Who had the better career Tito or De La Hoya?

[Bookkeeper]

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

[Master]

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.

[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.

[Kev]

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.

[Bomp]

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.

[Pugilistic]

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

[Tins06]

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.

[Macho]

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.......

[bzkfn]

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.

[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.

[donnydarkoIRL]

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.

[ICB]

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.

[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.

[donnydarkoIRL]

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.

[Puya]

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