Divided loyalties

First topic message reminder :

I've watched plenty of fights like cleverley bellew where I wanted both fighters to lose. Far fewer where I wanted both guys to win for different reasons? I felt a bit that way with Saunders Eubank.

The most divided I've been was back in 1985 where commonwealth welter champion sylvester mittee met european champion Lloyd honeyghan. Mittee was charismatic and a really likeable guy. I'm not convinced even his mother liked honeyghan. At the same time it was clear that mittee had probably found his level, while there were hopes honey could go on to better things.

I decided I hoped honey would win, but that mittee would go the distance and give a creditable performance. As it happened honey won pretty conclusively inside the distance and I found it hard to watch. The following year he went on to beat don curry in a fight that broke truss' heart. I was a bit of a curry fan at the time, but didn't have the same dilemma for that one.

Any fights that have left you with divided loyalties?

DAVE667 wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:If Haye does come back in 2015 then considering his last fight would have been summer 2012 and he's had serious surgery on his main boxing attribute there's no guarantee he'll be any form of a force whatsoever... if he ever was at heavy?

Still more than enough to deal with a chump like Fury

You probably have a point but I wonder how Haye would deal with that jab/flicky slap for 12 rounds?  Divided loyalty for me as would like Haye to knock him out but would rather see Fury v Wlad than Haye v Wlad 2 any day!!!

If Fury tries to do it whilst pretending to be a southpaw, he gets taken out inside four rounds....if he tries it as an orthodox fighter, Haye beats him by round seven

I admire your confidence.  I have to admit that despite not being a Fury fan the way he stayed completely out of trouble for 10 rounds against a guy that would have loved nothing more than to barrel in and have a fight did make me reassess him a little.  Haye obviously has more finesse, skill, better movement and hits harder than Chisora ( I'm stating the obvious ) but he doesn't risk much against taller men imo.  Valuev and Wlad are distinctly obvious examples where he's stayed out of range for long periods whilst waiting for openings.  It largely worked against Valuev but given where he was fighting I thought his relying on the judges to that degree was risky.  I think Haye would be favourite but Fury would be cautious enough to keep Haye at bay for large periods behind that jab, making it far more tricky than I first thought.

88Chris05 wrote:I don't really disagree with too much of what you've said, Haz, because Trinidad's record whichever way you slice it shows that he was a superb fighter and as you say he was more or less always great value for money; his wars with Campas and Vargas were brilliant and in fairness the fights against Oscar and Vargas were pretty close to 'mega fight' status, the kind of ballsy fights we're not seeing enough guys willing to take at the moment.

The down side, which probably still rankles with people, is that he was elevated in to the pound for pound race (to some people he was even briefly number one) largely on the back of the De la Hoya verdict, which very few think he was good value for. Getting Camacho and Whitaker at an opportune time when they were over the hill, as well as the fact that he built up a mean demeanour by permanently taking something away from young budding stars such as Reid and Vargas, helped make him a bit of a pantomime villain to a lot of people as well, I guess.

Odd thing about Tito was that, for five years between 1993 and 1998, he was seen as a bit of a protected fighter who was being carefully steered by King to milk his IBF belt for as long as possible - and even then he had plenty of shaky moments. All of a sudden, when King finally let his fighters appear on HBO again and let Tito off the leash a bit against Whitaker, he was seldom out of a risky match up rather than seldom in one which had been the case beforehand.

Agree with Hammersmith about how exciting those times were between 147 and 154. For about two or three years there was a phenomenal amount of talent crammed in to those weight classes. I mean, Winky versus Vargas was a brilliant fight, but there were so many highlight moments and big fights / fighters there at the time that it hardly gets a mention.

Personally I can't see a case for Tito in the Oscar fight, Haz. Sure, it could certainly be made in to a close one - in fact it was close using the ten point must system. But I think it's just impossible to give Trinidad any more than two of the first nine rounds. He was the only guy fighting in rounds ten to twelve, fair enough, but it should have been mathematically impossible for him to have won by that stage without a 10-8 round chucked in - which he didn't get.

Maybe, just maybe, if you gave Trinidad the benefit of the doubt here and there you could make it a draw - but that still would have been kinder to Trinidad than De la Hoya, I feel. Just can't see how Trinidad won it outright, though.

