Is Oscar Dela Hoya a great?

Was looking at the Hatton thread, and a lot of the sentiment was that Hatton was a good fighter who lost to the very best. Looking at Dela Hoya, he lost to:
Pacquiao
Mayweather
Hopkins
Mosley x2
Trinidad

Got very lucky vs Whitaker as well. So looking at the Hatton thread, I assume it would be fair to say ODLH, was a good fighter who was a level off the really good to great guys. In many ways ODLH was boxing's Mexican David Beckham. Thoughts?

I think he is a great if its those losses that are used to mark him down. Hopkins was far too big and he was finished by the time he fought Pacquaio but the rest were very close.
He should be 1-1 with Mosley and I cant see how he lost against Trinidad. There's no shame in losing to Mayweather and Oscar had seen better days by then.

I've always rated Oscar highly and feel he would be seen in a better light if the decisions that went against him hadn't.
I suppose Whitaker,Quartey and Sturm were all close as well so he's had his luck but to me that just shows the consistent level he was at and competed well and (in my eyes) beat the majority of them.

Yeah he is a great. Beat many great names and his loses were against the best

This ones for you Oscar:

Spoiler:

He should be 2-0 against Moseley. Let's not ignore the fact that Moseley took PEDs.

azania wrote:He should be 2-0 against Moseley. Let's not ignore the fact that Moseley took PEDs.

Mosley clearly won the first one, he out fought and out boxed oscar de la hoya, 115-113 could even be 116-112 mosley, second fight was the complete opposite - Sm was on PEDs for the second fight only, he did also beat Trinidad, but Strum won about 8 rounds against oscar

He didn't quite live up to the hype he generated when he won the gold medal at Barcelona, I thought we had another SRL coming up. But he didn't quite deliver.I agree he lost against Sturm and he should never have attempted to move up to fight Hopkins,a step too far, but on the other hand he has made a bit of money out of boxing even if he won't go down as on of the all time greats.

Yes, he's a great - without question as far as I'm concerned. There are different levels of greantness, mind you. Oscar's not Sugar Ray great, or even Roy Jones great, but his career accomplishments still more than qualify him for greatness to some extent.

In a lot of ways, I actually think that De la Hoya is sometimes underrated and underappreciated, if anything. As Rapid says above, there was a hell of a lot of expectation and pressure placed upon his shoulders, almost certainly too much, in fact. To that end, it was almost impossible for him NOT to 'fail.' I think many of De la Hoya's harshest critics spend so long agonizing or obsessing over what he didn't quite manage to do, that they lose sight of what he did do - which was still spectacular by just about anyone's standards.

You can probably discount his very early days as a bursting-at-the-seams 130 pounder, who was admittedly guided to a safe route for a world title to appease the marketing machine and TV networks, and obviously I'm not going to count the final eighteen months of his career, which saw him looking average and nigh-on shot against Forbes and then stripped down against Pacquiao as a weight-drained shadow of his former self. Neither period is really relevant here, or representative of what Oscar's true level was.

To me, the fact that he won world titles in six weight classes (the first to do so) isn't really his calling card. Rather, it's the way that he proved himself a proper and genuine force in two of the original eight weight classes which does it for me. Granted, the numerous belts on offer will always muddy the waters a wee bit, but in 1995 after dazzling Ruelas to defeat in two short rounds, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that Oscar was, by consensus, the world's leading Lightweight once he'd sewn up the WBO and IBF belts. Nazarov, the WBA representative, was nothing but an afterthought, and while Miguel Angel Gonzalez vacated his WBC belt before meeting Oscar at Lightweight, De la Hoya did at least beat him at 140, bolstering his claim retrospectively.

Likewise, there were various belts on offer at Welterweight in 1997, but Oscar's preferred choice of Whitaker was still very much seen as top dog at 147, having taken the WBC (would have also been IBF had it not been for boxing politics) and the 'lineal' titles from McGirt four years previously and having made eight successful defences since. It's not as if De la Hoya's reign at Welter was lacking in quality, either; that win over the hitherto unbeaten Quartey really is an underrated gem.

Before De la Hoya, only Armstrong, Ross, Duran and Whitaker had ever compiled reigns as the numero uno at both 135 and 147, and only Floyd has definitively matched it since (Mosley at a push, although there are two or three holes in his claim). That's pretty great company that Oscar's in right there!

Now I'll admit, I'm in the camp which thinks that Pea was unlucky to be deemed the loser that night, but if we're going to point out Oscar's fortunate nods (Pea and Sturm) then we need to also consider that he was, for my money anyway, unlucky against Trinidad and also Mosley (II). There's always been a whispering campaign that Oscar's looks, golden boy moniker and widespread appeal afforded him easy treatment from judges, but the fact that his ledger is so finely balanced in this respect does a lot to suggest otherwise.

