DLH and his place in history?
ODH has been at the top of the sport a long time....He has lost his highest profile fights like Hopkins,Mosleys 2 and Trinidad but truth is there is no shame in losing to any of them. Except for Hopkins hge he has never been KO'd. And other than that fight never dominated...Lost yes but you never wondered what the hell is he doing in there with this guy type of loss. He has titles upon titles
WBO Superfeather weight
WBO Lightweight
IBF Lightweight
WBC Light Welterweight
WBC Welterweight
WBC Light Middleweight twice
WBO Middleweight
IMO he is an all time great but others dis-agree...What do you guys think?
Re: DLH and his place in history?
If he beats Floyd no doubt he is an all time great because he has always fought great opposition and a Floyd win would be huge for him. But, look at Kostya.....no one talks about him anymore and he beat some exellent fighters from the very beginning of his career (like Oscar did) and always wanted the big fights.
Re: DLH and his place in history?
There's no doubt Kostya will go down as possibly the greatest 140lber of all time, that'll never be forgotten, and ODLH will go down as an all time great too.
Re: DLH and his place in history?
yeah oscar will definetly good down as an all time great.
Re: DLH and his place in history?
He will probably move back in Ricky Martin...... :bananasex:
Re: DLH and his place in history?
He has four losses on his record. Trinidad, Mosley twice and Hopkins. The Trinidad decision was very contraversial and if he did lose it was razer thin. Same thing with the second Mosley fight. Also I think you have to include Fleix Sturm. His losses at middleweight were an example of too much ambition. He just shouldn't have been there because he wasn't a middleweight. Otherwise the first Mosley fight was the only true loss when he was in his proper element. I don't see why "he lost his best fights was an option". Also keep in mind The Ring had him as #1 pfp one of the years in the mid-nineties (too lazy to do the research).
DLH will be remembered as one of the greatest of his generation. Kostya too.
Re: DLH and his place in history?
Quote:
Originally Posted by a harmful of swallows
He has four losses on his record. Trinidad, Mosley twice and Hopkins. The Trinidad decision was very contraversial and if he did lose it was razer thin. Same thing with the second Mosley fight. Also I think you have to include Fleix Sturm. His losses at middleweight were an example of too much ambition. He just shouldn't have been there because he wasn't a middleweight. Otherwise the first Mosley fight was the only true loss when he was in his proper element. I don't see why "he lost his best fights was an option". Also keep in mind The Ring had him as #1 pfp one of the years in the mid-nineties (too lazy to do the research).
DLH will be remembered as one of the greatest of his generation. Kostya too.
:coolclick: Good points...couldn't have said it better.
I'd also like to throw in that no fighter in the last 10 years has brought as much excitement & cash to the table either.
Oscar does indeed go down as an all timer & a HOF'er, IWO.
Re: DLH and his place in history?
Everything that is good about Boxing, inside and outside of the ring. And I love watching him fight.
Imagine him to be loved in the US as much as Hatton is over here.
He gets the normal 'non-fight fan' watching his fights.
Re: DLH and his place in history?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7777
Everything that is good about Boxing, inside and outside of the ring. And I love watching him fight.
Imagine him to be loved in the US as much as Hatton is over here.
He gets the normal 'non-fight fan' watching his fights.
Well spoken again.
Agreed 100% all the way around.
Re: DLH and his place in history?
Oscar is a great fighter, but whether he is an "all-time great" depends on how loosely you define that term.
While I've never really been a DLH fan, I have a TON of respect for him, because over his career the one thing he has always done is fight the best fighters out there. His list of opponents is amazing. Chavez, Whitaker, Quartey, Trinidad, Mosley, Vargas, Hopkins, now Mayweather. No one of this generation can match that.
But I have a hard time considering him to be an all-time great because during his prime there were several fights that he either lost or should have lost.
I thought the Whitaker fight was a draw, I thought Quartey beat him, I had the Trinidad fight a draw, Mosley clearly beat him in the first fight, etc.
I don't penalize him for his fights at 160 because he was in over his head at that weight. I give him a lot of credit for fighting Hopkins because I don't think he had any real shot at winning but he took the fight anyway.
But in my opinion an all-time great should have a period during their prime where they clearly beat their opponents over and over again. DLH just didn't have that. He's a first ballot HOFer without a doubt, but is he an all-time great? I can't go that far.
Re: DLH and his place in history?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
Oscar is a great fighter, but whether he is an "all-time great" depends on how loosely you define that term.
While I've never really been a DLH fan, I have a TON of respect for him, because over his career the one thing he has always done is fight the best fighters out there. His list of opponents is amazing. Chavez, Whitaker, Quartey, Trinidad, Mosley, Vargas, Hopkins, now Mayweather. No one of this generation can match that.
But I have a hard time considering him to be an all-time great because during his prime there were several fights that he either lost or should have lost.
I thought the Whitaker fight was a draw, I thought Quartey beat him, I had the Trinidad fight a draw, Mosley clearly beat him in the first fight, etc.
I don't penalize him for his fights at 160 because he was in over his head at that weight. I give him a lot of credit for fighting Hopkins because I don't think he had any real shot at winning but he took the fight anyway.
But in my opinion an all-time great should have a period during their prime where they clearly beat their opponents over and over again. DLH just didn't have that. He's a first ballot HOFer without a doubt, but is he an all-time great? I can't go that far.
