Was De La Hoya Over rated

I sometimes feel that oscars image outweighed his boxing talents. The thing was he was such a media darling everyone lapped him up. Was De la Hoya all image no substance?

As for overrated, based on whose rating?

As for all image no substance, don't be ridiculous.

He was very good but definately not as good as his image. I didnt like hearing a description of Shane Mosley as "the only man to beat Oscar De La Hoya-twice" as if he could do never do anything to exceed that apparently awe-inspiring feat.

To be fair that is the best thing Mosley ever did.

Obviously he had some substance you dont get to where he did without having any heart or balls. But do you feel his media image makes his overall boxing image look better then it truely was.

In some ways I think the opposite. His pretty boy image and media attention often led people to think he was just someone that was overhyped by his image. He could have got away with making decent money going down the JCC junior route but in fairness to him he fought virtually everyone that was worth fighting, barring maybe Winky.

When people say overrated Im not sure what context its used in. Some might overrate him, some might underrate him. I would need to see what hes being ranked against to judge.

manos de piedra wrote:When people say overrated Im not sure what context its used in. Some might overrate him, some might underrate him. I would need to see what hes being ranked against to judge.

Exactly. Overrated has absolutely no meaning by itself.

He gets too much credit in my opinion for trying. Other guys who've tried and failed don't seem to get so much joy from the fans because they tried against so many top guys. Along with trying, he also failed more often than not at the top level.

To me he's very, very good. I'm not sure if he fulfills "great" though, although his effectiveness at multiple weights is impressive.

Nope

Doesn't climb into the top top echelons, but if most fighters had fought the quality he did for years i don't think many would still be clinging onto their "0" or "legacy" they claim to have by beating a few decent names.

His career record is a who's who of the last 15 years basically, and he was never exactly out-classed. Could argue BHop had done so, but that wasn't exactly going to be a lop sided decision etc. And BHop was the utter king at the time around the 160 mark (yes they did a catchweight, but it still suited BHop more as he cut the weigth with ease as he's not naturally massive etc).

True legend of the sport for what he did at a time when boxing was really struggling.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:He gets too much credit in my opinion for trying. Other guys who've tried and failed don't seem to get so much joy from the fans because they tried against so many top guys. Along with trying, he also failed more often than not at the top level.

To me he's very, very good. I'm not sure if he fulfills "great" though, although his effectiveness at multiple weights is impressive.

Im not too sure. He beat Trinidad for me, and certainly had the beating of him. The Mosely fights were close and could have gone either way (BALCO?). After that Hopkins is a huge ask and hes probably sliding by Mayweather and a shell by Pacquio. He also has a host of good wins to his name. I get the argument that he lost most of his big fights but if you look at the circumstances involved it seems a bit harsh or something to say that. A bottom line approach would see him suffer alright, but looking at the fights in more detail I think paints a much different picture. If he had been beaten decisively by Trinidad or Mosely then I guess it would be easier to say but the fact the fights were so close and he really threw the Trinidad one away I think shows how fine the margins are.

De la Hoya was not overrated imo he was one of the best fighters of all time. Yes he lost some big fights but he was up against quality fighters and past his best he also destroyed guys like Mayorga and Vargas and beat Julio Cesar Chavez who many people think was one of the best ever shows how good he was.

coxy0001 wrote:Nope

Doesn't climb into the top top echelons, but if most fighters had fought the quality he did for years i don't think many would still be clinging onto their "0" or "legacy" they claim to have by beating a few decent names.

His career record is a who's who of the last 15 years basically, and he was never exactly out-classed. Could argue BHop had done so, but that wasn't exactly going to be a lop sided decision etc. And BHop was the utter king at the time around the 160 mark (yes they did a catchweight, but it still suited BHop more as he cut the weigth with ease as he's not naturally massive etc).

True legend of the sport for what he did at a time when boxing was really struggling.