I don't think Oscar ever really recovered completely from the Trinidad controversy, and he never scaled the same heights as he did in the late nineties again, but once more those years between Tito and Floyd contained nothing which really degrades him too badly. A gift against Sturm, for sure, and he was beaten soundly enough by Bernard, but seldom would a man of Oscar's natural size, particularly when a shade past their best, have done any better. Closer to his comfort zone, at 147 / 154, his performances against the likes of Gatti, Campas and Vargas were generally exemplary.

We shouldn't forget, either, that his valiant stand against Floyd was a whole dozen years after his aforementioned Lightweight unification - and there are no retirements or eighteen month layoffs included in that.

Left a lasting impression in two of the original eight weight divisions, deservedly served as a candidate for the pound for pound top spot for a while, fine wins over genuinely top class fighters such as Pea (however controversial, and it certainly wasn't a 'robbery'), Quartey, Vargas, Gonzalez, Hernandez etc, superb longevity as a top-tier fighter and never afraid to go after the big fish.

He's a great whichever way I look at it, that's for sure.

Great post Chris, I agree!

Can we merge this thread with the other de la hoya thread please

https://www.606v2.com/t17538-was-de-la-hoya-over-rated?highlight=hoya

Chris has pretty much nailed this one, the only thing I'd add is that Oscar fought pretty much everyone, and while Chavez and Whittaker were post prime, most of the others weren't.

As the op drew a hatton comparison. Hatton talked like a 'fight anyone' type of guy... And I 'm sure he personally would have done. But his team systematically, picked cv building low risk fights, until the super fights were made. No problem with that, it's good management, and oscar's team did the same early on. hatton though, had a kel brooke like resume before he fought tszyu and we had to endure endless excuses for not fighting witter, whilst he cleaned up the maussa's etc once champion.

Ultimately Oscar had some great wins to go with the losses, Bhop aside his defeats were generally close and/or controversial. Whilst Hatton had an aging Tszyu in the win column and a shot Castillo. His defeats were to greats but they pretty decisive and were also the only prime quality fighters he met.

It depends where you draw the line of great as to whether oscar is a great. For me he's just about there, and hatton clearly isnt. No real comparison between the two in my book.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:Can we merge this thread with the other de la hoya thread please

https://www.606v2.com/t17538-was-de-la-hoya-over-rated?highlight=hoya

thanks for pointing it out, however, its been a good 18 months since anyone from that thread commented, so I think that its fair to reopen a new thread about it.

If it was within the last few onths, I would agree but the forum has moved on considerably since then with regards to new members etc.

In other words, stop being a dick.

Re the OP, as is often the case, Chris has said it better than I ever could, although I think there is something to Kingraf's 'Boxings David Beckham' comment. As, like Beckham, his wide-spread appeal, marketability and icon status (for reasons other than being the best in the world) have become sticks to beat him with which tend to over-shadow the talent he actually was.

Ignoring the wins and losses, I can't think of anyone that can match his CV for a who's who of boxing opponents from the last 30 years.

Oscar is a good illustration of the perils of judging fighters by their record alone rather an looking at the nature of their loses, and who they were to. The loses to PAC and Hoppo are easily explained and hardly detract from his status, and thoses to Trinidad and Mosely were close , in two cases controversial, and we're all excellent performances from both participants, and with a little change of fortune, he could have easily been two- one in those three fights. Put into the context of a long, hugely successful career, I can't see that they are enough to deny him the status of greatness. Even in this day of diluted value, being a ten time world champ is surely enough to grant that?

Look, U dont have anything against ODLH, but Im not a fan of "explaining" losses, especially the clear-cut ones. Okay, so Hopkins was too big, And he was finished in the Pac fight. Alright, then. Hatton was a weight too high in the Floyd fight, and had a horrid training camp in the Pac fight. You remove that, then he beat everyone in front him. Great?

I, not U

Oscar chased the big money fights. From memory he earned something like $38m from the Floyd fight dwarfing Mayweather's cut of that pot. Oscar could easily have avoided some of his loses by not taking on as many mega money fights as he did. As Roach said De La Hoya was gun shy towards the end which was one of the reasons PAC took the fight.

My view is De La Hoya put money in front of legacy.

Ben Dirs made the comparison between ODLH and Beckham in an article a few years ago taking advantage of the fact that more people would read the article because it was tagged with Beckham's name. The majority of contributors to that blog disagreed with Dir's comparison and rightly so. ODLH when at his best was at the pinnacle of his sport which Beckham never was, albeit he had a superb right foot.

