Who is the most Overrated fighter in history????

First topic message reminder :

Simple question...........who does history love way too much..

A shot Holmes? Bruno who was nostalgic but euro level at the best?

Out of the names you've given, not one makes the top 30 prime P4P HW list, do they? He doesn't exactly have a glittering CV that's comparable to a top 10 HW list.

Who are these ten that blow his record out of the water and Holmes was in no way shot while Bruno was a world level contender.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Who are these ten that blow his record out of the water and Holmes was in no way shot while Bruno was a world level contender.

David Haye was/is a world level contender. Thus the arguement is pretty much void on that basis. And Holmes dropping to decisions (one, yes I know before you start) against Spinks.. who wasn't exactly a world beater at HW.. says otherwise to me.

And you tried to answer my question/statement with one of your own. At the end of the day Tyson doesn't have a win over a guy most would consider to be a top 30 (or so) P4P ATG HW. Does he? And no, Bruno doesn't make the list.

Holmes losing to Spinks twice doesn't mean he was shot, he was past his best but still had a lot offer, i'm interested to know the ten you rate so far ahead of Tyson because I can only really think of 5 or 6. Bruno was a contender for many years and in giving Witherspoon and Lewis tough fights proved himself as a world level fighter.

De la Hoya's a funny one - he seems to be labelled both overrated and underrated in equal measure (he's mentioned on both mine and Truss' threads on this matter), and I guess I can see both sides of the argument.

My best guess would be that he was maybe a little overrated during his pomp and, as a way of compensating, he's mabe too harshly judged in retirement. Ring Magazine installed him as pound for pound number one for the years ending 1997 and 1998 and, looking back, this was a little fanciful and it's a bit far-fetched to suggest that he was ever a better fighter than Jones, for instance, who he temporarily nudged down to number two. On top of that, there was the fact that he routinely commanded bigger purses and more attention throughout his career than the likes of Trinidad and Mosley, despite being 0-3 against them - on the official record, anyway!

However, it's just as easy to argue that, as he was the poster boy of the sport and sch a huge star Stateside, we all perhaps just expected too much from Oscar, and that we've all been guilty of dwelling too much on what he couldn't quite do and ignoring what he did. His Middleweight title was bogus (it's an insult to suggest that he deserved that decision over Sturm), his Light-Middleweight form was patchy, his Super-Feather belt was really just a quick and convenient trinket for marketing purposes and he didn't stay at Light-Welter for all that long - but it shouldn't be forgotten that De la Hoya genuinely flourished and conquered at both Lightweight and Welterweight, and that's not a double which is done easily. Armstrong did it, Ross did it, Duran did it and then Whitaker did it, but they were the only names to do so before Oscar, so it's pretty lofty company by anyone's standards.

Personally, I'm not really comfortable with seeing Oscar labelled 'overrated' these days. If people were arguing that he was the greatest fighter of his era or whatnot, then I wouldn't take such exception, but I doubt that's the case for anyone. He gets plenty of dues, sure, but anyone who can beat Quartey, Vargas, a still decent Whitaker and Ruelas in the style that he did clearly deserves them. Not overrated for me - he's certainly a 'great' in his own right, just not an elite one and I'd say that's usually where he's placed by most even-handed judges.

Here we go again with Mike Tyson again..................Hardly can be the most overrated fighter in history when most on here are on his case!!

Tyson unified all the belts was champion for nearly four years..........Then after a three year layoff won two more titles when past his best.....

Also defended his titles over ten times...

Not just that but he's the biggest fighter since Ali and transcended like no other since Ali!!!

Holmes record much better????????????

Oscar didn't conquer welterweight Chris. He had a chance to do so, against his nemesis Trinidad, but blew it when he faded down the stretch (as he had a tendency to do).

Mosley managed to rule at both (but he's a cheat, which dilutes his achievments, for some at least).

I was reading about George Best last night. Often described as the greatest player of all time for the short time he was on fire. Tyson's a similar case. For a brief time he was unstoppable, and while he fails against criteria based on longevity, quality of opposition, he was a phenom for a couple of years. He's underrated if anything.

