Who had the better career Tito or De La Hoya?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puerto Rican Punch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Oscar's Best Wins.

Genaro Hernandez
Jorge Paez
Rafael Ruelas
John John Molina
Jesse James Leija
Julio Cesar Chavez x2
Pernell Whitaker
Miguel Angel Gonzalez
Ike Quartey
Oba Carr
Hector Camacho
Arturo Gatti
Fernando Vargas
Luis Ramon Campas
Felix Sturm = Not really though
Ricardo Mayorga

Titles at = Super Featherweight, Lightweight, Jr Welterweight, Welterweight, Jr Middleweight, Middleweight.

ODLH Argument = Oscar has much more achievements than Tito and overall i think he edges Tito in overall opposition plus he was never dominated in any of his losses unlike Tito.


Felix Trinidad's Best Wins.

Maurice Blocker
Oba Carr
Hector Camacho
Freddie Pendleton
ODLH
Pernell Whitaker
David Reid
Ricardo Mayorga
William Joppy
Fernando Vargas

Titles at = Welterweight 15 defenses if i remember right, Jr Middleweight,

Tito Argument = He beat fighters like Carr, Vargas, etc. When they were in there prime, and some people may argue that by the time they fought ODLH they were shot fighters. Tito also made impressive number of title defenses at Welterweight. He also has a win over ODLH.

Final Comments = I think ODLH wins this as you can see by those list's. Overall ODLH has beaten more quality opposition plus his achievements just leave Tito in the starting blocks if im honest. Someone mentioned Tito should be rated higher because he fought Wright, Hopkins, Jones. I don't understand that logic at all why should Tito be rated higher just because he fought good opposition but was pretty much dominated in all 3 of those fights, if we using that logic then ODLH should be rated higher because at least he was competitive in his losses to Mosley x2, Tito, Mayweather, Hopkins.

---

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 :confused:)

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SweetPea

Certainly a big part of your answer to this question depends on what you think about the numerous close decisions that Oscar has won/lost over his career.

For example, I think Oscar lost to Whitaker, lost to Quartey, lost both times to Mosley, lost to Sturm, etc. I thought the Trinidad fight was a draw.

Trinidad is one of the few fighters who has more than 40 fights without ever having a controversial ending. His record is accurate.

---

Thaall subjective, IMO you have to judge a guy by the actual results, even if you think its bullshit. If its called a win, you can't call it a loss when determining someones success.

---

I disagree with this. One of the GREAT things about boxing is debating controversial judging decisions and factoring in your own scoring opinions.

If you're going to rank a fighter (or compare two fighters to each other), then the way you personally scored the fights is 100% relevant. It's not unfair at all. What would be unfair is not giving a fighter credit for winning a fight where the judges robbed him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SweetPea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SweetPea

Certainly a big part of your answer to this question depends on what you think about the numerous close decisions that Oscar has won/lost over his career.

For example, I think Oscar lost to Whitaker, lost to Quartey, lost both times to Mosley, lost to Sturm, etc. I thought the Trinidad fight was a draw.

Trinidad is one of the few fighters who has more than 40 fights without ever having a controversial ending. His record is accurate.

---

Thaall subjective, IMO you have to judge a guy by the actual results, even if you think its bullshit. If its called a win, you can't call it a loss when determining someones success.

---

I disagree with this. One of the GREAT things about boxing is debating controversial judging decisions and factoring in your own scoring opinions.

If you're going to rank a fighter (or compare two fighters to each other), then the way you personally scored the fights is 100% relevant. It's not unfair at all. What would be unfair is not giving a fighter credit for winning a fight where the judges robbed him.

---

I don't think you should rate a fighter lower because he won "close" controversial decision. That you thought he may of lost by 1 point or etc, if thats the case then Ali shouldn't be greatest Heavyweight of all time, because he had as many controversial decisions as ODLH did, and i think he lost a majority of those decisions. All of those close fights of ODLH's could of gone either way except the Sturm fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SweetPea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Thaall subjective, IMO you have to judge a guy by the actual results, even if you think its bullshit. If its called a win, you can't call it a loss when determining someones success.

---

I disagree with this. One of the GREAT things about boxing is debating controversial judging decisions and factoring in your own scoring opinions.

If you're going to rank a fighter (or compare two fighters to each other), then the way you personally scored the fights is 100% relevant. It's not unfair at all. What would be unfair is not giving a fighter credit for winning a fight where the judges robbed him.

