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
Printable View
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rican
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboThe difference for me though is that Oscar was always competitive in his fights, and a couple of those he lost many thought he won.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rican
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.
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.
I'm a big fan of Tito , he was a devastating boxer that won at his most opponent and is no doubt that he had a good career , but I'm going with Oscar despite of this Year i think that he should to retire.......:cool:
http://aycu17.webshots.com/image/476...3443183_rs.jpg
I went with Oscar because I believe his achievements eclipse that of Tito's. I have more respect for Tito though because he always takes the hardest fights. I just wish Tito vs. Mosley had happened.
If we base it purely on achievements than it is obciously Oscar.
But IMO Tito was the greater fighter and certanly the more dominant champion. Before the fight with Oscar, Tito had not even had close fight. He destroyed every top WW contender way before DLH ever got in the ring with them. The sole exeption being Whitaker.
Yes he was made to look bad by Winky but I don't think Oscar would've looked much better. Think Felix Sturm times ten.... For about 6 rounds Tito was competitive with RJJ for crying out lowd.
Oscar had the better career but it was only because he made the better choices and was by far the smarter man outside the ring.
I don't think you can criticise Oscar's choice of opponents, for my money only Evander Holyfield has fought as much top level opposition as Oscar in the last 20 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by bzkfn
His resume in terms of top opponents fought is one of the greatest in the history of the sport.
The answer to this question depends on how you define success.
If success if defined in terms of money, then De La Hoya had a better carrer. Although, Tito did very good money, only a few boxers like Tyson or Holyfield can compete (boxing earnings).
But in the other hand, De La Hoya really tried to influence the Mexican fans and tried to become a national hero. Trying to achieve this goal he beat an old, worn out Chavez, which I believe hurt more. If you measure Tito's success in this area there is NO WAY De La Hoya will be close to Tito. Tito really became a national hero, he paralized and made a whole country to merge forgetting any type of differences. Every Tito's fight was a national event, full of emotions (recognizing his clear losses). Cotto is on his way, but definitely not at this level yet on the island.
De La Hoya has his trade mark of "Golden Boy", but I am sure he and any other boxer can be jelous of this type of Tito's success that very few people had achieved.
I didn't mean to knock Oscar as he really has give us plenty of megafights throughout the years. I always felt he dodged Winky though. And Oscar is comebacking against Stevie Forbes, were Tito went up against a heavier more active fighter in Jones. I am surprised Oscar hasn't asked to rematch Tito. For me it is worth the gamble to move up to 168 for a 1 off fight with Tito to end his career.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboI don't think you can criticise Oscar's choice of opponents, for my money only Evander Holyfield has fought as much top level opposition as Oscar in the last 20 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by bzkfn
His resume in terms of top opponents fought is one of the greatest in the history of the sport.
I think most people will answer this question the same way they would answer the question "who won between Tito or De La Hoya?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookkeeper
I for one is no different. And I go with De La Hoya.
I'd go for De La Hoya
Results below are my opinions not the judges
Wins
Vargas
Trinidad
Whitaker (maybe a draw though)
Mosley (II)
JCC (shot though)
Losses
Quartey
Mosley (I)
Sturm
B-Hop
PBF
I agree that most will answer this question by looking at their fight. But I don't agree that that is how it should be done. In fact, to be fair, I think their fight together should be excluded from this debate since it was really a low point on both of their careers. In their career defining moment at the very peak of their game they both choked and both of their stocks plumeted that day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikkel_KI think most people will answer this question the same way they would answer the question "who won between Tito or De La Hoya?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookkeeper
I for one is no different. And I go with De La Hoya.
My vote went to ODH!!
Someone to achieve belts in different weight div.and stay champ says alot and it's VERY impressive.
I give my respect to TITO but i believe he only stood at one weight div. not quite sure but if any one can show me any statistics that would be great.
So there you have it.....CHEERS!!!
I picked De La Hoya.
