View Full Version : Who's Losses Hurt There Legacy Worse? Emille Griffith or Oscar De La Hoya?


Perfect Plex
10-05-2011, 01:18 PM
???
???
???

IronDanHamza
10-05-2011, 01:39 PM
I don't put too much into loss's when ranking greatness.

Griffith has alot of loss's but he also has many wins and outweighing wins over ATG's.

So I don't think loss's particularly hurt either of them.

But, Griffith obviously has much better wins and is a much greater fighter than Oscar.

wmute
10-05-2011, 01:43 PM
I don't put too much into loss's when ranking greatness.

Griffith has alot of loss's but he also has many wins and outweighing wins over ATG's.

So I don't think loss's particularly hurt either of them.

But, Griffith obviously has much better wins and is a much greater fighter than Oscar.

Griffith without losses would probably be in the same sentence as SRR, so maybe Griffith is the one who is hurt the most.

IronDanHamza
10-05-2011, 01:50 PM
Griffith without losses would probably be in the same sentence as SRR, so maybe Griffith is the one who is hurt the most.

Hmm, maybe.

He's still considered one of, if not the fighter of the 1960's with or without his losses.

I don't think with the wins he holds and an undefeated record he would be considered on Ray Robinson's level of greatness but I see your point so yeah I guess it's Griffith.

wmute
10-05-2011, 01:57 PM
Hmm, maybe.

He's still considered one of, if not the fighter of the 1960's with or without his losses.

I don't think with the wins he holds and an undefeated record he would be considered on Ray Robinson's level of greatness but I see your point so yeah I guess it's Griffith.

BTW, I also don't care much about losses, unless it's like many losses in a series, in which case they do mean something (eg: Charles-Moore 3-0 means to me Charles was better)

IronDanHamza
10-05-2011, 02:40 PM
BTW, I also don't care much about losses, unless it's like many losses in a series, in which case they do mean something (eg: Charles-Moore 3-0 means to me Charles was better)

I agree.

Then again, what about Cocoa Kid-Holman Williams?

Cocoa Kid dominated their series but It's hard to argue he's the greater fighter.

But that's just Boxing for you isn't it. So complex.

SCtrojansbaby
10-05-2011, 02:52 PM
Griffith lost to some weak opponents in his prime, everybody DLH lost to was simply better than him. So of course Griffith is hurt much more

Kid McCoy
10-05-2011, 03:28 PM
I doubt there's a welterweight/middleweight in history who could go through Griffith's opposition without losing a few along the way. His resume really is stacked. Despite those losses, Griffith is still a legit all-time great whereas Oscar's losses mean he falls short of that level.

IronDanHamza
10-05-2011, 04:26 PM
I doubt there's a welterweight/middleweight in history who could go through Griffith's opposition without losing a few along the way. His resume really is stacked. Despite those losses, Griffith is still a legit all-time great whereas Oscar's losses mean he falls short of that level.

I agree on all accounts.