Is Oscar great? He could have been a shoe in for greatness with better management and less greed but that's an age old argument, is it better to lose for a big pay cheque or win for a modest one? Oscar is a borderline great for me. In "my" narrow view of things there should only be 100-200 fighters in the history of boxing that genuinely qualify as great.

Beckham at his was once voted the second best player in the world. The comparison holds water, IMO

2nd best in the world, plus short-listed a number of other times. Captained club and country, single handedly took us into the World Cup finals (v Greece), unlike any other top English player of the modern era he both had the balls to ply his trade outside the EPL and was successful in doing so, winning titles in Spain and USA and, to a lesser extent given his contribution, France. His contribution to Milan was great than to PSG and he would've likely taken a title there too if LA hadn't required him back.

He didn't 'just have a good right foot', he had the best cross in the world for a decade or more and won countless trophies of the back of its brilliance - numerous top world strikers commented on how much they loved playing with him as the service was so perfect. And, even at this old age, he still had the best range and accuracy of passing of any Englishman still playing.

But, as I said, and as Kingraf commented, and arguably as Strongy has just proven, all his ability and achievements are overshadowed by his popular and commercial appeal. He is done a disservice accordingly.

kingraf wrote:Beckham at his was once voted the second best player in the world. The comparison holds water, IMO

Good marketing.

I don't think any football fan ever thought Beckham was the 2nd best footballer in the world.

He had a fantastic right foot but after that his attributes were average. He couldn't beat a player and I can't remember him ever winning a tackle dispute all his running around. He was an honest player in general and worked hard to maximize what he had. In terms a greatness he just doesn't match ODLH imo.

Good marketing? I dont recall the WPOTY ever allowing campaigning.

Sorry, can't agree with top hat here. He was bought by these clubs because he was a very good player... But also because he was a money making machine. Lacked the physicslity to be a great dominant midfield force, and the pace/tricks to be a great winger.

Terrific passer and crosser, but had he not been good looking and married a spice girl, he'd be a well known very good international footballer. Always comes across as a decent bloke, considering who and what he is, but he's in the very good but not great category for me. Oscar's looks, hatton's ability.

Strongback wrote:

kingraf wrote:Beckham at his was once voted the second best player in the world. The comparison holds water, IMO

Good marketing.

I don't think any football fan ever thought Beckham was the 2nd best footballer in the world.

He had a fantastic right foot but after that his attributes were average. He couldn't beat a player and I can't remember him ever winning a tackle dispute all his running around. He was an honest player in general and worked hard to maximize what he had. In terms a greatness he just doesn't match ODLH imo.

1. Baloney.
2. Well, as the award was voted for by players and coaches, it doesn't matter what average joe public moron football fan thought. People with actual insight and relevant opinions thought he was the (2nd) best.
3. Couldn't beat a player - his crosses beat them. Why'd he need to dribble? Was Kanchelskis better just because he would boot a ball past a defender and run on to it? No. Also, refer you to his goal at OT v Real Madrid. Beat 3 players and scored in the top corner. Proof he could beat players, he just didn’t need dribbling in his arsenal. Giggs on the other hand was a pretty average crosser = dribbling more important.
4. Won plenty of tackles, certainly as many as other lauded players like Lampard. But he wasn’t a defensive midfielder so that wasn’t his primary responsibility. Ronaldo never wins any yet he’s spent 5 years as either the best or second best player in the world and is probably top 5 of all time.

He certainly did better in England colours than Rooney. After Scholes, Lamps and Gerrard, he's probably been as good an attacking threat as anyone Englan had in midfield for the last 15 years

Kingraf, I know it wasn't the intention but I think you might just have damned him with faint praise

TopHat and I are Liverpool fans, for us to regard Beckham as one of the best English players of all time is hard to swallow - but we do, clearly.

Beckham is still one of the best English midfielders, as alluded to.

I can't really add to Chris' post. Fine post, points well made.

Beckham did not win plenty of tackles. He barely won a tackle playing in Europe. I don't know about his tackling in America as I didn't watch him playing there.


I can easily name, without thinking about it, 10 better players during Beckham's career. 20 better players would also be a breeze.

Beckham was top 5 for shirt sales though.

I don't think, in terms of arguing over how much size was a factor, that Oscar's loss to Hopkins was all that comparable to Hatton's against Floyd to be honest, kingraf. Hatton was a career Light-Welter moving up to Welter to fight a man who'd started his own career at 130 lb. Oscar himself had started out at 130, had found his best form at 135-140 with some sprinkles of magic at 147 and was fighting a genuine career Middleweight who has campaigned with success at Light-Heavyweight. Both Oscar and Ricky were up against it and facing disadvantages, but De la Hoya more so.