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot less sympathy for De la Hoya than I normally would, because he helped bring it on himself with that terrible showing in the last three rounds. But if you win seven rounds and don't get knocked down or nearly stopped in any others, you should get the nod regardless of that.

I watched it without HBO commentary a couple of years ago, which was ridiculously skewed towards Oscar. Foreman was abysmal - it's worth reviewing just for laughs. Only Merchant called it straight. Saying that, I'm a huge Tito fan - so who knows what part that plays on a scorer?

I always seemed to score against Oscar - I didn't care for his flurries full of punches that usually missed. I thought Tito won and shared a round in the first half, and edged the second half. Saying that, the stakes were so high that neither delivered on the night. It was a poor show.

Back in the 90s, Oscar and Tito were accused of being protected. King and Arum knew they were building towards a showdown between both fighters and protected/milked them in the run up. Oscar, like Floyd to an extent now, held all the aces. He was the guy everyone wanted to fight and so the aim was to keep winning, keep hold of a belt and wait for a shot.

Like the heavyweight division at that time there were quality fighters but we missed out on a fair few great fights (Trinidad vs Quartey, for example).

Can honestly say that I've never watched it with any commentary, Haz - just something I tend to do (mute the sound) when I watch an old fight back and it's one where you've got a mind to score it. I agree that most things Foreman said in the HBO box can be taken with a pinch of salt - although from memory, didn't Lederman have it a draw and didn't Foreman acknowledge that it was very, very close after De la Hoya gift-wrapped the last three rounds for Trinidad? Doesn't sound like a scorching case of bias from HBO to me.

Interestingly, the Sky team were very much at odds with the general consensus of the boxing public - Eubank had it a draw, McCrory and Watt both had it by one to Trinidad, and most bizarrely of all McGuigan had it to Trinidad by three rounds! Mind you, you only need to glance at a McGuigan card to realise that he'll go with the guy wading forward and looking mean almost every time if he can.

I saw a little interview with Harold Lederman (I haven't really rated him in recent terms and feel he's returned some odd cards in the last few years, but he's still a major influence in this respect) a while back in which he was asked if he's ever seen a fight for a second time and found himself disagreeing with his original score, or giving a close fight that he gave to fighter A on the night to fighter B when he's seen it again. He answered that he's never, ever done this, not even once, because "your first score is always your best score." Went on to say that it doesn't matter how fair or impartial you think you're being, if you know the result of a fight in advance it'll always cloud your scoring, even if it's only by a slither.

Can't say I agree with him, but interesting to see what other people think of this all the same. Surely we've all had the odd fight which we scored to one fighter when we first saw it but had it to the other guy second time out, or felt that a fight was a bit closer / wider than we initially did after a second viewing, even if our winner didn't change?

I've watched it at least five times and If anyone can tell me the seven rounds he won I'd love to know..

Complete shocker....Oscar is a smart fighter the last three rounds was a sign he didn't even think twice about seven rounds being close..

But on current standards probably a half decent decision...

Here we go:

1. Nothing round: Trinidad lands more jabs, Oscar lets off a couple of bursts and does nothing more. Foreman says that Trinidad should rush Oscar before saying it would be foolish for Trinidad to rush Oscar. 10-10.
2. Trinidad lands series of long rights and two stiff left hooks against a couple of stiff jabs and a good burst on the bell. Foreman says Trinidad is struggling due to the size of Oscar's shoulders. 20-19 Trinidad.
3. Beautiful boxing from Oscar - hard, accurate flurries carry the round (first clear round). 29-29.
4. Trinidad lands some corking left hooks and right hands but Oscar just out fences him. Foreman calls Tito "Oscar Trinidad". Merchant begins bullying him. 39-38 Oscar.
5. Oscar takes round with two flurries but Trinidad is making him work incredibly hard by exerting relentless pressure. Foreman talks gibberish throughout. 49-47 Oscar.
6. Oscar nicks round in last 30 seconds. Only other flurry before that missed. Tito lands hard right hands which are ignored. Lampley calls it a "tremendous scoring round" for Oscar (?). 59-56 Oscar.
7. Oscar takes another round in last 30 seconds. Not a lot happening. Lampley gets his handbag out when Merchant suggests the crowd are booing De la Hoya. 69-65 Oscar.
8. Oscar tiring. Flurries but is missing (Lampley has basically gone Nick Halling at this point). Trinidad lands corking left hook downstairs and then up - steady pressure to steal round. 78-75 Oscar.
9. Oscar starts the round with blistering salvo. Tito begins landing huge, accurate punches - ignored by HBO team. Eventually, Merchant puts them right (Lampley basically creamed himself at this point). 87-85 Oscar.
10. Oscar knackered. Tito starts picking him apart. 96-95 Oscar.
11. Oscar exhausted. Just running now. Tito gathering steam. Foreman begs him to throw punches. 105-105.
12. Tito belts Oscar around the ring. Lampley doesn't call any of it.

