Thread: Who had the better career Tito or De La Hoya?

Opinions guy's, I would love to hear them, you guy's already know who I think, but either way you vote it's close

How come no one type's shit on this website

I went with Oscar. They both have a reputation for failing in megafights, and its ironic that although Trinidad won his battle with De La Hoya in the ring the vast majority of people thought he had lost.

I've got to go with Oscar overall though, not only did he win belts in 6 divisions he's also still relevant now and able to compete with the world's best fighter.

Trinidad fights on also, but he's trading on name only these days.

I think Trinidad had the slightly better career. It's very close though.

(I thought their fight was a draw, for what it's worth.)

I have gone for ODH, he won titles at more weights and I think what Tito is doing is seriously harming his legacy, in fact it is getting embarrassing.

Originally Posted by Bilbo

I went with Oscar. They both have a reputation for failing in megafights, and its ironic that although Trinidad won his battle with De La Hoya in the ring the vast majority of people thought he had lost.

I've got to go with Oscar overall though, not only did he win belts in 6 divisions he's also still relevant now and able to compete with the world's best fighter.

Trinidad fights on also, but he's trading on name only these days.

I respect that opinion and agree about 50%, but Tito won plenty of mega fights

De La Hoya
Reid
Vargas
Joppy

and big fights ( Not Mega)
Carr
Campus
Blocker

He won the belt at 20 years old when he was just a kid, he held it for 6 years before moving up in weight, he probably could have had the same career at 154 if he would have stayed there, he accomplished a HOF career before he turned 30, the guy was great

No doubt Tito was a great and he beat Vargas up for ODH (which IMO was ODH greatest victory) but what he has done since he lost to Hopkins is harming his legacy.

Tito was definitely more devastating and thrilling than Oscar. After a while, Oscar fought the likes of Gatti, a past his prime Chavez, an already beaten by Trinidad Vargas AND Mayorga, etc. And Oscar has lost more megafights than Tito (see Mosley twice, Floyd, Hopkins) and always ducked Wright. So although Oscar has won belts in many different divisions, Tito has been the most consistently exciting, devastating, and thrilling than Oscar.

Originally Posted by Rican

Tito was definitely more devastating and thrilling than Oscar. After a while, Oscar fought the likes of Gatti, a past his prime Chavez, an already beaten by Trinidad Vargas AND Mayorga, etc. And Oscar has lost more megafights than Tito (see Mosley twice, Floyd, Hopkins) and always ducked Wright. So although Oscar has won belts in many different divisions, Tito has been the most consistently exciting, devastating, and thrilling than Oscar.

The difference for me though is that Oscar was always competitive in his fights, and a couple of those he lost many thought he won.

He was never embarrassed the way Tito was against Winky.

But I agree Tito is an all time great. I thought he lost to Oscar which is why I probably favour Oscar. Tito although an offensive powerhouse was a little one dimensional at times.

Oscar won titles in 6 divissions, an olympic gold medal and in my opinion beat Tito in their fight and made him look like an amateur. Oscar in all his losses was never embarrased the way Tito was, he was even more competitive against Hopkins.

I'd have to say Oscar.
Not entirely because of Oscar's own achievements, but because Trinidad tranished his own credibility with the retirement/Comeback strategy.

TITO hands down

for having the balls to fight B-Hop, RJJ and Winky and of course his victories over Vargas(while he was game) among others. And now he wants to fight Taylor and PAvlic

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Originally Posted by Rican

Tito was definitely more devastating and thrilling than Oscar. After a while, Oscar fought the likes of Gatti, a past his prime Chavez, an already beaten by Trinidad Vargas AND Mayorga, etc. And Oscar has lost more megafights than Tito (see Mosley twice, Floyd, Hopkins) and always ducked Wright. So although Oscar has won belts in many different divisions, Tito has been the most consistently exciting, devastating, and thrilling than Oscar.

The difference for me though is that Oscar was always competitive in his fights, and a couple of those he lost many thought he won.

He was never embarrassed the way Tito was against Winky.

But I agree Tito is an all time great. I thought he lost to Oscar which is why I probably favour Oscar. Tito although an offensive powerhouse was a little one dimensional at times.

He was never embarassed by a winky, but he never fought a winky . Their careers are very similar in terms of results against the same opponents(and against each other), so I'd have it a dead heat.

i went with oscar. more titles, more competitive in big fights.

Dela Golden get's my vote 6 weight world champ and I thought oscar schooled trinidad in there fight..Oscar threw some rounds away but i cannot beleive trinidad got the decision in that fight.