Thread: scorecards for DLH - Tito ?

Round 4

Trinidad starts off throwing a combination, but only landing a left hook at the end.
OScar retaliates with a combination of his own where he lands two jabs and a right hand before missing and hook and uppercut.
Trinidad gets in a small right hand, or it looks that way because Oscar's back is facing us.
2:19 Dela Hoya lands a hard right hand that looks partially block, but still lands
2:12 Dela Hoya pulls back out of the reach of Trinidad's jab and lands a small right hand ALA Mayweather.
Oscar lands a jab, then throws two that he misses around 2:10-2:08
2:05 Oscar counters Trinidad's jab, that misses, with a hard jab of his own
1:55 Trinidad lands a solid right hand
1:48 Oscar lands one, if not two jabs of the top of Trinidad's forhead.
1:41 Looks like OScar again counters a Trinidad jab with one of his own.
1:37 Tito lands a stiff jab
1:18 Lampley says Trinidad lands a right and left, but I see Trinidad missing his right and Oscar countering with a hard jab again, while Trinidad didn't land his left
0:57 They both land equally impressive left hooks, Oscar to the body, Trinidad upstairs, that one looked partially blocked.
0:52 Oscar lands a little jab in there.
0.49: Oscar lands a solid jab
0.48: Oscar counters with a right cross and left hook. looks like the right however wasn't a scoring shot
0.22: Oscar lands one or two weak jabs
0.18 Oscar lands a stiff jab
0:01 they trade left hooks at the end.

Name the rounds and I will go over any of them, I have to get ready for demonstration right now, but I will go over any round. This is ridiculous Oscar was landing twice as many shots in almost every round before the last three.

Originally Posted by ICB

Originally Posted by Taeth

Originally Posted by ICB

How could ODLH have been robbed ? when Tito done no worse than win 2 out of the first 9 rounds. Including winning the last 3 rounds, and thats still only 7-5 to ODLH.

Like i already said to Taeth RBR scoring wise it was close and in no way a robbery, you want to know what a robbery is ? Pernell Whitaker vs Jose Luis Ramirez 1, i had Whitaker winning 8-3-1 now thats what you call a robbery.

It was a robbery, It was of the same proportions as Whitaker-Ramirez, Whitaker-Chavez, etc.

Trinidad didn't win any early rounds, what fight were you guys watching? Do I have to do over it round by round with all of you?

We should have a section on this forum where somehow controversial fights are streamed "live", and we debate it in a msn type format

You can't actually be serious Taeth ? i respect your opinion normally but on the same par as Whitaker vs Chavez/Ramirez 1 ? are you kidding me ?

Whitaker gave Chavez and Ramirez boxing lessons, the Ramirez fight was never close at any point except for a few of the middle rounds. And the Chavez fight was only competitive for 5 rounds, then Whitaker totally took over and won every round after that. With only the 12th round being debatable.

And why should "you" do a RBR for us like you know something that we don't ? Felix Trinidad got outboxed in the first 9 rounds, no one has denied that i believe. But it was no way a shutout in those first 9 rounds, Felix Trinidad done no worse than win atleast 2 rounds during those first 9 rounds.

Then Tito clearly won the last 3 rounds which makes it a close fight, ODLH may have won his rounds more clearly. And landed alot more punches in the rounds he won, but RBR wise it was a close fight and in no way a robbery.

I have no problem with fans thinking ODLH won, and i think fans can clearly make a better arguement for ODLH winning. But a robbery ? hell no.

I easily saw Ramirez winning at least 3 rounds, He was landing shots on Whitaker.

The first round or two of that fight looked like Whitaker would cake walk it, but Ramirez made that fight a lot closer then you are giving him credit for, For sure, Whitaker won the fight by large margin, but so did De La Hoya. Like I said you name those two rounds that Trinidad "won" and I will go over them with you.