Winner: 115-114 Tito Trinidad.

Some guy had Cleverley beating Bellew..

So its all about opinion....

Clear seven rounds for Oscar to me but Trinidad got the opinions that counted..

I can see 7-5 to Oscar. I can also see Tito nicking it or a draw. Clearly, though, it wasn't a robbery. It seems to have become a myth over the years that Oscar was somehow robbed - which just isn't realistic.

Although Oscar was a little hard done by on this occasions, like many fighters he had the rub of green once in a while too. In an overall view of his career it's probably fair to say his decision wins and losses panned out about right.

Got my own sketchy bits from this fight at hand too, Haz. For comparison....

R1: Agree entirely that this was an even round. 10-10.
R2: Thought De la Hoya clearly did the better work. 10-9 Oscar (20-19 Oscar)
R3: Even clearer for De la Hoya, Trinidad doesn't really get a look in. 10-9 Oscar (30-28 Oscar)
R4: Closer round as you say but still can't make a case for Trinidad. 10-9 Oscar (40-37 Oscar)
R5: Like you, I saw Oscar flurrying to catch the eye....But I felt they were too little, too late and that Tito had the best of it, starting to find the range a bit more. 10-9 Trinidad (49-47 to Oscar)
R6: Pretty clear one for Oscar in my eyes. 10-9 Oscar (59-56 Oscar)
R7: De la Hoya is making Trinidad waste a lot more shots and does enough clean jabbing to take the round, but there is a hint of tiredness creeping in to his work and Trinidad is starting to get through. 10-9 Oscar (69-65 Oscar)
R8: Similar to round 7. A better Trinidad round, but still Oscar does enough - just. 10-9 Oscar (79-74 Oscar)
R9: De la Hoya becoming more and more back-foot, but he's still the only landing really crisp shots. I think he scores the more meaningful shots with his flurries and counters as Trinidad, moving forward though he is, is having trouble getting set to land anything worthwhile. 10-9 Oscar (89-83 Oscar)
R10: Trinidad finally starts matching that forward march with some heavy and clean shots. De la Hoya very negative. 10-9 Trinidad (98-93 Oscar)
R11: It's not really effective aggression from Trinidad, but he's the only one showing any aggression at all. Ridiculously negative from De la Hoya. 10-9 Trinidad (107-103 Oscar)
R12: Trinidad has the last say with a few good right hands in this round - De la Hoya content to stay as far away as possible and joke for the cameras. 10-9 Trinidad (116-113 Oscar).

So, Oscar by three for me last time I scored it.

Interesting that we have the exact same score after seven rounds (69-65 to De la Hoya, albeit it looks like we swapped a round somewhere along the line). Obviously the last three rounds aren't up for debate - De la Hoya just handed them to Trinidad. So it's only really in rounds eight and nine that we're seeing things differently and it looks as if that's where the fight was lost for Oscar. I had them both for Oscar, you had them both for Tito which swings 116-113 to De la Hoya over to a 115-114 for Trinidad.

I'll concede that they weren't dominant rounds. They were certainly better rounds for Trinidad than most of the others had been to that point, but I think giving both to him would be applauding him too much for simply doing better in those rounds than he had been before, rather than being a case of him actually winning them outright - but that's just my opinion. Don't want it to sound conceited or anything but I'm struggling to word it properly!

