, but hopkins in his prime had a good chance to beat whomever you consider to be the best middleweight of all time. SSM and tito to welter weights whom i would pick to play hell with any weleterweight and push them to their limits, with th exppetion of maybe SRR...

apart form hopkins whom everyone knew oscar was well out of his depth, his losses could of gone either way, and they were to greats, nothing wrong with that...

Winning 6 belts in 6 weight classes is not easy but it's not as hard as it used to be either. Guys like Pernell used to fight the best to win the fight and defend it v the best.

Oscar won the title at 160 from Sturm in a fight which he should easily have lost,then he lost the title in the next fight. He won the 154 pound title from Mayorga,then lost it in his next fight. Are those achievements really those of an ATG? I don't think so. And saying IF he had won v Shane,IF he had won v Tito,is nothing but hypothetical thinking. He didnt win. We are using facts.

Like I said,and no-one has refuted me convincingly yet,when a guy is remembered more for his losses than his wins,as evidenced by some of the posts here,I don't think he should be an ATG. Should George Chvalo be high as an ATG simply because he lasted with the best HW's ever?I know it's an extreme example but you get the point.

I can see why you guys would have him as an ATG but I believe that term is flung around far far too much and is confused with Hall of Famer.

Originally Posted by El Gamo

Winning 6 belts in 6 weight classes is not easy but it's not as hard as it used to be either. Guys like Pernell used to fight the best to win the fight and defend it v the best.

Oscar won the title at 160 from Sturm in a fight which he should easily have lost,then he lost the title in the next fight. He won the 154 pound title from Mayorga,then lost it in his next fight. Are those achievements really those of an ATG? I don't think so. And saying IF he had won v Shane,IF he had won v Tito,is nothing but hypothetical thinking. He didnt win. We are using facts.

Like I said,and no-one has refuted me convincingly yet,when a guy is remembered more for his losses than his wins,as evidenced by some of the posts here,I don't think he should be an ATG. Should George Chvalo be high as an ATG simply because he lasted with the best HW's ever?I know it's an extreme example but you get the point.

I can see why you guys would have him as an ATG but I believe that term is flung around far far too much and is confused with Hall of Famer.

Well first off winning a title and then losing it in the next fight doesn't make you any less great, Ray Robinson did it 5 times.

Saying it's hypothetical how a result could have turned out is not correct. We're talking about his performance here. If the judges would have been different Oscar could have won those fights with the exact same performance.

Do you assess a fighter's performance based on the whim of a judge or do you assess his performance as he performed in the ring.

There is no doubt that for most of his fight against Tito he made him look one dimensional a and cluess, and lets remember that this was a prime Trinidad at his best weight, not the old Trinidad that Winky beat or the one who lost to the much bigger Bernard Hopkins.

If winning titles in 6 divisions is getting easier then it seems that none of the other boxers have been told as nobody has replicated his feat yet.

You can pick holes in virtually any fighters record and Oscar has beaten two of the greatest fighters of all time in Chavez and Whittaker anyhow.

I think his record is impressive.

Stopped Chavez twice
Won a UD against Whitteker
lost a SD and a MD against Mosely with most thinking he won the second fight
lost a MD against Trinidad with most thinking he won the fight
Knocked out Fernando Vargas when Vargas was still a world rated fighter
Beat Ike Quartey who is one the most underatted fighters in recent years.
Lost a split decision to the greatest fighter of the last decade in his last fight.

The only time he's ever been truly beat was against Bernhard Hopkins, a much bigger man and one of the top 3 or 4 greatest middleweights of all time.


His record is solid, he's a top 40 all time great without question, and he's still got some life in him yet.

It wouldn't suprise me at all if he were to fight and beat the winner of Cotto Mosely and then everyone will be posting on here how Oscar is truly an ATG.

There's an interesting link here.

ESPN's top 50 boxers of all time.

Oscar is at number 39 above Mayweather, Jones Jr, Whittaker, Holyfield, Barrera, Monzon, Hopkins, Morales, Arguello and Tyson.

http://boxing.about.com/od/history/a/50_greatest.htm




I can see this list causing a shat load of controversy

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Originally Posted by El Gamo

Winning 6 belts in 6 weight classes is not easy but it's not as hard as it used to be either. Guys like Pernell used to fight the best to win the fight and defend it v the best.

Oscar won the title at 160 from Sturm in a fight which he should easily have lost,then he lost the title in the next fight. He won the 154 pound title from Mayorga,then lost it in his next fight. Are those achievements really those of an ATG? I don't think so. And saying IF he had won v Shane,IF he had won v Tito,is nothing but hypothetical thinking. He didnt win. We are using facts.

Like I said,and no-one has refuted me convincingly yet,when a guy is remembered more for his losses than his wins,as evidenced by some of the posts here,I don't think he should be an ATG. Should George Chvalo be high as an ATG simply because he lasted with the best HW's ever?I know it's an extreme example but you get the point.

I can see why you guys would have him as an ATG but I believe that term is flung around far far too much and is confused with Hall of Famer.

Well first off winning a title and then losing it in the next fight doesn't make you any less great, Ray Robinson did it 5 times.

Saying it's hypothetical how a result could have turned out is not correct. We're talking about his performance here. If the judges would have been different Oscar could have won those fights with the exact same performance.

Do you assess a fighter's performance based on the whim of a judge or do you assess his performance as he performed in the ring.

There is no doubt that for most of his fight against Tito he made him look one dimensional a and cluess, and lets remember that this was a prime Trinidad at his best weight, not the old Trinidad that Winky beat or the one who lost to the much bigger Bernard Hopkins.

If winning titles in 6 divisions is getting easier then it seems that none of the other boxers have been told as nobody has replicated his feat yet.

You can pick holes in virtually any fighters record and Oscar has beaten two of the greatest fighters of all time in Chavez and Whittaker anyhow.

I think his record is impressive.

Stopped Chavez twice
Won a UD against Whitteker
lost a SD and a MD against Mosely with most thinking he won the second fight
lost a MD against Trinidad with most thinking he won the fight
Knocked out Fernando Vargas when Vargas was still a world rated fighter
Beat Ike Quartey who is one the most underatted fighters in recent years.
Lost a split decision to the greatest fighter of the last decade in his last fight.

The only time he's ever been truly beat was against Bernhard Hopkins, a much bigger man and one of the top 3 or 4 greatest middleweights of all time.


His record is solid, he's a top 40 all time great without question, and he's still got some life in him yet.

It wouldn't suprise me at all if he were to fight and beat the winner of Cotto Mosely and then everyone will be posting on here how Oscar is truly an ATG.

If winning titles in six weight does not make him enter to the hall of fame, I'm not sure what will make. Definitely a hall of famer, although I would not give too much credit for his victories over the declining Chavez.