Who had the better career Tito or De La Hoya?

[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.

[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.

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.

If you thought Ali won some decisions that he didn't deserve, then by all means you should factor that into the way you rank him.
If you have to go by judging decisions and can't factor in your opinion, then what's the point of being an educated boxing fan?

[ICB]

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.

If you thought Ali won some decisions that he didn't deserve, then by all means you should factor that into the way you rank him.
If you have to go by judging decisions and can't factor in your opinion, then what's the point of being an educated boxing fan?

I just think its slightly unfair Sweetpea that if you saw a ODLH fight or etc, and you only had that boxer or ODLH or whatever, only losing by 1 point i think its unfair to rate him lower, unless it was a robbery decision. I heard SRR had many gift decisions in his career so if i saw say 10 of his controversial decisions and i say he lost 4 out of the 10, but i only had him losing by razor thin 1 point, and it could of gone either way based on the rounds being too close to call, should i then say he shouldn't be greatest P4P fighter ever ?? based on winning a few controversial decisions that were too close too call ?? Many of the greatest fighters had plenty of close controversial decisions that could of gone either way, like i said earlier i just think its slightly unfair to rate them lower unless it was a robbery decision. And out of all ODLH's fights i could of had him winning every single one of those fights except the Sturm fight, but i give him benefit of the doubt in that fight because ODLH was poorly conditioned.

[TitoFan]

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.