Oscar De La Hoya and controversial fights

During his career, both for and against, Oscar de La Hoya had a series of controversial decisions:

vs Pernell Whitaker,
vs Ike Quartey,
vs Felix Trinidad,
vs Shane Mosley II,
vs Felx Sturm,
vs Floyd Mayweather.

What is your take on these fights? Which did he really 'win'? Which did he really 'lose'?

Of the ones listed Sam I had him winning Trinidad but should add this with the caveat that knowing how Vegas judges like aggression getting on his bike for the last few rounds was pretty dumb and so he can't have too many complaints.

Would also add considered the Sturm win a complete gift. Felt he lost Mayweather pretty clearly and whilst not a robbery the Whitaker fight could have gone either way.

I feel the Mayweather one wasnt really a hard decision for the judges - Oscar connected mostly on floyds arms and shoulders whearas Floyd landed the cleaner accurate punches throughout the fight.

Would have been a bit closer if Oscar didnt stop using his jab but there you go.

samevans1 wrote:During his career, both for and against, Oscar de La Hoya had a series of controversial decisions:

vs Pernell Whitaker,
vs Ike Quartey,
vs Felix Trinidad,
vs Shane Mosley II,
vs Felx Sturm,
vs Floyd Mayweather.

What is your take on these fights? Which did he really 'win'? Which did he really 'lose'?

I had Whittaker, Quartey, Mayweather, Strum winning. Oscar for me won SSM II and Trinidad fights.

Of the ones listed Sam I had him winning Trinidad but should add this with the caveat that knowing how Vegas judges like aggression getting on his bike for the last few rounds was pretty dumb and so he can't have too many complaints.
*****************************************
He can if you consider the fact that many impartial observers had him clearly winning the first eight rounds. Not a great one for maths but I'm certain four isn't greater than eight.

Even Oscar didn't think he won the Sturm fight and was embarrassed to be given the nod in that one.

Thought the Quartey fight was a fair result. Rather dull apart from the the three flurries of action in about round four, eight and twelve

Dazstarr wrote:I feel the Mayweather one wasnt really a hard decision for the judges - Oscar connected mostly on floyds arms and shoulders whearas Floyd landed the cleaner accurate punches throughout the fight.

Would have been a bit closer if Oscar didnt stop using his jab but there you go.

Maybe Floyd took away his jab.

Dave totally agree he won that one, but unless he was gassed totally, which given the pace of the fight was not exactly electric can only think his decision to coast in the last few rounds was a massive miscalculation.

During his career, both for and against, Oscar de La Hoya had a series of controversial decisions:

vs Pernell Whitaker,
vs Ike Quartey,
vs Felix Trinidad,
vs Shane Mosley II,
vs Felx Sturm,
vs Floyd Mayweather.

What is your take on these fights? Which did he really 'win'? Which did he really 'lose'?

samevans1

Posts: 47
Join date: 2011-02-24


________________________________

Sam

vs Whitaker: I believe I had Pernell nicking that one by the odd round but it was so close, you couldnt argue the decision either way.

vs Quartey: I believe Oscar was the correct winner, the last round sealed it for me, Quartey just didnt show enough devil to snatch it from house fighter at the time.

vs Trinidad At the time I had Oscar beating Trinidad but I re-watched it not so long back and I could see why Felix got the nod, as Jeff alluded too the last 4 rounds on his bike was criminal really.


vs Mosley 2: I think if you switch the UK commentary off, I think many may see the fight differently, again looked like an Oscar win, but in reality re-watching it, Mosley landed the sterner shots, it could've went either way IMO.

vs Sturm: Only seen the fight once and I thought Sturm was a winner and very hard done by.

vs Mayweather: Although I would love to make a case for Oscar, as can't abide Floyd as a personality, Oscar lost by a good 5 rounds IMO. Just didnt do enough, clearly out boxed IMO.

Nice one Sam


Cheers

Rodders

Against Floyd - the only defence he had was that he was the 'champion' and that you have to go and take the belt off the champion - which Floyd did not do.