---

I don't think you should rate a fighter lower because he won "close" controversial decision. That you thought he may of lost by 1 point or etc, if thats the case then Ali shouldn't be greatest Heavyweight of all time, because he had as many controversial decisions as ODLH did, and i think he lost a majority of those decisions. All of those close fights of ODLH's could of gone either way except the Sturm fight.

---

If you thought Ali won some decisions that he didn't deserve, then by all means you should factor that into the way you rank him.
If you have to go by judging decisions and can't factor in your opinion, then what's the point of being an educated boxing fan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SweetPea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SweetPea

I disagree with this. One of the GREAT things about boxing is debating controversial judging decisions and factoring in your own scoring opinions.

If you're going to rank a fighter (or compare two fighters to each other), then the way you personally scored the fights is 100% relevant. It's not unfair at all. What would be unfair is not giving a fighter credit for winning a fight where the judges robbed him.

---

I don't think you should rate a fighter lower because he won "close" controversial decision. That you thought he may of lost by 1 point or etc, if thats the case then Ali shouldn't be greatest Heavyweight of all time, because he had as many controversial decisions as ODLH did, and i think he lost a majority of those decisions. All of those close fights of ODLH's could of gone either way except the Sturm fight.

---

If you thought Ali won some decisions that he didn't deserve, then by all means you should factor that into the way you rank him.
If you have to go by judging decisions and can't factor in your opinion, then what's the point of being an educated boxing fan?

---

I just think its slightly unfair Sweetpea that if you saw a ODLH fight or etc, and you only had that boxer or ODLH or whatever, only losing by 1 point i think its unfair to rate him lower, unless it was a robbery decision. I heard SRR had many gift decisions in his career so if i saw say 10 of his controversial decisions and i say he lost 4 out of the 10, but i only had him losing by razor thin 1 point, and it could of gone either way based on the rounds being too close to call, should i then say he shouldn't be greatest P4P fighter ever ?? based on winning a few controversial decisions that were too close too call ?? Many of the greatest fighters had plenty of close controversial decisions that could of gone either way, like i said earlier i just think its slightly unfair to rate them lower unless it was a robbery decision. And out of all ODLH's fights i could of had him winning every single one of those fights except the Sturm fight, but i give him benefit of the doubt in that fight because ODLH was poorly conditioned.

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.

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 :confused:)[/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 :confused: ). 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rican

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

Has to be De La Hoya. 6 weight world champ. The biggest name in the industry today and has beat other ATG such as Whittaker and Chavez and has fought how many former world champs?

Oscar has beaten 16 former champions i think he has faced 20 so to me he has to be the best pluse. there fight was way close many thought Oscar Del Hoya won that fight so just goes to show how close the fight really was and Oscar was never dominated as bad in his loses but that just a thought.

Like I said befor, DLH was just the smarter man. Every fight he made after he left Bob Arum was carefully planned and weighed. He was alwaise in an advantagous position. The only fight he made in which he was in a noticable disadvantage was against Hopkins. I give him all the respaect for that one.

I also give him much respect for fighting Quartey, Whitaker and Trinidad at a time when the Welterweight champions would not fight eachother till he came along. But still the respect I got for DLH is not near the respect I have for Trinidad's long reign as a welterweight and for his amazing run from about 98 to 2001.

Against Mostley the first time, he was fighting a popular fighter coming up from lightweight, still getting adjusted to the welterweight division. He lost so he went up in weight and tryed again.

Against Vargas, Mayorga, Carr, Gatti & Campas he was fighting damaged goods. Personal Note, his fight with Gotti was a complete joke IMO.

Against Mayweather, he tried to get all the dices in his favor. The ring size, the gloves, the weight.. nothing worked.

Now he is going after Paquiao. I don't think I have to comment on this one.

I think Trinidad showed after his fight with DLH till his first retirement that he was the better fighter. I have strong doubts that DLH woulv'e done as good as Trinidad did against an undefeated Vargas and Reid and against a prime Joppy (an under appretiated performance IMO).

Trinidad's retirements and failed comebacks have hurt his legacy but in the end he will always be the better and far more entertaining fighter IMHO.

Also, like Tito Fan said, DLH's inmense popularity means you gotta give these poll's like a 10-20 point curve.