As I said, I could see it by a smaller margin, or perhaps a draw. Just can't quite see a Trinidad win from that fight....But as Truss says, the people who mattered most disagreed.

It was one hell of a let down. HBO had decided that this was a Hearns vs Leonard reboot (they did the same with De la Hoya vs Quartey).

There haven't been many better matches made in boxing history (on paper at least) but the fight was a tepid affair and that was down to De la Hoya really. I think if he'd fought Trinidad he'd have been worn down.

There is absolutely no chance Trinidad won that fight, Oscar was at least five rounds up going into the final three and didn't Jerry Roth score the 12th to De La Hoya in a rather bizarre scorecard?

Yeah, the only reason anyone ever revisits the fight is so they can contribute to the never-ending debate about the decision rather than it being an enjoyable contest. Similar to Leonard-Hagler, another 'superfight' which was a relatively dull spectacle and only gets views now because of the contentious verdict....But in their defence, the pair of them were slightly past their peaks and had already been involved in glorious block buster events which had lived up to big expectations before. On the other hand, Oscar and Tito were basically in the prime of their lives and this was supposed to be the fight which transformed one of them in to a legend.

It wasn't an exciting game plan but it's hard to be critical of Oscar for the first nine rounds, or the first seven at the very least. Brawling with Trinidad wouldn't have been clever and he gave himself a great foundation to go on and win the fight, but he just didn't follow it up. He boxed like a champion for the most part, but like a novice when it came to the crunch.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:There is absolutely no chance Trinidad won that fight, Oscar was at least five rounds up going into the final three and didn't Jerry Roth score the 12th to De La Hoya in a rather bizarre scorecard?

Aside from the fact he actually did win the fight?

Chris, Oscar clearly thought he had an unassaible lead going into the last three rounds but there was a lot of pre fight speculation that Trinidad couldn't win a decision over him in Vegas. Having seen Roth's card as most of us will have on Legendary nights it's the most ridiculously wrong scorecard i've seen, he gave rounds to Tito that Oscar clearly won and then he gave the 12th which Tito clearly won to Oscar. Not so much questioning the decision which I still disagree with but is there any question that Roth's card was shall we say bent for use of a better term.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:There is absolutely no chance Trinidad won that fight, Oscar was at least five rounds up going into the final three and didn't Jerry Roth score the 12th to De La Hoya in a rather bizarre scorecard?

Aside from the fact he actually did win the fight?

The record books say Ramirez beat Whitaker but in reality he didn't nor did Rios beat Abril or Williams beat Lara.

88Chris05 wrote:Yeah, the only reason anyone ever revisits the fight is so they can contribute to the never-ending debate about the decision rather than it being an enjoyable contest. Similar to Leonard-Hagler, another 'superfight' which was a relatively dull spectacle and only gets views now because of the contentious verdict....But in their defence, the pair of them were slightly past their peaks and had already been involved in glorious block buster events which had lived up to big expectations before. On the other hand, Oscar and Tito were basically in the prime of their lives and this was supposed to be the fight which transformed one of them in to a legend.

It wasn't an exciting game plan but it's hard to be critical of Oscar for the first nine rounds, or the first seven at the very least. Brawling with Trinidad wouldn't have been clever and he gave himself a great foundation to go on and win the fight, but he just didn't follow it up. He boxed like a champion for the most part, but like a novice when it came to the crunch.

Oscar always fought tight and he tended to fade. I think that forced him to box that way late - he was shattered and Trinidad was finding him with big shots.

I thought a lot of his flurries missed (same as the Mosley and Whitaker fights). He lacked something as a fighter - he didn't ever seen to know who he was in the ring. Maybe that was a result of changing trainers so frequently. Maybe his versatility proved a curse?

No guarantees that Tito wins if Oscar stood his ground haz. Tito might be the banger, but decks hoya wasn't chinny though and he could bang himself when he sat on his punches. It wasn't a good enough fight for me to watch it again and share my card. I had oscar winning it at the time, but I felt he was nicking  rounds rather than dominating them, which left a few open to interpretation..

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:There is absolutely no chance Trinidad won that fight, Oscar was at least five rounds up going into the final three and didn't Jerry Roth score the 12th to De La Hoya in a rather bizarre scorecard?