However - Floyd clearly outboxed him so he can't have too many complaints.

Jeff, he WAS gassed, he said so.Although he has gone on record as saying that advise from the corner was to backpedal, he also said that he can't pin the blame on them,which was big of him.Don't know if you have read "American Son" (nice pitch to distance himself from the Mexican thing ,there!),it's no "No Ordinary Joe," but it's still pretty good.
Generally comes across as modest and bright,admits to not deserving the nod for the Sturm fight.
He does come out with a zinger of an excuse for the Moseley fight,however,which is that he was feeling poorly cos he had binged on oysters the night before the fight.

For me Sturm was a clear winner and it was embarrasing to say the least, the Whitaker and Quartey fights were closer although done enough to get the nod in my view, he was The Golden Boy for more than one reason and am sure HBO and the like would have had millions invested in him

it's no "No Ordinary Joe
______________________________________________________

What is Andy, the combined literery works of Mailer, Amis and Shakespeare would struggle to live up to such work. Have not read American Son but have to admit it shows class to admit he lost the Sturm fight.

This is the problem though that I have with ranking Oscar as high as many do and that is is unhappy knack of finding ways to lose the big ones. Admire his willingness to take such fights but for a guy held in such esteem would like to see him get a few more of those fights in the W column

I think that's one of the reasons I started this thread; because so many of his biggest fights were close/could be argued either way.

Will post my own verdict later; about to have a class.

Jeff Although In american son, he admitted about Sturm, he did offer an excuse for every defeat which really rubs me up the wrong way with fighters at time, I appreciate sometimes it maybe genuine but I've always been a firm believer when you step through the ropes, excuses out of the window.

Oysters it was for Mosley I, Shane being juiced up for the second fight, complete robbery for Trinidad, shoulder went against Floyd and was unable to neutralise his jab in the 2nd half of the fight, went further to say couldn't understand how Mayweather kayoed Hatton as he had absolute no power whatsoever.

I do like Oscar, but sometimes don't believe everything he says.

Cheers

Rodders

Rodney wrote:Jeff Although In american son, he admitted about Sturm, he did offer an excuse for every defeat which really rubs me up the wrong way with fighters at time, I appreciate sometimes it maybe genuine but I've always been a firm believer when you step through the ropes, excuses out of the window.

Oysters it was for Mosley I, Shane being juiced up for the second fight, complete robbery for Trinidad, shoulder went against Floyd and was unable to neutralise his jab in the 2nd half of the fight, went further to say couldn't understand how Mayweather kayoed Hatton as he had absolute no power whatsoever.

I do like Oscar, but sometimes don't believe everything he says.

Cheers

Rodders

Very occassionally a top boxer would admit to losing to a better man. The reason being top class believe themselves to be the best and defeat is the last thing they will ever accept either before, during or after the fight. They convince themselves their lies/reasons are genuine. Self reflection is not one of their strong points. I remember Ali claiming he was robbed after the first Frazier fight.

Thought that Rodders because there was an article in Boxing Monthly some time ago where he basically whinged about every loss he ever had apart from Sturm and thought he came across a bit badly because whilst a few of his losses such as Trinidad are debatable I struggle to think of a fight where he has been on th wrong end of an absolute travesty and in the likes of Pernell and Quartey he has benefitted as often as he has suffered. But as I have not read American son cannot comment too much on the content.

rowley wrote:Thought that Rodders because there was an article in Boxing Monthly some time ago where he basically whinged about every loss he ever had apart from Sturm and thought he came across a bit badly because whilst a few of his losses such as Trinidad are debatable I struggle to think of a fight where he has been on th wrong end of an absolute travesty and in the likes of Pernell and Quartey he has benefitted as often as he has suffered. But as I have not read American son cannot comment too much on the content.

Sounds the same Jeff, understand its sometimes difficult to accept the loss is down too just simply being beaten by the better man, but find it increasingly annoying that fighters having an excuse for every single performance.