Good points, your becoming a hell of a poster on this forum, but not to penalize his fights at 160 is absurd. He lost to fighters ( I include Sturm) who outboxed him, and there has been many boxers that have moved up in wieght and lost without having a get out of jail freecard like Oscar (Trinidad, Toney, Mayorga, etc). He lost the fight to Bernard Hopkins because Bernard Hopkins was a better boxer.
Re: DLH and his place in history?
Quote:
Originally Posted by brazilianbomber
Good points, your becoming a hell of a poster on this forum, but not to penalize his fights at 160 is absurd. He lost to fighters ( I include Sturm) who outboxed him, and there has been many boxers that have moved up in wieght and lost without having a get out of jail freecard like Oscar (Trinidad, Toney, Mayorga, etc). He lost the fight to Bernard Hopkins because Bernard Hopkins was a better boxer.
Bernard was a better boxer. That's why I don't let DLH's loss to him impact my thoughts on DLH. I had no expectation of DLH winning, so when he lost, it didn't make me think any less of him. I expected him to lose.
On the other hand, I thought DLH was the better, more complete boxer going into the Quartey, Trinidad, and Mosley fights. And in my opinion he went 0-2-1 in those fights. So I penalize him for those fights because he performed below my expectations.
I think you can penalize Trinidad for his performances at 160 and not Oscar without being hypocritical. Trinidad was a naturally bigger fighter. Trinidad fought the entire first part of his career at 147 and actually had to leave that weight class because it was too tough to make weight. DLH started all the way down at 130. He went up past 147 in search of big fights, not because he couldn't make weight.
I think Hopkins beat DLH because he was better AND bigger. I think Hopkins beat Tito simply because he was much better. Trinidad was just as hard a puncher as Hopkins, if not harder.
Re: DLH and his place in history?
Great fighter,lots of heart but what are his biggest wins? Most were guys Tito practically ruined beforehand! And remember,Oscar was big for the weight at 130,which could explain his knockdowns because as he has moved uo in weight,I'm guessing he's been more comfortable and hence hasb't been knocked down(that's just a theory I made up but sounds good ;D)
Im not sure whether Oscar is an allll time great,this can be seen because most of you guys have posted more about his losses than his wins....is he mkre famour for his losses than wins?(I thought he won the second Shane fight but thought PERNEll beat him as did Sturm). It's just a point.
Re: DLH and his place in history?
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Gamo
Great fighter,lots of heart but what are his biggest wins? Most were guys Tito practically ruined beforehand! And remember,Oscar was big for the weight at 130,which could explain his knockdowns because as he has moved uo in weight,I'm guessing he's been more comfortable and hence hasb't been knocked down(that's just a theory I made up but sounds good ;D)
Im not sure whether Oscar is an allll time great,this can be seen because most of you guys have posted more about his losses than his wins....is he mkre famour for his losses than wins?(I thought he won the second Shane fight but thought PERNEll beat him as did Sturm). It's just a point.
CC, El Gamo. I've stated the same opinions now and then. But it's good to see someone else notice things that should be fairly obvious.
Re: DLH and his place in history?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Gamo
Great fighter,lots of heart but what are his biggest wins? Most were guys Tito practically ruined beforehand! And remember,Oscar was big for the weight at 130,which could explain his knockdowns because as he has moved uo in weight,I'm guessing he's been more comfortable and hence hasb't been knocked down(that's just a theory I made up but sounds good ;D)
Im not sure whether Oscar is an allll time great,this can be seen because most of you guys have posted more about his losses than his wins....is he mkre famour for his losses than wins?(I thought he won the second Shane fight but thought PERNEll beat him as did Sturm). It's just a point.
CC, El Gamo. I've stated the same opinions now and then. But it's good to see someone else notice things that should be fairly obvious.
CC back bro...forgive me for the spelling mistakes!!! Didn't know I had made that many but yeah,I agree, Oscar is famous for his look,for his star power and for his willingness to fight anyone as opposed to being known for his wins although I reiterate,I respect him for everything he has done.
I alo believe Tito is not given the credit he deserves,he beat Vargas,Mayorga,Campas,Whitaker,Oba Carr,Camacho etc etc allll before Oscar and in quite a few of those cases,he handed out career shortening beatings yet you normally hear Oscar getting the credit.
Re: DLH and his place in history?
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Gamo
I alo believe Tito is not given the credit he deserves,he beat Vargas,Mayorga,Campas,Whitaker,Oba Carr,Camacho etc etc allll before Oscar and in quite a few of those cases,he handed out career shortening beatings yet you normally hear Oscar getting the credit.
You're right about most of those, but Tito fought Whitaker after DLH did.
Whitaker fought Oscar in early '97, then fought Tito in early '99. When Whitaker fought Tito, he hadn't fought in nearly a year and a half and had spent time in rehab for cocaine addiction.
Tito looked better against Whitaker than DLH did, but that's because age and drug abuse had robbed Whitaker of his speed and reflexes.
Re: DLH and his place in history?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Gamo
I alo believe Tito is not given the credit he deserves,he beat Vargas,Mayorga,Campas,Whitaker,Oba Carr,Camacho etc etc allll before Oscar and in quite a few of those cases,he handed out career shortening beatings yet you normally hear Oscar getting the credit.
You're right about most of those, but Tito fought Whitaker after DLH did.
Whitaker fought Oscar in early '97, then fought Tito in early '99. When Whitaker fought Tito, he hadn't fought in nearly a year and a half and had spent time in rehab for cocaine addiction.
Tito looked better against Whitaker than DLH did, but that's because age and drug abuse had robbed Whitaker of his speed and reflexes.
Yeah sorry about that but you get my point. And I still think Tito would look better against Whitaker than Oscar. ;D
