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.