In any case, better Welters than Oscar (or at least comparable ones) in Hearns, Starling, Napoles etc have all failed in trying to usurp Middleweight champions in or around the same class as Hopkins (Hagler, Nunn and Monzon respectively) and, in the case of someone like Gavilan, usually cited as one of the top five 147 pounders in history, even a relatively low-key Middleweight champion in Olson proved a step too far, which puts De la Hoya's loss to Hopkins in to perspective; there's no shame at all in it, and I think it's much more reasonable to take Oscar's fairly even spread of wins and losses, closer to his natural and optimum weights, against the likes of Floyd, Chavez, Whitaker, Vargas, Trinidad, Mosley, Quartey etc as a sign of his great, but not elite great status, rather than a fight which he was basically never going to win in any case against Hopkins.

Beckhams workrate is undervalued when measuring his talent. Brilliant player who always gets the 'couldnt beat a man' thrown at him but he offered something different in his crossing ability. He was putting 40 yard balls on the strikers heads, with curl so didn't need to get to the touchline.
The Real Madrid game, before he left for them was also a testament to what he could do. Always thought he was a cm just put on the right to give him game time due to Ince and Keane in the centre. Similar to G Neville playing on the right when he was a CB.

Anyway, I think its fair, when summing up a career to measure greatness, to look at the defeats as well as the victories when discussing anyone. If Oscar had had the Mosley and Trinidad defeats go his way, he would be a 'great'. I believe they should have (and so do a lot of people).

Strongback wrote:Beckham did not win plenty of tackles. He barely won a tackle playing in Europe. I don't know about his tackling in America as I didn't watch him playing there.


I can easily name, without thinking about it, 10 better players during Beckham's career. 20 better players would also be a breeze.

Beckham was top 5 for shirt sales though.

Your ignorance proves my point perfectly.

Go over to the football thread and ask the following question:

1. What was David Beckham's tackling like?

2. What was he like running with the ball?

3. Was he a Top 10 player of the 2000's?


You it would seem are blinded by patriotism.

Barely won a tackle? When his pace became a bit of a joke (he never had much, but the wrong side of 30 he was slower than ever) he had to ensure that his tackling was passable at best. Yes, he wasn't your John Terry "sliding from the moon with his face" but he was above average when it comes to standup tackling and awareness. Watch a few Milan games, you'll see how he effectively forced players into the route of Pirlo and Gattuso, who would nick the ball - give it back to him and he'd pinpoint a 30 yard ball for the counter.

I imagine you also don't believe that Paul Scholes was one of the best midfielders in the world because he couldn't tackle?

Stating now, I'm a Liverpool fan, again. Just for the upcoming argument Strongback puts together by mashing his face into the keyboard.

Beckham was a great player, how anyone can say anything else is laughable.

Paul Scholes is one of the greatest midfield players England have ever had. Criminally under rated, there is a reason why England did jack all after he retired.

1. What is Ronaldo's tackling like (best or 2nd best player in the world 5+ rs)

2. Why is this the defining characteristic of a player? What's Lamps' like? Gerard's? Did genuine great Zidane spend much time meating players with long mazey dribbles??

3. He clearly was in the years the coaches and players of European football voted him.

Classic hater BS. If anyone is blind it is you. But again, thanks for proving my point.

TopHat24/7 wrote:1. What is Ronaldo's tackling like (best or 2nd best player in the world 5+ rs)

2. Why is this the defining characteristic of a player? What's Lamps' like? Gerard's? Did genuine great Zidane spend much time meating players with long mazey dribbles??

3. He clearly was in the years the coaches and players of European football voted him.

Classic hater BS. If anyone is blind it is you. But again, thanks for proving my point.

Zindane didn't need to, once he dribbled past you, he left you in the dust.

The only person who should worry about Becks tackle is his wife.

Zidane was on another planet when it came to attacking, such vision, awareness and skill. Breathtaking. Unlikely we'll see another player like him in a while. Messi may be amazing, but Zidane was out of this world.

You're right about Scholes - almost every other top midfielder/player who's faced him has singled him out as being the best they've faced. These aren't chumps either, Zidane, Xavi, Figo etc - all claim he was one of the best. He couldn't tackle for toffee. Still amazing.

I read a story about Ronaldo and Scholes after training. Ronaldo was doing loads of flicks and skills, Scholes stopped him and said - "see that tree over there?" (40 yards away) - "Bet you can't hit that tree", he couldn't. Scholes hit it on the first try.

