Who had the better career Tito or De La Hoya?

[Mikkel_K]

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

I think most people will answer this question the same way they would answer the question "who won between Tito or De La Hoya?"

I for one is no different. And I go with De La Hoya.

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.

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.

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))

[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.

[C-Lo]

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...

[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.

[JLAQ]

Sadly, Tito was only as good as his handwraps.

[bikersk]

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.

[Beanflicker]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.