Well Whitaker was still the consensus 'lineal' champion when Oscar came up to 147 lb to beat him and take the WBC title as well, Haz, and then of course he outscored the hitherto undefeated Quartey in what should have been for the WBA strap, too. I won't go in to the Trinidad fight, as my views on that are clear enough, but for me De la Hoya was certainly the most premier Welterweight in the world for a spell of time.

I feel his best weight would have been at lightweight had he remained there. Did ODH move up in weight simply because the bigger names were above him?

Look Haz I had both fights for Oscar against Mosley...........and they count against him forgetting the fact Mosley is a great...

Oscar gets slapped for his contentious defeats but people like Duran get praised for their efforts against Hagler.......

Oscar isn't overrated and the Whittaker win is another thing he doesn't get credit for....

Chavez twice, Mayorga, Quartey, Vargas are just a few reasons as well as all the titles at different weights..

I'm not interested in someone dominating a division if it's crap like Hagler's I'd have more respect had he gone after Spinks or something..

Oscar's weight hopping is to APPLAUDED!!! Because he was looking for challenges.

Frankly he looked a much more mobile, quicker fighter at lightweight, and to my mind looked a better fighter below welter mackem.

Given his size/frame, I guess he was always going to end up at higher weights, as he won his first titles at a young age, but I think the timing was effected by the names available at the bigger weights

Why does Delahoya get crap and guys like Holmes who fought 90% stiffs don't??

As Milky suggests, I think it's six of one and half a dozen of the other really, Mackem. De la Hoya was still really just a kid growing in to a man's body when he won titles at 130 and then 135 lb, so Light-Welter was always going to be the bare minimum that he had to settle at. But the likes of Pea, Trinidad, Quartey etc were all huge fights and, as we know, De la Hoya was never afraid to test himself against the very, very best out there, so up he went.

Remember though, even at Welterweight he had to strip as naked as the day he was born on the scales to make the weight against Trinidad, so it's a wonder how he ever made Super-Feather in any case.

Oscar didn't purposefully chase after the big dogs at 147. As Chris has stated, he was growing into his body when he passed through junior lightweight and lightweight (where he was quite brilliant). He was a natural welterweight and a huge one (he dwarfed Whitaker, who was a natural lightweight that could compete at higher weights due to he immensity of his skill level).

Beating Whitaker didn't make Oscar the man at the weight (there wasn't an emphasis on lineal championships back then, I remember it well, Shannon Briggs was never feted as THE heavyweight champion of the world when he outscored Foreman). He was criticised for not offering Whitaker a return or facing his main rival at the weight, Trinidad. Oscar was still being carefully managed at this point, beating up on the likes of Kamau, little old Chavez, Charpentier etc.

Eventually, he ran out of options and had to go in against one of Trinidad, Quartey or Lopez, such was the level of criticism being aimed at him.

The chance to become king of the welters came against Trinidad and so I'd argue he didn't conquer the weight but his level of opposition (over the course of his career) can't be criticised. In his biggest fights, though, he was largely underwhelming (based on the level of hype he had to carry with him) and so, I'd argue he was overrated.

"Little old Chavez".............Poor old Julio........I hate people picking on the elderly..

Shame on Leonard beating Hagler.....Or Spinks v Holmes..

Should be a ban on this sort of thing..

Great names on his record..great longevity..............and your argument stinks..

I see your point(s), Haz, but I'd say that, coming in to their big showdown, Oscar had done much more than Trinidad at 147 lb and had generally looked better in doing so. He was being given problems by outstanding fighters like Whitaker and Quartey, whereas Trinidad had been on the deck against the likes of Lueshing, Carr and had been given the fright of his life against Campas, brilliant and highly entertaining slugfest though it was.

Oscar did face criticism over his opponents for a while, you're right, but as I said above I think some of this stems from people maybe expecting too much from him. After the Whitaker controversy, De la Hoya had a mandatory (I'm pretty sure Kamau was a mandatory, anyway) to take care of. It wasn't long after this that Whitaker was given that year-long suspension for his, shall we say, 'extracurricular' activities, so the scope for a rematch wasn't all that big, really. De la Hoya's record is too littered with risks for me to believe that he actively ducked a return with Pea.

