Who had the better career Tito or De La Hoya?

[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.

[Puerto Rican Punch]

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 )[/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 ). 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.