Originally Posted by OumaFan

I had Mosley winning both ODLH fights. ODLH gets so much credit for flurries that don't land, very talented in that respect.

Oscar didn't beat Mosley in the second fight with flurries, he beat in him with small combinations, and that left jab that he couldn't land that well in the first fight. He also used better movement and a better right hand. He simply outlanded Mosley by such a large margin that there is no way he didn't win that fight.

117-111 De La Hoya

Originally Posted by Taeth

Originally Posted by OumaFan

I had Mosley winning both ODLH fights. ODLH gets so much credit for flurries that don't land, very talented in that respect.

Oscar didn't beat Mosley in the second fight with flurries, he beat in him with small combinations, and that left jab that he couldn't land that well in the first fight. He also used better movement and a better right hand. He simply outlanded Mosley by such a large margin that there is no way he didn't win that fight.

I could have sworn I had a debate with you before about the Whitaker Vs De La Hoya fight, and you told me that Oscar clearly one despite Whitaker landing 100 more punches than Oscar, then you come back in this thread and say that Oscar outlanded Mosley by such a large margin it's no way he didn't win that fight. That sounds like a double edge sword to me. I could be wrong it could have been someone else but for some reason I remember your forum name, am I wrong or right

I will watch the fight again and score it but I know first time around I had De La Hoya winning a close decision.

I thought at times Oscar was schooling Tito, who at times looked like a mini George Foreman lumbering fowards doing nothing but get hit.

Thought Oscar clearly won. Then again its so subjective.

Originally Posted by Taeth

Originally Posted by ICB

Originally Posted by Mr140

I thought Oscar won the fight hands down Tito did nothing to deserve the win because of that win is why he is even mention with Oscar. Oscar Clearly outboxed him and he was robbed but o well its boxing and it happens to everyone. The only people taht i thought beat Oscar Clearly were Mosley at welter weight, Hopkins and Mayweather. But i while say only person to beat him in prime was Mosley. Never thought that Oscar really ever got dominated in a fight but that is just a thought.

No one was robbed i hate that term used in a close fight like this, and for the record i thought Pernell Whitaker beat a prime ODLH.

Pernell lost a close fight, but Oscar won that, That right hand was landing too often for Oscar. Also this was a robbery, it was a comprehensive boxing lesson that was placed on Tito. Even in the last 3 rounds, Oscar wasn't punching, but Tito didn't dominate those rounds, he just won them because he was more aggressive. Oscar took him to school, and got robbed. He also deserved to beat Mosley at 154, he outboxed him as well.

Pardon me for deviating from the topic but Oscar vs Mosley was very sweet. I became a true Mosley fan after that.


I will watch again the Oscar vs Tito fight. I have forgotten that fight already.

Like ICB i had it a draw. could have gone easily either way. and i understand exactly what he is saying. Oscar, when he one a round, won them way more convincinly than Tito. but in a RBR i had it a draw.

I actually think it ranks with:

Mayweather v Castillo I, Barerra v Morales I and Holyfield v Lewis I

As one of the worst dec ive seen live.

Originally Posted by Markusdarkus

I actually think it ranks with:

Mayweather v Castillo I, Barerra v Morales I and Holyfield v Lewis I

As one of the worst dec ive seen live.

Youre right those 3 were terrible decisions.

I dont think Oscar - Tito ranks with them though

Originally Posted by Markusdarkus

I actually think it ranks with:

Mayweather v Castillo I, Barerra v Morales I and Holyfield v Lewis I

As one of the worst dec ive seen live.

How was Mayweather vs Castillo 1 a terrible decision ? i only had Castillo winning by 1 point, but there were quite alot of close rounds. And you could make an arguement that either fight won 7 rounds. And i think Mayweather done very well considering he had a bad soulder injury.

Barerra is one of my favorites but again how was it a terrible decision ? the knockdown was BS and shouldn't have been called, but even with the knockdown its still a very close fight. I had Barrera winning because he landed the harder shots.