Likewise, the age-old problems between Arum and King played a part in how long it took De la Hoya-Trinidad to be made, I believe. It's not as if Oscar had anything to gain by stalling over a fight - in fact, by the fight not happening until 1999, he actually faced a better version of Tito than he would have done had he fought him in, say, 1997 when he first entered the Welterweight division.

Out of interest, how did you score Oscar against Tito?

Surely we should mark people on record rather than performance???

I had a look at it quite recently actually but can't remember how I scored it -- possibly even or Trinidad by a point -- had an even round in there somewhere which I was on and off the fence with. It was a very close fight, far closer than popular opinion would suggest and certainly close enough for argument.

Jerry Roth is consistently decent in big fights and he had it for "Tito" 115-113 -- I'm sure he argues his case on one of those Legendary Nights episodes (advising viewers to watch the fight with the sound off).

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Surely we should mark people on record rather than performance???

Then Sven Ottke is the greatest of all time!!

Performance matters.

I'm on this guy's page:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/richard_obrien/04/14/delahoya.retires/index.html

Edwin Valero? or is he underrated?

hazharrison wrote:I'm on this guy's page:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/richard_obrien/04/14/delahoya.retires/index.html

Is that because you wrote it for him, and are counting the hits?

I can see the perspective of the writer, but its hard to see something as balanced when, the close victories are considered contentious and the close defeats aren't.. Schooled by mayweather?

You can't discount a win over Chavez because jcc was past his best, and the count mayweather and PAC against him when the boot is on the other foot. Well you can, but not if you expect to be taken seriously.

Thanks for sharing, Haz, though I think that's a slightly overnegative view of Oscar there. Terms like De la Hoya being 'gifted a decision against Whitaker' or being 'schooled by Mayweather' don't sit well with me. Now I actually do think that Whitaker beat Oscar, but it was an extremely close fight where a case can be made for either man and, regardless of which fighter you gave it to, I don't see how it could be by anything more than two points, maximum. No 'gift' there at all. Likewise, Mayweather didn't school Oscar - and let's not forget that this was an absolute peak Mayweather against a past his best De la Hoya. Mayweather won a competitive and relatively close fight - no more, no less.

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:I'm on this guy's page:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/richard_obrien/04/14/delahoya.retires/index.html

Is that because you wrote it for him, and are counting the hits?

I can see the perspective of the writer, but its hard to see something as balanced when, the close victories are considered contentious and the close defeats aren't.. Schooled by mayweather?

You can't discount a win over Chavez because jcc was past his best, and the count mayweather and PAC against him when the boot is on the other foot. Well you can, but not if you expect to be taken seriously.

Great Points

Cheers macken... and I see we're on some kind of Vulcan mind merge still Chris!

The best bit of the article was suggesting we ask jcc what he would have done with Oscar in his prime... Like he'd be an objective source.

Mayweather Oscar, wasnt a great spectacle but floyd only pulled clear when Oscar gassed. Now that was a career problem for oscar, but if anything, I'd say He came out of the fight with more credit and it left me re-appraising floyd... Because I found myself thinking that Oscar would probably have taken him prime for prime... Not a view I held prior to the fight

What a lame argument about Ottke......................

Fact is If you win your big fights and deserve to than they should count.....

Ottke is a little different than DelaHoya........Oscar deserved to beat the guys he beat....

However all sport is results driven.............Winning is everything..

I thought Williams and Witherspoon beat Holmes..........But i still give credit to Holmes for the win.

The writer asks: How many truly great fighters did he face -- and of those, how many did he beat?

Chavez, again, was far past his considerable prime. Hector Camacho never really reached the prime he should have had before Oscar beat him in 1997. Beyond those two, De La Hoya was gifted with the decision over Pernell Whitaker in 1997, lost to Felix Trinidad in '99, dropped two close bouts to Mosley (who, I would say, ended up the greatest pro to come out of those '90 Goodwill Games), got stopped by Bernard Hopkins in '04, schooled by Floyd Mayweather in '07 and humiliated by Manny Pacquiao in December.

I agree with you that Oscar was past his best against Floyd and Pacquiao, as were Chavez and Camacho against him.

That leaves Whitaker, Trinidad, Mosley and Hopkins (the latter of whom was much too big for Oscar).

