Of course, whatever I say will be judged on the basis of my forum name, but I'll say it just the same.

Pitting De la Hoya’s career against Tito’s in a forum populated mostly by U.S. and British fans is a bit unfair, IMO. I’ve always made the case that Oscar was “born in a golden cradle” since the beginning. He was a U.S. Olympic gold medal winner, he is fluent in both English and Spanish, has a good personality and T.V. presence, and undoubtedly has done more for boxing’s fan base (particularly on the U.S. market) than Tito has.

Whereas I vividly remember Tito not even getting his just due when he was quietly working his way up through the ranks… beating more than a handful of previously unbeaten fighters (including some Olympic champs). I remember his KO victory over the 56-0 Yori Boy Campas. It was huge news here in Puerto Rico, but was not given the publicity it deserved in the U.S. market.

Even when Tito knocked out Fernando Vargas, I still have the Sports Illustrated article that stated: “Felix Trinidad is a long way from becoming a star, given his near-total lack of charisma.” One of the most biased, ignorant, ill-advised writings I’ve ever seen on such a good magazine.

So while Oscar was given more than enough credit from early on, Tito had to claw and scratch for every bit of credit he was given. You can say he only truly came into the limelight when he won his fight with Oscar.

As for who I think had the best career, I guess it’s no surprise I think Tito. Tito’s quality of opponents matches up well with Oscar’s any day of the week. He had the best KO ratio, he had the best winning percentage, and he only lost one fight while in his prime… the Hopkins fight. Oh, and for the poster that thought Oscar did better than Tito against Hopkins, think again. I thought the Oscar loss to Hopkins was more humiliating than Tito’s loss. But that’s just me.

Not to be ignored is that fact that several of Oscar’s wins against certain opponents only came after Tito had in fact destroyed them first. There was an excellent article about this on another site about a year back, and I posted about it on Saddo’s back then also.

But boxing’s all about opinions, and all I’ve read have been very well stated, and should be respected. Just thought I’d add my own.

__________________
Puerto Rico: #1 per capita in boxing world champions.

De La Hoya is a great fighter that I admire, but just want to make some comments on some De La Hoya's "victories":

Molina (some people saw it too close)
Chavez (well past his prime)
Whitaker (some people saw it too close)
Carr (first destroyed by Tito)
Camacho (well past his prime)
Vargas (first destroyed by Tito)
Campas (first destroyed by Tito)
Mayorga (first destroyed by Tito)
Sturm (De La Hoya won )[/quote]

It doesn't matter how close the fights were the fact is he won in the record books and thats all that counts. I had ODLH winning Molina fight clearly, it was close but i still had ODLH a clear winner. Chavez was past his prime but he was still a very good fighter and had only lost once at the time to Randall. ODLH beat Chavez at boxing, then beat him in a brawl in there rematch he deserves credit for that. I mentioned Whitaker win for Tito and lets be honest Whitaker was a shell of his former self against Tito, so you cannot try and discredit ODLH's win over Whitaker. Why didn't you mention that Camacho was first beaten by Tito ?? anyway like i said i already mentioned in my previous posts that someone would use the argument that Tito beat some of ODLH's best wins before ODLH did. But fact is ODLH still had more quality wins than Tito, plus he was never dominated in any of his losses. And lastly ODLH's achievement's like i said earlier leave Tito in the starting blocks, taking everything into consideration ODLH still wins it.[/quote]

It doesn't matter how close the fights were the fact is he won in the record books and thats all that counts (I disagree 100%, what the books say is not all that counts, I believe you should analyze the fights, the results, make conclusions, specially when you have a big name and many close decisions). I had ODLH winning Molina fight clearly, it was close but i still had ODLH a clear winner (as I said many people saw it too close). Chavez was past his prime but he was still a very good fighter and had only lost once at the time to Randall. ODLH beat Chavez at boxing, then beat him in a brawl in there rematch he deserves credit for that (you said it Chavez was past his prime) I mentioned Whitaker win for Tito and lets be honest Whitaker was a shell of his former self against Tito, so you cannot try and discredit ODLH's win over Whitaker (I can say that Whitaker was past his prime in both cases and De La Hoya had a lot more difficulties than Tito, even Whitaker said that he favor Tito in a fight with De La Hoya). Why didn't you mention that Camacho was first beaten by Tito ?? (sorry I forgot to give that credit to Tito, Tito fought Camacho on Jan 09, 1994 and De La Hoya took an older Camacho on Sep 13, 1997 moving back to 147 from 160) anyway like i said i already mentioned in my previous posts that someone would use the argument that Tito beat some of ODLH's best wins before ODLH did (I am 100% in agreement, some of De La Hoya's best wins were with opponents that were not the same after Tito beat them). But fact is ODLH still had more quality wins than Tito, plus he was never dominated in any of his losses (How can someone lose by TKO and not being dominated ). And lastly ODLH's achievement's like i said earlier leave Tito in the starting blocks, taking everything into consideration ODLH still wins it.

I respect De La Hoya, and admit that he has done a lot for boxing with his skills and charisma, but this is a debate that the winner depends on how you define success as I mentioned in previous posts. And in the way I am measuring, the winner is Tito.

__________________
Wilfredo Gomez better than Mike Tyson at power
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

True, but this is the problem I had with Oscar. He never fought Wright and has ducked him for so, so long. Oscar knew that he would look just as bad against Winky. So instead, he fights safer fights or gets gift decisions, such as the fight against Sturm and the supposedly split decision against Floyd which was a unanimous decision for Floyd all the way.

For me, this arguement is really decided by management.

We're talking about two fighters, not lightyears apart in terms of ability.
Two fighters who shared the same sort of fanatical support. Two fighters with many common opponents.

What really, set Tito and Oscar apart was the way in which they approached their careers. Oscar approached the business to use his style, status and infleunce to make money, carefully selecting fights and balancing risk vs. reward as well as possible. He took every decision individually, took his time and maintained his drawing power throughout his career.

Tito let his Dad take the reins. He went hell for leather into the pros, steaming ahead recklessly. He was massively popular and let the pressure of the fans and his countrymen infleunce his decisions (Hopkins fight.)
The decisions involved in the retirments and comebacks, were all poor choices.

__________________
"Pain is Just the feeling of Weakness leaving the body."

Why would he duck Wright ?? when he fought one of the best defensive fighters of all time and makes everyone look bad aka Pernell Whitaker.

__________________
Favorite Fighters Of All Time.

Wilfredo Gomez, Ricardo Lopez, Larry Holmes, Erik Morales, Marco Antonio Barrera, Juan Manuel Marquez, Pernell Whitaker, Roy Jones, Floyd Mayweather Jr, Salvador Sanchez, Shane Mosley, Aaron Pryor, Thomas Hearns, Terry Norris, Julian Jackson, Kelly Pavlik, M.Cotto

I really think that Trinidad's career as a welterweight champ was a little more impressive than ODLH's bouncing through all those weights. That being said I would really would have been overwhelmingly in his favor if he hadn't fought after the Hopkins fight. I clicked Trinidad anyway.

__________________
I have to go with the original Sugar as the best, Sugar Ray Robinson.