Who had the better career Tito or De La Hoya?

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