Of the four fights that remain, three were highly contentious decisions (the first Mosley fight looked a close but clear-cut win for Shane). And so he never managed to beat a great fighter comprehensively (or with any great certainty). Which is why the writer suggests that he disappointed.

I agree. Oscar tried to be all things to all men and never truly nailed an identity for himself. Often, he seemed to foget who he was altogether when the chips were down (boxer? puncher? mover?) and spread himself too thinly over the divisions.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What a lame argument about Ottke......................

Fact is If you win your big fights and deserve to than they should count.....

Ottke is a little different than DelaHoya........Oscar deserved to beat the guys he beat....

Ok then, Calzaghe.

milkyboy wrote:Cheers macken... and I see we're on some kind of Vulcan mind merge still Chris!

The best bit of the article was suggesting we ask jcc what he would have done with Oscar in his prime... Like he'd be an objective source.

Mayweather Oscar, wasnt a great spectacle but floyd only pulled clear when Oscar gassed. Now that was a career problem for oscar, but if anything, I'd say He came out of the fight with more credit and it left me re-appraising floyd... Because I found myself thinking that Oscar would probably have taken him prime for prime... Not a view I held prior to the fight

Floyd let him gas. Watch the fight and listen to the corner. They knew Oscar fought tense and would ultimately run dry. Oscar didn't do Jack in that fight, save for a few theatrical body punches in a clinch that Floyd laughed off.

And the writer was hardly holding up Chavez as a source. Dear me.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:However all sport is results driven.............Winning is everything..

I thought Williams and Witherspoon beat Holmes..........But i still give credit to Holmes for the win.

Then by proxy you must give Ottke credit for his?

Split decision wasn't it????????

I rate Ottke higher than most...........but the fact he had so many gifts do overshadow his accomplishments somewhat..........

However it's a results orientated business and Ottke does deserve respect..

You take half the fighters off Oscar's record he beat and he's still great...

Picking on the wrong guy..

It's easy to pick on fighters..You're a Holyfield fan and I can say well the only prime top quality fighter he beat at Heavy was Bowe and got trashed 2/3....

Tyson was past it...........Lewis beat him (twice).............Dokes, Cooper, Foreman, Moorer?????? either past it or blown up...

who'd he beat at cruiser?????

You see it's easy......

I used to be a Holyfield fan until the "Evan Fields" carry on (backed up by points made by Dr. Margaret Goodman after the third Bowe fight that his heart problems showed similar symptoms to those of a heavy HGH user). I used to be a fan of Mosley, Margarito and Vargas too, until their dirty laundry came tumbling out.

I'm not picking on Oscar. I'm not saying he was a poor fighter, only that he is slightly overrated -- as Holyfield once was after the Tyson wins (when Ring Magazine rushed to install him as their 3rd best heavyweight of all time).

You're a purist........

Remember Holyfield was your big favorite....must have felt let down..big style.

Should have twigged. He looked like he'd been blown up with a bike pump before Bowe II. In Bowe III he looks ridiculous. Traps up to his ears.

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Cheers macken... and I see we're on some kind of Vulcan mind merge still Chris!

The best bit of the article was suggesting we ask jcc what he would have done with Oscar in his prime... Like he'd be an objective source.

Mayweather Oscar, wasnt a great spectacle but floyd only pulled clear when Oscar gassed. Now that was a career problem for oscar, but if anything, I'd say He came out of the fight with more credit and it left me re-appraising floyd... Because I found myself thinking that Oscar would probably have taken him prime for prime... Not a view I held prior to the fight

Floyd let him gas. Watch the fight and listen to the corner. They knew Oscar fought tense and would ultimately run dry. Oscar didn't do Jack in that fight, save for a few theatrical body punches in a clinch that Floyd laughed off.

And the writer was hardly holding up Chavez as a source. Dear me.

"but then ask Chavez what he would have done to De La Hoya back when Chavez truly was the great Julio Cesar Chavez.)"

The writer was using a turn of phrase haz, but hardly an appropriate one... What evidence does he have that any version of jcc beats Oscar? I highlighted it as it showed the guy's agenda.

Like I said, I agree with some of the assessment, but there are many writers who believe they need to exaggerate or be highly selective with their arguments to make their point. This guy is one of them.