Cheers

Rodders

He stopped using the jab because Mayweather COUNTERED IT. Oscar kept getting smacked it in the face once Mayweather adjusted which is why he stopped throwing it. The fight never in a million years was close

Shantel Jackson Boyfriend wrote:He stopped using the jab because Mayweather COUNTERED IT. Oscar kept getting smacked it in the face once Mayweather adjusted which is why he stopped throwing it. The fight never in a million years was close

I thought you were Floyd, in that case you should've said I countered it.

Rodders

I thought you were Floyd, in that case you should've said I countered it.
_____________________________________________________

In all fairness Rodders Floyd is a big enough clown to talk about himself in the third person, although would concede doing so on a forum would be strange even for him.

Thought he beat Whitaker by a point. Pernell made him look bad, but did too much clowning and gave away too many rounds.

De La Hoya by a point.

Quartey was an excellent fighter and is vastly underrated. He had one of the best jabs of the past twenty years and gave De La Hoya real problems. However, De La Hoya scored two knockdowns to his one and came close to stopping him in the final round. I had De La Hoya winning this one by two points, with the final round. I still believe to this day that this was his best ever win.

http://theboxingtribune.com/2010/08/controversial-fight-series-sturm-de-la-hoya/

An interesting take on the De La Hoya Sturm fight.

Deleted

Oscar was a part time boxer when he fought Floyd and became a one handed boxer also yet he still pushed Floyd hard.
________________________________________________________

But was the peak of physical fitness second only to King Kong in strength and toughness when Manny faced it yada yada yada. We get it D4, please please please give it a rest. It was tired on 606 it has not become any less tired with the migration to a new site.

Jeff ,again I see what you mean with ODL, my first ever article on old 606 site was a long discourse on the subject of Oscar not winning the big 'uns. Boy did that go down like Billy Connolly at a war-widow conference.Got labelled a "troll" which was kinda cool though.Earned me plenty of 1stars too,ah dem were the days...
Must admit to have lessened my hardline stance on Oscar, I think he was a great but will always have to disagree when he's put in a top 30 p4p list.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/U14475491

My first, and possibly best article...hidden here ; couldn't link *directly* : but you will see "Golden Boy was never truly Great" if you look at the main articles section.

Will definitely read it if I get a few minutes later on.

oxring wrote:Against Floyd - the only defence he had was that he was the 'champion' and that you have to go and take the belt off the champion - which Floyd did not do.

However - Floyd clearly outboxed him so he can't have too many complaints.

lol

That does seem like a massive contradiction!

I had De la Hoya nicking the Quartey fight by a couple of rounds, with that twelfth round knockdown he scored being the key factor. Obviously he was caught out in the sixth (they both were) but that round aside, De la Hoya did a good job of avoiding Quartey's murderous punching.

Had him edging the Whitaker bout, too, and have never really understood the uproar regarding the result. You can certainly make a claim that Whitaker edged it too, as it was very close, but the way some Whitaker fans talk, they'd have you believe that De la Hoya was the forerunner for Ottke.

I think he edged Mosley by the finest of margins, and as for the Trinidad fight, well I've been pretty clear on that one numerous times. De la Hoya, in my eyes, won that fight 115-113, but at the same time he only has himself to blame. Vegas judges are notorious for rewarding aggression, even if it's not all that effective, and by getting on his bike for the last four rounds De la Hoya gave the judges a reason. A bad mistake for De la Hoya, and without a doubt the defeat which damages his legacy the most, for me.

Against Sturm, I think everyone pretty much accepts that De la Hoya got away with murder that night. I'm not a fan of Sturm but he got shafted that night, he won 116-112 in my memory and De la Hoya's face at the end said it all to me. The Pacquiao fight aside, I've never seen De la Hoya look so flat - he never got to work behind a jab and simply couldn't find a way to land his big left. But alas, the 'mega fight' with Hopkins was on the horizon, and that's what saved his bacon. Sturm was going to have to knock him out to win that night.