Very true maybe he come unstuck at times but at least he can say he tried

While DeLaHoya was undoubtedly a class fighter he lost all the big fights he was in Mosely,Trinidad,Mayweather,Pacman although not outclassed by the first 3 but still losses none the less, BHop was just too big for him.
Anything below this level was dealt with pretty handily.
Maybe not overrated but not an ATG IMO.

Very fine fighter, quite possibly worthy of a really demanding Hall of Fame, but a member of the upper second tier, rather than the first, for me. I take the point about his defeats being excruciatingly close and controversial a lot of the time, but we shouldn't forget that he was in his turn the beneficiary of a close one against Quartey and an absolute gift against Sturm.

Still, he managed to excel at lightweight and welterweight in a fashion that brought to mind the good old days of folk like Ross and Armstrong. I'm not saying that Oscar was quite in their class, but he doesn't have too many gaps on his CV.

Exactly. Overrated has absolutely no meaning by itself..

overrated is generally in the context of professional rankings

eg when norway were in the top 15 in teh fifa rankings, i would say they were overrated.

based on the ring's 80 best fighters of the past 80 years, he is not ovverrated, but i think he is overrated on espn's 50 greatest of all time list

Oscar's record is superb.....Titles from 130 all the way to midd....and his record is a quality fighters who's who...

Great, great fighter...

Chavez twice.....Whittaker alone are terrific wins..

zx1234 wrote:Exactly. Overrated has absolutely no meaning by itself..

overrated is generally in the context of professional rankings

eg when norway were in the top 15 in teh fifa rankings, i would say they were overrated.

based on the ring's 80 best fighters of the past 80 years, he is not ovverrated, but i think he is overrated on espn's 50 greatest of all time list

So it has meaning by itself even when there is no consensus among the rankings?

Or not.

So it has meaning by itself even when there is no consensus among the rankings?

Or not..

yeah, it has no meaning by itself, but generally when people say overrated they mean with inthe context of rankings

Nico the gman wrote:While DeLaHoya was undoubtedly a class fighter he lost all the big fights he was in Mosely,Trinidad,Mayweather,Pacman although not outclassed by the first 3 but still losses none the less, BHop was just too big for him.
Anything below this level was dealt with pretty handily.
Maybe not overrated but not an ATG IMO.

all the big fights? werent chavez, whitaker, quartey, camacho big fights too? he won and lost his fair share of big fights, but if some of the current crop had the balls to take on so many world class fighters im sure they would have lost a few more too.

I'm not sure I'd say 'overrated', as the general consensus seems to be bang on the money with regards to his career in the ring; De la Hoya was an all-time 'very, very good', rather than an all-time great in the proper sense of the word.

That said, his fame, financial impact and influence in the sport goes way beyond what those achievements merit, but ultimately this isn't his fault, and we all know that boxing is influenced by more than just what takes place in the ring. I can't knock De la Hoya's achievements of his ambition - to take on the men he did when he could have made easy money elsewhere is outstanding.

But a nasty habit of just missing out in most of the fights which would define him most mean that he fell short of the elite. Granted, I don't know why he gets so little credit for the Whitaker win; I don't for one second think he robbed Pernell as some suggest, and Whitaker was still in everyone's top two or three pound for pound at that stage (I had it a draw, but if I were forced to pick a winner I'd say that De la Hoya deserved it more).

But the manner of the Trinidad defeat summed it up, for me; De la Hoya, every time he had the chance of reaching true greatness, always seemed to throw it away at the last minute. Very, very good fighter, did great things for the sport, but a case of what might have been, too.

I don't see De La Hoya as overrated. His first defeat was in something like his 20th Title fight. He took a few beatings towards the end but he was a great operator and wasn't afraid to jump weights to try and set up the biggest fights possible.

One of the best fighters of his generation.

[quote="88Chris05"]I'm not sure I'd say 'overrated', as the general consensus seems to be bang on the money with regards to his career in the ring; De la Hoya was an all-time 'very, very good', rather than an all-time great in the proper sense of the word.

That said, his fame, financial impact and influence in the sport goes way beyond what those achievements merit, but ultimately this isn't his fault, and we all know that boxing is influenced by more than just what takes place in the ring. I can't knock De la Hoya's achievements of his ambition - to take on the men he did when he could have made easy money elsewhere is outstanding.