De La Hoya for me all day long...I didn't even look at resumes, big fights etc. I just stripped it to the bare bones of boxing ability and Oscar takes Tito all day every day. He had a lot more skill, wasn't as one dimensional and had K.O power to boot. At this stage in his career he was still competitive against the number 1 pound for pound fighter in the world and is still the biggest draw in boxing. Nuff said.
It is gonna depend on what people define as a better career but you'd be hard pressed to find an area where Tito was better than Oscar. Whether it be money, competition, achievements and boxing ability.
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.
I don't think it is even close...Tito was a great fighter but his resume pales in comparison to DLH...did Oscar lose many of his big fights? sure but he was never dominated but by B-Hop as was Triniadad...also DLH came back to fight again calling out the best he could after losses...Tito retired...(Lets save the excuses why... fact is fact)...DLH has won world titles in more divisions and spent more time in the rankings over all.....
Don't get me wrong I am not saying anything bad about Tito I was a big fan until the second retirement after Winky beat him...IMO he did not do what a great fighter does and pick himself up to fight again...He was still in his prime years...
It will be hard 20 yrs from now or even today to find a more successful fighter in the ring then DLH....
Very hard to call but I had to go with Tito in the end cuz De La Hoya lost too many fights in his prime . Tito only lost once IMO . The other two were when he was washed up and semi retired .
I dont think that their fight should necessarily be the way to jugde their careers, I merely think how you view that fight may very well reflect on the career question as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rookie FanI agree that most will answer this question by looking at their fight. But I don't agree that that is how it should be done. In fact, to be fair, I think their fight together should be excluded from this debate since it was really a low point on both of their careers. In their career defining moment at the very peak of their game they both choked and both of their stocks plumeted that day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikkel_KI think most people will answer this question the same way they would answer the question "who won between Tito or De La Hoya?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookkeeper
I for one is no different. And I go with De La Hoya.
One unmentioned thing that De La Hoya has going for him as well is that he could actually still manage to win a title. I don't believe Tito would be able to do that (also because he'd be unlikely to come down to his best weight(s))
De La Hoya is a great fighter that I admire, but just want to make some comments on some De La Hoya's "victories":Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
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:)
I believe Tito is the better fighter of the two, especially if they fought at light middle but ODH has a better legacy.
Oscar has had the better career but is in serious need of retirement! He was once a great fighter but enough is enough. Oscar De La Hoya, the promoter, is great for the sport, but Oscar De La Hoya, the boxer, needs to hang up his gloves.
He's getting the fights he wants because of his name. He's LOST 3 of his last 5 fights (4 of his last 5 cause I don't think many thought he beat Sturm). If that was anyone else, he'd be fighting no namers on ESPN...
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.
Sadly, Tito was only as good as his handwraps.
Career's are not measured by the battles one fights. Careers are measured by success. So are we talking success in the ring or success in the boxing industry? Success in the ring can be debated but success in the boxing industry Oscar wins hands down. He is now one of the most influential people in boxing. Tito has nothing more to offer than the occasional fight against some other former great.
If you factor EVERYTHING in, I don't think there was ever a boxer who had a career as good as De La Hoya's. Guys like Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Robinson, Tommy Hearns, ect achieved a higher level of greatness in history, but look at the toll it took on them. Look how long it took them to become stars. Oscar was a star before he fought his first pro fight. Look at the level of popularity he achieved. Look at the championships he won. Look at the MONEY he made per fight. Look at how he still has his health despite boxing for 16 years professionally. Look at how he parlayed his success in boxing into other areas, particularily promoting. Oscar is one of the few guys that BEAT boxing IMO. Lots of guys have success and make a ton of money in boxing, but boxing catches up with them and takes its toll.
That being said, Tito has had an awesome career as well. Not living in Peurto Rico, its hard for me to determine the actual level of popularity he's reached over there, but I dont think he has reached the level of DLH.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
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.
This is how i had the fights.Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
ODLH vs Whitaker = Draw
ODLH vs Quartey = Quartey
ODLH vs Mosley 1 = Mosley
ODLH vs Mosley 2 = ODLH
ODLH vs Sturm = Sturm
ODLH vs Tito = Draw