As for the Mayweather fight, are people really still debating this? I can't fathom out how anyone can give De la Hoya more than four rounds, never mind enough to win. Mayweather dominated the final half of the fight, the only 'controversy' as far as I'm concerned is that one of the judges somehow found a way to score it to De la Hoya.

Deleted

Fair enough D4, but let's not forget that if we took everything Floyd Sr says as gospel, we'd all have a very different view of your beloved Manny Pacquio right now!

Anyhow, regardless of what ol' Floydy said, I'm sure that you personally would agree that De la Hoya didn't do enough to win that fight, even if he was facing a man who you hate with a passion?

Deleted

D4thincarnation wrote:I had Floyd by 2-3 rounds, but if a part-time, past it, Oscar, that couldn't pull the trigger no more with the right could push Floyd like that, then a prime Oscar beats Floyd.

Wouldn't you agree?

No. Not as quick, skilful or intelligent as mayweather, lost virtually every big fight he had.

If he was past it and part time when he fought Floyd, then was he even more past it and part time a year and a half later when he weighed in at 145lb to fight Manny?

Deleted

Sugar Boy, don't put yourself through the torment of challenging D4's logic. Thanks D4, you agree that Mayweather beat De la Hoya. That's what the question was.

Deleted

D4thincarnation wrote:

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:I had Floyd by 2-3 rounds, but if a part-time, past it, Oscar, that couldn't pull the trigger no more with the right could push Floyd like that, then a prime Oscar beats Floyd.

Wouldn't you agree?

No. Not as quick, skilful or intelligent as mayweather, lost virtually every big fight he had.

If he was past it and part time when he fought Floyd, then was he even more past it and part time a year and a half later when he weighed in at 145lb to fight Manny?

Oscar didn't push Manny to a SD now did he. And Manny also jumped 3 weights in a year to make the fight and still put on a master class and joined Hopkins a light-heavy now to stop Oscar.

That wasn't the question. Was he past it and part time when he fought manny?

Deleted

D4thincarnation wrote:Oscar was a great champion, never ducked a fight, took on great fighters, had some great fights.

He was a 6 weight world champ, a boxing icon and was only ever outclassed by Pacquiao at the end of his career.

"Floyding" the question D4? Was he past it when he fought manny?

Deleted

D4thincarnation wrote:

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:

That wasn't the question. Was he past it and part time when he fought manny?

Yes, and Manny put on a show, Floyd sneaked a win past a past it Oscar.

I suppose thats the difference between greatness and pretenders to greatness.

Thanks D4, the 'yes' was all I was looking for. The rest is just your usual skewed manny sack sucking drivel, but at least you admit Oscar was washed up. 18 months more washed up and 10lb lighter than when he fought floyd in fact. For a moment I thought you were gonna suggest he'd been drinking from the same magic fountain of youth that mosley has since floyd schooled him...

Deleted

D4thincarnation wrote:Oscar was past his best, he still would have given the like of Cotto a good fight at 147lbs and pushed Mayweather till the championships rounds, but Manny is not your average fighter and schooled Oscar.

Don't you think a prime Oscar beat Floyd?

No I don't, as I answered a few posts ago. A prime Oscar wouldn't beat manny either.

Against Pacquiao a prime Oscar does what he did to Trinidad but in the knowledge he needs to fight to the end, against Mayweather i'm not too sure. People seem to be forgetting how damm good the Welterweights were back at the turn of the century. De La Hoya, Mosley, Trinidad and Quartey trump Cotto, Margarito, Clottey and A faded Mosley. This isn't a dig at Pacquiao at all to make that clear, it seems that history hasn't been too kind to those guys in the eyes of many fans.

We're talking about 3 Welterweights who would be all in my opinion be in the top 20 whereas none of todays lot would.

The De la Hoya of 1997-1999 would have been a handful for anybody at Welterweight.

And his wins over Whitaker and Quartey for me are both better than the level of opposition Mayweather and Pacquiao have beaten at Welterweight. I will rewatch some of the three's fights at the weight before coming up with whether De la hoya could have beaten them later.