Is Oscar Dela Hoya a great?

First topic message reminder :

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?

If he were British, Oscar would probably rank number one of all time among boxers from these isles (excluding Fitz, of course). As that puts him ahead of some pretty decent fighters, it's hard to claim that he wasn't "great" by some standard. Not all-time top 10, no, but there isn't a lot of room there.

I'd compare him far more readily with someone like Hearns than Hatton. Ricky was very decent, turned over a couple of good names no longer in the first flush of youth and dealt with a few others of the second rank in his best division, but his CV simply isn't to be compared with Oscar's. Like Hearns, Oscar lost a couple of fights which, if they had fallen the other way, would have seen him rated among the premier fighters of any era. He didn't quite manage it, so is rightly below the absolute creme de la creme; on the other hand, your standards would have to be pretty exacting not to regard De la Hoya as great by some measure.

kingraf wrote:Strongy called him a great, a statement I disagreed with. YOU claimed one good world cup made him World class. Then YOU told ME to mention one good world cup Beckham played since World Cups are MY criteria. When I highlighted that YOU are the one who mentioned World Cups. You claim I'm using smoke and mirrors

I'm mindfu***d

Actually, you said he wasn't world class, I picked an example of a World Cup where the rest of the world wouldn't agree with you. You then said 1 World Cup doesn't make you a great, which implies you'd need more than 1, which is why i asked how many good world cups beckham had had. Regardless, you didn't challenge the point because you couldn't so you just deflected the argument.

We've found common ground, though, as at least we agree on your your final comment

Gazza wasn't too shabby in Euro 96 either, so that's two good international tournaments to his name...which is two more than most English players of the past 20-30 years.

Beckham isn't a great player he can't beat a man,he can't head a ball,and he is only one footed, from Sir Bobby Charlton when asked if Beckham was a great.

I never said one world cup doesnt make you great. My poimt is that if one international event makes you world class, then Arshavin should also be labelled as such. So should Landon Donovan and Brian McBride. As well as Asamoah Gyan. If thats your argument the thats the natural evolution.

kingraf wrote:I never said one world cup doesnt make you great. My poimt is that if one international event makes you world class, then Arshavin should also be labelled as such. So should Landon Donovan and Brian McBride. As well as Asamoah Gyan. If thats your argument the thats the natural evolution.

Well as mentioned earlier Id give him 90 and 96...so that's two more than say Hoddle who many feel was a great player. Also ask a Newcastle or Spurs or even Lazio fan...they will all tell you he was a great player as will Rangers fans and we know he was not the same player by then but he was still class. How many players were rated by all the fans of the clubs they played for ? Plus you won't find many England fans who wouldn't have him in their starting line up for the past 40 years and that's putting him ahead of a lot of very good midfielders.

Nico - I dont think anyone actually thinks Beckham is a great.

He was good, at times very good at Spurs, but great would be a slight reach imo.

kingraf wrote:Nico - I dont think anyone actually thinks Beckham is a great.

Agree good player no doubt but that's about it.

That was said of Beckham by George Best, to be strictly accurate, Nico. Not that it detracts from the veracity of the sentiment.

I suppose one could say that Maradona and Puskas were one-footed too, but I would hope that no-one is seriously comparing Beckham with them. De La Hoya an infinitely better and higher-achieving sportsman in his field than Beckham in his, in any case, and consequently miles closer to the sporting elite. Not as marketable a brand, I do agree.

captain carrantuohil wrote: De La Hoya an infinitely better and higher-achieving sportsman in his field than Beckham in his, in any case, and consequently miles closer to the sporting elite. Not as marketable a brand, I do agree.

Infinitely better in what is in effect a minority sport compared to football. The talent pools don't even begin to compare.

Perspective is needed here about Beckham..

Played ten years for the biggest football club in the World...........

115 caps for his Country...Many as Captain.......

Won the league six times ....The Champions league etc...........Played for Real Madrid and Milan...........

If that isn't an exceptional career then I don't know what is.....

If it's exceptional then he's great !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Was Henry Armstrong a great boxer??........Nope.............

but he got the job done and is rightly one of the best of alltime........

Career is measured by success................remember that..........

I think Greg Page was more skillful than Evander Holyfield..

"In effect" a minority sport, diggers? It either is or isn't.

Not that I want to go too deeply into refuting such a wholly unprovable assertion as yours, but if DLH were entirely unable to throw any punch with, say, his left hand, were also unable to box off the back foot and perhaps lacked an uppercut into the bargain, we may have some sort of an idea of the handicaps under which Beckham is labouring in any comparison with the elite in his sport. With all that in mind, his position in the estimation and affection of so many football fans is both a credit to him, I suppose, and utterly mind-boggling.

Different talent pools or not, at least Oscar had thoroughly mastered all the basic skills of his sport by the time he actually left it.

By your logic, Truss, Phil Neal of Liverpool and England is a football titan of unimaginably stratospheric standing.

I always thought Bechkam...was a genius passer, a great freekick expert and a scorer of important goals ie against Greece in the qualifiers..........

Has the record number of caps for England doesn't he ??

captain carrantuohil wrote:That was said of Beckham by George Best, to be strictly accurate, Nico. Not that it detracts from the veracity of the sentiment.

I suppose one could say that Maradona and Puskas were one-footed too, but I would hope that no-one is seriously comparing Beckham with them. De La Hoya an infinitely better and higher-achieving sportsman in his field than Beckham in his, in any case, and consequently miles closer to the sporting elite. Not as marketable a brand, I do agree.

Also said by Charlton, watched the interview with Best, when he was asked about Beckham, Charlton was asked the same question and gave virtually the same answer.

I think Shilton has 125, Truss. Its a little unfair to expect a footballer to be as well rounded as a boxer, in their chosen sports. If Beckham was paying football in the "Super middle weight" footballing division, he would have been the best player in his division (see how laughable a comparison it is?). If ODLH had to face Klitschko, in the same way Beckhams opponents werent weight dependent, would that great jab even be seen as useful?

Have never heard the phrase attirubuted to Charlton before, only Best.

Record for an outfielder, truss, it's true (Shilton holds the overall record). A lot easier to accumulate in recent times, both because of the number of friendlies and the proliferation of substitutes, meaning that any number of caps are picked up by all sorts of people for five and ten minute cameo appearances.

kingraf wrote:I think Shilton has 125, Truss. Its a little unfair to expect a footballer to be as well rounded as a boxer, in their chosen sports. If Beckham was paying football in the "Super middle weight" footballing division, he would have been the best player in his division (see how laughable a comparison it is?). If ODLH had to face Klitschko, in the same way Beckhams opponents werent weight dependent, would that great jab even be seen as useful?

I don't know as much on soccer as you guys but his achievements look well above the good career category...............

But I won't quibble over it............Just struck me as a top class player who achieved a helluva lot.........

It's where...........very good stops and great begins..........I guess.

Nothing laughable about the comparison, kingraf. each sport has a compendium of fundamental skills that the greats tend to have mastered in their entirety, or almost, by the finish of their career. Even if DLH had been required to fight Kltschko for some reason, he would not have been ignorant of how to throw punches at the guy. Put Beckham up against Brazil or Finn Harps 2nds and he still couldn't have hit a barn door with his left foot and he couldn't have found the net with a header had it been twice as wide. The odd basic can be lacking and you still have a legend. Too many missing from Beckham and his extraordinary number of appearances for his country underline the paucity of talent on offer to England managers for much of the past two decades.

Golden generation all my eye.

Again Puskas was also one footed. He might be the greatest ever (Probably not, but he was very good!!). Messi has a decent right foot, but I wouldnt want him trying to finish with it if my life depended on it. Or even my little toe, or my metatarsal. Many boxers made it with one hitting hand.

kingraf wrote: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?

You have to explain losses to have any sort of objectivity else you would end up hold Ali's loses to Holmes and Berbick against him, or Tyson's loss to Williams, or Jones to Green - need I go on? Otherwise you might as well just look at the win, loss draw record and judge a fighter on that, when really the how, who, and when are more relevant

Maradona too, kingraf. They're the three legends who come too mind as one-footed. However, their ability to beat numerous players within a couple of yards, to score continuously and explosively from all over the pitch and their success at the highest level (club/country) place them light years ahead of the comparatively pedestrian old Becks, I fear.

Surely............Beckham as a midfielder did his job to the extent he played for Utd for ten years and played for England 115 times.........

Skill......Longevity..........achievement all need to be considered..........

Suppose If Messi is only great Beckham shouldn't be.............

I imagine however that Beckham would appear in top 100 lists.........

Point is how far back do you go to great in soccer lists............

But the very nature of boxing means many fighters dont go into a fight 100%. In fact that can be said for most athletes.

Top 100 among English footballers only, possibly, Truss. Even if we restrict matters purely to midfielders/forwards, there are probably 100 from Argentina and Brazil alone who would claim priority over Beckham. Throw in the greats of France/Spain/Holland/Germany/Italy/Uruguay etc etc, and I wouldn't give a fig for Golden Balls' chances of entering a world 200 of any sanity.

captain carrantuohil wrote:"In effect" a minority sport, diggers? It either is or isn't.

Not that I want to go too deeply into refuting such a wholly unprovable assertion as yours, but if DLH were entirely unable to throw any punch with, say, his left hand, were also unable to box off the back foot and perhaps lacked an uppercut into the bargain, we may have some sort of an idea of the handicaps under which Beckham is labouring in any comparison with the elite in his sport. With all that in mind, his position in the estimation and affection of so many football fans is both a credit to him, I suppose, and utterly mind-boggling.

Different talent pools or not, at least Oscar had thoroughly mastered all the basic skills of his sport by the time he actually left it.

If love to see you try and prove that the talent pools are even remotely similar. Give it a shot rather than wasting time talking about sentence structure.
To clarify, boxing is a minority sport in comparison to football. That OK ?

Ja but, there are so many more footballers than boxers. An all-time football 200 would probably account for a smaller percentage of footballers than an all-time 100 boxers would account of boxers.

Every sport is a minority sport in comparison with football, but boxing has a fair claim to come next. I will say that you need to master the majority of your skills in both boxing and football to be regarded as a great by most people. That OK?

By that token, Beckham misses greatness by a day's march. De la Hoya does not.

By that token Gerd Muller misses out on greatness.

There are, of course, exceptions which prove the rule, and scoring 68 goals in 62 internationals makes Muller one of the few. Two left feet most of the time, but when goals are the currency of your sport and you have an inexhaustible supply, you're given a free pass.