Apparently Ronaldo spent nearly an hour trying after that.

Would Beckham make a Man Utd Top 10 since the start of the premiership?

He might be hard pushed.


Anybody got video evidence of Beckham winning tackles? He was a midfielder you know and that was part of his job particularly with full backs pushing forward so much in recent times.

One good game for England seems to make a career.

IF you honestly think Beckham wouldn't make a Man United XI since the start of the premiership....I cannot argue with that level of stupidity.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Barely won a tackle? When his pace became a bit of a joke (he never had much, but the wrong side of 30 he was slower than ever) he had to ensure that his tackling was passable at best. Yes, he wasn't your John Terry "sliding from the moon with his face" but he was above average when it comes to standup tackling and awareness. Watch a few Milan games, you'll see how he effectively forced players into the route of Pirlo and Gattuso, who would nick the ball - give it back to him and he'd pinpoint a 30 yard ball for the counter.

I imagine you also don't believe that Paul Scholes was one of the best midfielders in the world because he couldn't tackle?

Stating now, I'm a Liverpool fan, again. Just for the upcoming argument Strongback puts together by mashing his face into the keyboard.

No need for insults.

Paul Scholes controlled the pace of games and dictated the play. The "Paul doesn't know how to tackle" line was something Alex made uo to excuse Scholes horror tackles, he was a dirty little git at times. Scholes had far more influence on the game than Beckham ever did.

I also don't believe Scholes will go down as an ATG world wide player either. England hasn't had a truly great player since Gazza.

'since Gazza'

Lampard? Cole? Even Gerrard? Owen was the 2001 European Player of the Year... Gazza was a nut, who while he had the talent, was certainly not world-class

The height of the great Gazzas individual achievements was being the Scottish Player of the season, while sub-par Becks could only manage world #2...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/dec/09/de-la-hoya-boxing-rawling?INTCMP=SRCH

John Rawling thinks not (for those that place stock in what John Rawling thinks).

Here's 10 Utd players since the start of the Premiership that are as good or better than Beckham.

Peter Schmeichel
Eric Cantona
Bryan Robson
Roy Keane
Rio Ferdinand
Ryan Giggs
Ronaldo
Robin Van Persie
Paul Scholes
Ruud Van Nistelrooy


If it's a best 11 Beckham doesn't get in ahead of Ronaldo. You can take that to the bank.


The most stupid thing I have read on here is people trying to defend Beckham's tackling. He ran around like a headless chicken and never won the ball. It's like when Ancelotti played him in central midfield against Utd and Ferguson said that was a big mistake, he can't play there.

Ronaldo was a forward/Left wing... The system/and football as a whole changed from Ronaldo's peak to Beckham's peak. I dont think v Nistelrooy does enough to play in the same system without Beckham/with Ronaldo.

The dumbest thing Ive read on here is people claiming Gazza was a truly great player... It still makes me laugh to this day.

kingraf wrote:Lampard? Cole? Even Gerrard? Owen was the 2001 European Player of the Year... Gazza was a nut, who while he had the talent, was certainly not world-class

I don't know how old you are but even Michael Owen had the look of 'what am I getting this for'.

Liverpool won three cups and as the World and European Player of the Year is normally chosen from the winning side they picked a Liverpool player. The best know Liverpool player from a work wide perspective was Owen so he got it.

WPLOTY has always been about marketing. Ask Fat Ronaldo how he won it 3 times.

I think had you been around at the time of the 1990 World Cup kingraf, you might have a different view on whether gazza was considered world class. Not everyone judges players on player of the season awards.

Strongy getting some unnecessary stick here. Looks like i rate him a little higher than strongy, but the view that goldenballs wasn't that special is not totally left field.

Haha, you're comparing nothing there Strongy - Peter Schmeichel better than Beckham? At goalkeeping, yeah, fair play - outfield? Having a laugh? Van Nistelrooy couldn't ping a ball to feet from 50 yards, so I don't know why you're comparing them. Fact is, Ronaldo as a right midfielder was average, and only became the way he is now when he was played as a winger, and given the option to run at defenders. Ronaldo isn't a passer of the ball or a crosser. He is an all action winger/forward. Comparisons are failed. Ferdinand can't take free kicks. Why is he being compared to Beckham?

Compare like for like, take any right/crossing midfielder from the start of the premiership and compare THEM. Beckham wins every time. One of the finest players of this generation and certainly one of Englands best.

One good world cup? So on evidence of Euro 2008, Andriy Arshavin is too a great? no¿