But a nasty habit of just missing out in most of the fights which would define him most mean that he fell short of the elite. Granted, I don't know why he gets so little credit for the Whitaker win; I don't for one second think he robbed Pernell as some suggest, and Whitaker was still in everyone's top two or three pound for pound at that stage (I had it a draw, but if I were forced to pick a winner I'd say that De la Hoya deserved it more).

But the manner of the Trinidad defeat summed it up, for me; De la Hoya, every time he had the chance of reaching true greatness, always seemed to throw it away at the last minute. Very, very good fighter, did great things for the sport, but a case of what might have been, too.[/quote]

Agreed - although I think he was unlucky in some of those decisions - he put it all on the line time and time again - none of this no risk crap that seems to be the norm today.

manos de piedra wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:He gets too much credit in my opinion for trying. Other guys who've tried and failed don't seem to get so much joy from the fans because they tried against so many top guys. Along with trying, he also failed more often than not at the top level.

To me he's very, very good. I'm not sure if he fulfills "great" though, although his effectiveness at multiple weights is impressive.

Im not too sure. He beat Trinidad for me, and certainly had the beating of him. The Mosely fights were close and could have gone either way (BALCO?). After that Hopkins is a huge ask and hes probably sliding by Mayweather and a shell by Pacquio. He also has a host of good wins to his name. I get the argument that he lost most of his big fights but if you look at the circumstances involved it seems a bit harsh or something to say that. A bottom line approach would see him suffer alright, but looking at the fights in more detail I think paints a much different picture. If he had been beaten decisively by Trinidad or Mosely then I guess it would be easier to say but the fact the fights were so close and he really threw the Trinidad one away I think shows how fine the margins are.

Seen as I used circumstance as a point about Dempsey's career it would be hypocritical for me to blindly see things as black and white in this instance so fair point. Although he may have been on the wrong end of close calls, it's not like he wasn't on the good end of a couple to go with them.

De La Hoya was a business man first and a boxer second and it must be said he was successful in both fields. However he made mistakes,or were they mistakes? He was never a middle weight and to take on the best in the division B Hop after only one fight at that weight when he'd been gifted a result he didn't deserve was only going to end one way. At least they both made a bob or two out of the fight. He was robbed against Trinidad,how any one can win the first seven rounds of a 12 round fight and still lose the fight amazes me,especialy as there was no knockdowns. Anyway as America's only gold medalist at Barcelona in 1992 he's not done so bad for himself.I hope he isgetting over his recent troubles.

For me I have always put De La Hoya in the "Really good but just not great" bracket, close but no cigar.

However I do wonder whether we would be sitting here talking about a great if he didn't gas against Mosley allowing Mosley to take the championship rounds and to be honest completely throwing away a fantastic win against Trinidad. Some people rate De La Hoya higher due to the fact he should have won against Trinidad, I don't. I rate him lower due to the fact that he threw away a fight which he was winning but decided to try and coast.

This being said people throw Sturm out as something to hit De La Hoya over the head with which I think is very harsh... Let's not forget he began his career in the Lightweight division and even making the fight extremely close against a solid (But not spectacular) World champion up at 160 pounds is very impressive in my opinion. Hopkins was too much for him but the fight was competitive and one judge even had him up, albeit I don't know what fight he was watching...

Also it is worth noting Paul12342 the hardcore Boxing Mexican public actually didn't like De La Hoya due to the fact that he was a celebrity profile. I think if we are going to allow the likes of Dempsey to be rated higher due to transcending the sport, I believe the same can be given to Oscar and not to have his name thrown in the mud because he was more mainstream. He brought a lot of buzz back around boxing and had people talking again.

Also due to the fact that De La Hoya wanted to fight tough fights back to back taking on pretty much all comers at virtually any weight class should be celebrated as well, if you look at his run from 96 - 98 it's very impressive.

