BoxRec

http://boxingscorecard.blogspot.com/

was asked to cover this fight on my blog by a boxrec member

comments welcome

DLH's lowest moment as a fighter (in his prime anyway). He was clearly the better fighter in this one and pissed it away by running the last 4 rounds. Shame.

Good blog and an interesting read. I haven't seen the fight, but intend to!

try that link on the blog mate or check for it on the site that the link is from.

jezzamundo wrote:Good blog and an interesting read. I haven't seen the fight, but intend to!

WTF!? I know you have a heavy bent for HW's, