Who had the better career Tito or De La Hoya?

[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.

[The Fightfan]

I picked De La Hoya.

[Althugz]

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.

[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.

[Puerto Rican Punch]

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 )

[Master]

I believe Tito is the better fighter of the two, especially if they fought at light middle but ODH has a better legacy.

[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 )

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.

[DaxxKahn]

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....

[GAME]

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 .

[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.

[Beanflicker]

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.

[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.

[ICB]

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.

[ICB]

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.

This is how i had the fights.

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