Oscar did little of note in that fight I agree. And neither did floyd... Which us why it was close til the last few rounds. I'm sure mayweather was expecting/hoping Oscar would gas, but you'd expect him to have more of a game plan than doing f all and then relying on it.

Aye, I think it tends to be forgotten that Floyd's actual performance against Oscar wasn't one of his best, not one of his best by a long stretch, in fact. He put in an extremely tentative showing and, after starting well and tatooing Oscar with the jab, really had a hard time of it through rounds five to eight, during which it looked as if the fight might just be slipping from his grasp a little. In rounds seven and eight in particular De la Hoya had a real spring in his step and Floyd was having his own jab negated, eating a few of Oscar's and seemed too preoccupied with avoiding the incoming fire to score with anything worthwhile of his own.

Oscar carried on his forward march in the final rour rounds, of course, but fell in to that trap of doing so without really throwing much, which was basically an invitation for Floyd to just tee off with his jabs and establish a rhythm again, but it wasn't the most convincing of performances and probably added to the hysteria on these shores which made so many people optimistic about Hatton's chances against him later that year.

Floyd's a better fighter than Oscar, but that version of Mayweather from that particular night would have lost to an Oscar at his very best for my money, if you see what I mean.

Yep -- there was a notable size discrepancy between them (Oscar's a naturally bigger guy) and Floyd seemed to be wary of his power. I thought Floyd picked his shots well -- hurt Oscar a few times with sharp, accurate rights and wasn't taking any but it was a crappy fight.

"Floyd picked his shots well and wasn't taking any".but it wasn't one of his best performances...??

You mean most exciting performances..

I didn't think the Mayweather fight was close at all, I had it 118-110 and thought he was schooled for want of a better word. Mayweather controlled the whole fight and knew what De La Hoya was doing at all points, the fight wasn't slipping at any point.

He's a hard one to judge overall but would veer more on the side of thinking he's over rated, had it as a draw with Trinidad, he robbed Sturm blind, dominated by Hopkins and Mayweather, narrowly beat Quartey, should have lost to Whitaker and beaten twice by Mosley. When it really really mattered he didn't show up and that has to go against him. There's more than enough on his record to elevate him to greatness but at the lower echelons.

Had it closer ghosty.......But mayweather did win....

some people really dont like oscar do they! he fought close fights with some of the greatest fighters of the last 20 years, win or lose he showed the class he belonged in. the guy was a great entertainer who delivered more world class match ups than hatton, calzaghe, haye, eubanks and benn put together. maybe if he had shown less ambition he could have won a few more fights, and might be considered a great.

Don't think anyone questions his ambition but how he fares in those big fights is slightly important, can't just give him kudos for fighting and losing to the best.

Feel DLH gets a bad rep sometimes. If it wasn't for him at the time we would've had the likes of RJJ and co hogging the PPV events against oppo that at best was laughably poor.

Oscar for his perceived failings carried boxing through some pretty dark times by going up against guys, one after the other, that were massive draws/names. And lets not forget Mosley was juicing and Bhop is now a LHW (and has been above middle for years).

Can't name another boxer in the last 20 years who's fought the calibre he has. And he was never taken apart, which Imperial Ghosty won't agree with due to his borderline insanity 118-110 scorecard..... I'm an Oscar fan, and I can barely make a case for a draw.

close fights with sweet pea and trinidad and remaining competitive against flloyd show greatness to me. certainly not overrated as far as im concerned

I watched the first 6 rounds in the bath earlier. I had it 59 - 56 to Oscar after the 6th....so even if I give the remaining 6 rounds to Flloyd that's still only 116-113.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Don't think anyone questions his ambition but how he fares in those big fights is slightly important, can't just give him kudos for fighting and losing to the best.

He beat some of the best too.....lost to some others but mainly in close fights.

The harsh reality Mackem is that the 5 of the 6 best fighters he faced he lost to, as Truss says boxing is a results game and he took the best fights possible (exc Wright) but he came up just that little bit short. No shame in losing to the boxers he lost to but it's the reason I have him as a borderline great.

People liked De La Hoya and dislike Mayweather hence it becomes a closer fight than it actually was.