Come one now that is a bit one sided Rookie remeber that Oscar started out in the sfw divison and he beat alot of names before he even got to welterweight division. Say what you want about Oscar but he was never dominated as bad as Trinidad atleast in my eyes. Pound for Pound i say Oscar better then Trinidad is pluse i think every one Oscar lost to could beat Trindad. Yea i am saying that Mayweather and Mosley can beat Trinidad because what i learned form the Oscar fight is that Trinidad can be outboxed and he has no plain B if it does happen he has like no answer for it well he does have a answer to hit the guy in the balls. I think that Oscar would atleast try something different if he was Losing to Wright that fight was said to watch Trinidad looked like he never boxed before pluse at least Oscar did not call it quites after his first defeat. Then comes out of retirement only to quite again after getting dominated whast up with that.

As for damage goods might as well been that Oscar delt with them better the Trinidad did if not for that Bs decsion with Oscar and Trinidads fight. We would not even question who was the better fighter is i know Oscar is a way better boxer then Trinidad is i while tell you that.

i picked oscar because he won belts in 6 different divisions which is a hell of a achievment but tito was my favorite fighter out of both of them but oscar is more popular i mean come on he had a platinum album now what fighter does that. hmmm i just realized hopkins kod both of them haaa how crazy is that

I'd pick Oscar, 6 world titles even though he lost a few fights is quite good going

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr140

Come one now that is a bit one sided Rookie remeber that Oscar started out in the sfw divison and he beat alot of names before he even got to welterweight division. Say what you want about Oscar but he was never dominated as bad as Trinidad atleast in my eyes. Pound for Pound i say Oscar better then Trinidad is pluse i think every one Oscar lost to could beat Trindad. Yea i am saying that Mayweather and Mosley can beat Trinidad because what i learned form the Oscar fight is that Trinidad can be outboxed and he has no plain B if it does happen he has like no answer for it well he does have a answer to hit the guy in the balls. I think that Oscar would atleast try something different if he was Losing to Wright that fight was said to watch Trinidad looked like he never boxed before pluse at least Oscar did not call it quites after his first defeat. Then comes out of retirement only to quite again after getting dominated whast up with that.

---

I don't mean to be one sided in this argument. I honestly do have mad respect for Oscar. It just bothers me when people just diss Tito and say stuff like Oscar was obviously better yatta yatta. I do not agree that the guys who beat Oscar wou've beat Tito, not at Welterweight, and especially not at 154, but that is just my opinion. I can't say the same about Oscar.

I don't agree that Oscar did better than Tito on common opponents, as a matter of fact, for the most part it was the opposit.

I don't agree with saying Oscar was better simply because he won titles in 6 weight divisions. You really have to look deeper than that. One of those was against Sturm, another one of those was against Castillejo...

In the end the question is who had the better career and it is hard to say if any boxer in history had a better career than Oscar. But if you ask me who was the greater Fighter, I will always say Tito..

Oscar De La Hoya

[quote author=miles link=topic=31490.msg346322#msg346322 date=1147497111]
www.eastsideboxing.com

12.05.06 - By Bryce Wren, photo by David Martin Warr / DKP -- It started in 1994, when Felix Trinidad pounded out a unanimous decision against former multiple weight division champion Hector “Macho” Camacho. Little could the Puerto Rican slugger know that he had began paving the path to over a decade of “follow the leader” between the ropes. Trinidad had shown exactly how to beat Hector, -who was starting to decline as a fighter by that time- and a certain “golden boy” took note. It would be three years later that Oscar De la Hoya would finally feel comfortable in the knowledge that Macho Man’s speed and reflexes had all but perished, to finally fight Camacho. Much like Trinidad, Oscar was on offense and pressed Camacho. The unanimous decision was equally as one sided.

Also in 1994, Trinidad fought two other very talented former perennial contenders in Navajoa Mexico’s Yuri Boy Campas, and Detroit Cities, Oba Carr. Trinidad dominated and stopped them both, in the 4th and 8th rounds respectively.

In the middle of 1999, Oscar would get up the nerve to challenge Oba. Remarkably, it would take a lot more of a decline in Campas before Oscar would challenge the geriatric power puncher. De la Hoya waited for Yuri Boy to suffer four more stoppage losses and several more wearing wars before he would fight Campas. Unbelievably, even though many of Trinidad’s opponents were said to have been “ruined” by him, Tito had managed to stop both Carr and Campas sooner than the “Golden Boy” could. Taking four and eight rounds for Tito to seven and eleven for Oscar. These three fights would not be a short trend. De la Hoya would continue eating from Trinidad’s scraps for another ten years.