But in no way was it a terrible decision. And considering Barerra got a controversial win in the 2nd fight, i think it was fair that were 1-1 until the 3rd fight which Barrera proved he was the better man without any controversy.

I totally agree with Lewis vs Holyfield 1 that was indeed a robbery, Holyfield at best only won 3 rounds.

Originally Posted by ICB

Originally Posted by Markusdarkus

I actually think it ranks with:

Mayweather v Castillo I, Barerra v Morales I and Holyfield v Lewis I

As one of the worst dec ive seen live.

How was Mayweather vs Castillo 1 a terrible decision ? i only had Castillo winning by 1 point, but there were quite alot of close rounds. And you could make an arguement that either fight won 7 rounds. And i think Mayweather done very well considering he had a bad soulder injury.

Barerra is one of my favorites but again how was it a terrible decision ? the knockdown was BS and shouldn't have been called, but even with the knockdown its still a very close fight. I had Barrera winning because he landed the harder shots.

But in no way was it a terrible decision. And considering Barerra got a controversial win in the 2nd fight, i think it was fair that were 1-1 until the 3rd fight which Barrera proved he was the better man without any controversy.

I totally agree with Lewis vs Holyfield 1 that was indeed a robbery, Holyfield at best only won 3 rounds.

I love how subjective scoring is.

But because Barerra got a gift in the rematch doesnt mean the first result was in anyway just.

And i thought Castillo was up 4pts maybe 5. 100 more power shots 150 more shots landed. i know compubox is not to be taken as a sure but mahone!

Originally Posted by Markusdarkus

Originally Posted by ICB

Originally Posted by Markusdarkus

I actually think it ranks with:

Mayweather v Castillo I, Barerra v Morales I and Holyfield v Lewis I

As one of the worst dec ive seen live.

How was Mayweather vs Castillo 1 a terrible decision ? i only had Castillo winning by 1 point, but there were quite alot of close rounds. And you could make an arguement that either fight won 7 rounds. And i think Mayweather done very well considering he had a bad soulder injury.

Barerra is one of my favorites but again how was it a terrible decision ? the knockdown was BS and shouldn't have been called, but even with the knockdown its still a very close fight. I had Barrera winning because he landed the harder shots.

But in no way was it a terrible decision. And considering Barerra got a controversial win in the 2nd fight, i think it was fair that were 1-1 until the 3rd fight which Barrera proved he was the better man without any controversy.

I totally agree with Lewis vs Holyfield 1 that was indeed a robbery, Holyfield at best only won 3 rounds.

I love how subjective scoring is.

But because Barerra got a gift in the rematch doesnt mean the first result was in anyway just.

And i thought Castillo was up 4pts maybe 5. 100 more power shots 150 more shots landed. i know compubox is not to be taken as a sure but mahone!

4 or 5 points is a joke i've never seen anyone have that score, except for Harold Ledderman and his scoring is very questionable to say the least. Castillo done nothing in the first 5 rounds. You could make an argument that Mayweather swept the first 5 rounds, then won atleast another 2 rounds.

Especially the 11th which was very close, i had Mayweather winning 4 out of the first 5 rounds by the way, and i would love to know these so called 100 more power shots, because Castillo mostly threw arm punches on the inside. Im not saying he didn't land more power shots which he clearly did, but not as many as punchstats gave him credit for IMO. But Mayweather also used his jab to good effect, which some fans might of liked more.

Barerrea vs Morales 1 was a very close fight and without the KD, you could make an arguement that Morales may have won or earned a draw. Because even though Barrera landed the harder shots, he got out punched in some rounds, and some people might like the higher workrate of Morales. Rather than the more accurate harder shots of Barrera. But Barrera won by no more than 2 rounds, i only had him winning by 1 point.

The point im making is that none of these fights were terrible decision, and i hate it when people label close fights as robberies or bad decision's. Your 3rd example was the best because that clearly was a robbery.