Julio Cesar Chavez (Twice)
Miguel Gonzalez (Unbeaten)
Pernell Whittaker (Still up near the top of the P4P lists)
David Kamau
Hector Camacho
Wilfredo Rivera
Patrick Charpentier

The fact he moved up the weights and was still very effective, and only really lost contentious decisions - beaten by the man at Middleweight (after being a Lightweight) - and perhaps caught on the slide is nothing to be embarrassed about.

Can see why some would just eek him into a great status but not for me and to be fair I don't know many that do put him into that status so for me, not over rated at all, and like I said the reasons that you gave for him possibly being overrated to begin with are actually the reasons a fair amount of people underrate him.

Its one of those arguments that will divide opinion, much like the completley subjective p4p rankings.

In terms of what he did for boxing, he was his generations global superstar IMO. As a young lad he was up there with Tyson and lewis for in terms of profile. I think a good comparison would be with David Beckham. Both true greats at their sport, but not necessarily the best.

for me I love the fact that de la hoya took on the best and brought us many great fights, and continues to do so as a promoter.

That he was so high profile certainly was no accident, he earned everything he has had.

It's true he was found out at the top level more often than not, but there is no shame in that. Better to try and fail IMO. I think thats why he gets so much respect.

You think he was a global superstar? I don't personally.

yes sorry i disagree tyson was a global superstar i could ask 10 people on the street who he is most wont have a clue i ask them who tyson is all of them would know.

88Chris05 wrote:I'm not sure I'd say 'overrated', as the general consensus seems to be bang on the money with regards to his career in the ring; De la Hoya was an all-time 'very, very good', rather than an all-time great in the proper sense of the word.

Think that about sums him up for me, I have in the past come across as being a little more negative towards Oscar than is perhaps representative of my views but that is only in counter to those that proclaim him a legend or an all time great which for me oversells things by a degree. For me whilst it is an over simplification to say he lost all his big fights he did have too much of a habit of losing fights when they really mattered, and whilst I appreciate some of these such as Mosley and Trinidad were close this has to be counter balanced with the fact he also got the nod in a couple such as Whittaker and Quartey and an absolute gift against Sturm so swings and roundabouts on that one.

For me he got away with some flaws just purely on having some outstanding natural gifts, such as a decent chin, ok power and fantastic handspeed. Could be tactically naive at times such as coasting down the stretch against Tito in a fight he had in the bag. Good fighter no doubt but to truly earn the title of great would have needed to turn a couple of the losses in the big uns into wins.

Oscar is a global superstar. hes never fought in britain, never fought a british fighter and yet we talk about him. just because he is not as famous as tyson in the UK does not mean he is not as famous worldwide. guns n roses are not as famous as take that in britain, yet i assure you they are a global star a thousand times more than take that are. its very naive to start saying, my friends this..on the street that.

We talk about him because we are boxing fans, if I didn't follow boxing I probably wouldn't have heard of him. Not the same with Guns n Roses, I'd know them whether I liked their style of music or not.

1. Oscar De La Hoya - $610.6 million on 12.6 million buys (18 events)

2. Mike Tyson - $545 million on 12.4 million buys (12 events)

pay per view record, oscar doin pretty well, especially considering tyson is a heavyweight. yes we may only talk about him as boxing fans, but the point is, just because tyson is a much bigger name in europe, that doesnt make it more important than the fact oscar is a much bigger name in south america.

PPV record in America =/= global impact.

I'd say it's unlikely Oscar is the bigger name in South America. He's somewhere under Chavez's shadow. Tyson is bigger in Asia, Australia and probably Africa.

Scottrf wrote:PPV record in America =/= global impact.

I'd say it's unlikely Oscar is the bigger name in South America. He's somewhere under Chavez's shadow. Tyson is bigger in Asia, Australia and probably Africa.

if you dont think oscar is bigger in south america, then i take it you have never been there. as for tyson being bigger in africa, that was just a wild guess. but wether tyson is bigger than oscar or not, they are both global superstars. just because oscar is not as big as tyson in UK does not mean oscar is not a global superstar. he has a a good following all around the world and has earned more money than the majority of boxers in history