Fernando Vargas is a prime example of a talented fighter that was “ruined” by Felix. Maybe “ruined” is a bit harsh. He was “damaged”, anyway. He took an enormous beating by Trinidad, and even with a potential grudge fight with the Ferocious One, Oscar had to wait for a few tune ups from Vargas to ensure he was “shot” before taking him on in 2002.

Now clearly Oscar forgot the plan when he challenged former middleweight king Bernard Hopkins in 2004. I mean yes, this was a former Trinidad opponent, but Oscar should know, “you don’t fight the guys who win!”. Oscar learned the hard way, just as it was a given that any man Trinidad could walk through, could probably be out pointed or stopped later in a fight by De la Hoya, so did it go that anyone talented and powerful enough to beat Trinidad by an all night beat down could probably also stop Oscar earlier, with a lot less punishment. As if Tito’s victory decision over Oscar didn’t punctuate his superiority over his talented East Los Angeles rival, this just seemed to add more and more credence to the obvious conclusion. Trinidad was just better.

This past Saturday was just another chapter in the boxing version of “Beaches” with Oscar following Trinidad around singing “You are the wind beneath my wings”. Trinidad looked incredible during his first comeback fight in 2004 against tough slugger Ricardo Mayorga. Mayorga let his macho attitude get the best of him against Tito, and proved to be a fool by sticking out his chin for Tito to test. Trinidad obliged and hit Mayorga with two incredibly hard left hooks which the Nicaraguan never recovered from. It was impressive. It was also no surprise when the HBO crew aptly pointed out time and time again that the Golden Boy, Oscar De la Hoya, once again, was borrowing straight from the book, Felix Trinidad’s game plan for beating Ricardo Mayorga. Indeed, Everything from the way Oscar held his hands, to the way he threw his left hook was nearly a mirror image of what Felix had done in 2004.

Yes, it seems Oscar is completely obsessed with Trinidad. Hell, he even moved to Puerto Rico, Trinidad’s beloved homeland. I think a rematch, even now that Trinidad has re-re-retired would probably still be the largest payday for both men. I’m not sure that Oscar would have done any better against the Winky Wright that Tito was schooled by. So based on their last top level opponents, Hopkins and Mayorga, it seems that Trinidad is at least on par with the Golden Boy. Lets call for the rematch. I think both of them feel like there is unfinished business. Oscar isn’t capable of running for six rounds anymore, so we are guaranteed to see more fireworks. What does anybody have to lose? Let’s get it on!

[/quote]

Old article, but still worth posting once in awhile. Oscar may be the darling of the U.S. media, and will obviously never be judged objectively, but there's some tidbits on here that the general public does not know about, or wishes to ignore.

Alright since were on the subject your story for got to mention that Oscar started at SFW which i may add is 17 pounds and few division below. Also forgot to mention that Oscar beat more champion and title holders then Trinidad did . Also he held more titles in different divsion yet another thing forget to mention. And how did there fight show who was better most people thought Oscar won the fight so i dont get that comment. Say it again ever person that beat Oscar i say would do worse job on Trinidad. I think that Mosley and Mayweather would box circles round him and like always dont think that Trinidad would have a plan B he never seem to.

Without a single doubt in my mind, ODLH.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chamiley

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.

---

That is until Hopkins ripped out his liver. At least Trinidad lasted longer. I'm just being a contrarian; Oscar has definitely had the better career. I'm certain Oscar doesn't need to fight anymore, but Trinidad I'm not so sure. In Oscar's last few losses he was competitive against Mayweather, Hopkins and Mosley. Tito got blown out by Roy and Wright and was competitive against Hopkins.

I'd say Oscar based on his earnins and level of opposition. He was always an "event fighter." Still is. When he fights, its an event, but I don't like this version of Oscar because he is a cherry picker. :mad:

Well Homcal he is the only fighter that i say deserves to. He is Oscar De la hoya i mean you take Margrito and Cotto resumes and put them together they dont even come close to Oscar resumes and championships. I think that Oscar while face Margrito and i think it while be at 154 were i can see Oscar winning it maybe even by a stoppage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr140

Well Homcal he is the only fighter that i say deserves to. He is Oscar De la hoya i mean you take Margrito and Cotto resumes and put them together they dont even come close to Oscar resumes and championships. I think that Oscar while face Margrito and i think it while be at 154 were i can see Oscar winning it maybe even by a stoppage.

---

I too think that ODLH would beat Marg but maybe not by stoppage. People seem to forget that Oscar has great punch resistence of his own and his boxing skills outshine Tony by miles. I'd also give the punch power to Oscar so to me he would have too much in his favour against Marg.