Aside from the fact he actually did win the fight?

The record books say Ramirez beat Whitaker but in reality he didn't nor did Rios beat Abril or Williams beat Lara.

Totally different scenarios as I argued above. Tito vs Oscar was a close fight and a bugger to score.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:There is absolutely no chance Trinidad won that fight, Oscar was at least five rounds up going into the final three and didn't Jerry Roth score the 12th to De La Hoya in a rather bizarre scorecard?

Aside from the fact he actually did win the fight?

The record books say Ramirez beat Whitaker but in reality he didn't nor did Rios beat Abril or Williams beat Lara.

Leonard did beat hagler though

In your opinion, i've only ever sat through it twice but both times had De La Hoya comfortably ahead without ever thinking Trinidad could nick it.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:In your opinion, i've only ever sat through it twice but both times had De La Hoya comfortably ahead without ever thinking Trinidad could nick it.

It was undoubtedly a close fight. Lederman scored it 114-114. AP scored 115-113 in favour of De la Hoya. Nigel Collins scored 115-114 to Tito from ringside. Other press at ringside favoured Oscar but only by a point or two. The judges' cards were all there or thereabouts.

You may have had it a one sided fight but not everyone can score a boxing match.

It does come down to personal opinion, I personally don't think it was that close, each person scores fights differently based on different things. Lederman just scores round to whoever is moving forward, he gave Jesus Chavez the first round in his fight with Mayweather despite being countered all ends up, landed 9 of 89 punches or something.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It does come down to personal opinion, I personally don't think it was that close, each person scores fights differently based on different things. Lederman just scores round to whoever is moving forward, he gave Jesus Chavez the first round in his fight with Mayweather despite being countered all ends up, landed 9 of 89 punches or something.

Yet he lands the HBO gig and you end up on here. Go figure.....

CJ Ross got the Mayweather/Alvarez fight after giving Bradley the verdict over Pacquiao, doesn't really mean a lot does it.

Some similarities between this fight and the Mosley-Cotto one from 2007.

Cotto boxed well for the most part there and Mosley, who was looking for singles and loading up big knockout punches most of the time (as Trinidad did) couldn't get to him that much when Cotto boxed. But similar to the fight above, Cotto looked absolutely shattered and very much in survival mode late on, basically just handing over the last three, maybe four rounds to Shane. To me, Trinidad was no more a winner against Oscar than Mosley was against Cotto. Surprises me that there are some - not a great deal, but some - who score the 'Fight of the Millenium' to Trinidad but I've never heard anyone even whisper that they thought Mosley edged out Cotto.

For what it's worth, I had Cotto still ahead even after his poor showing in the last third of the fight, but only by a point or so. So I actually ended up having it a shade closer than I had Trinidad-De la Hoya.

That was also the fight which made me plump for the underdog Margarito to stop Cotto when they fought the next year.

88Chris05 wrote:Some similarities between this fight and the Mosley-Cotto one from 2007.

Cotto boxed well for the most part there and Mosley, who was looking for singles and loading up big knockout punches most of the time (as Trinidad did) couldn't get to him that much when Cotto boxed. But similar to the fight above, Cotto looked absolutely shattered and very much in survival mode late on, basically just handing over the last three, maybe four rounds to Shane. To me, Trinidad was no more a winner against Oscar than Mosley was against Cotto. Surprises me that there are some - not a great deal, but some - who score the 'Fight of the Millenium' to Trinidad but I've never heard anyone even whisper that they thought Mosley edged out Cotto.

For what it's worth, I had Cotto still ahead even after his poor showing in the last third of the fight, but only by a point or so. So I actually ended up having it a shade closer than I had Trinidad-De la Hoya.

That was also the fight which made me plump for the underdog Margarito to stop Cotto when they fought the next year.

I don't think either man could be termed a winner Chris. Trinidad was the one trying to fight I guess (and I do feel his work in that fight has been underrated). He scored with some cracking left hooks and right hands.

I picked Margarito to beat Cotto, too. I thought Margarito was an absolute beast at that point with Chavez-like whiskers - little did we know how he was playing the game.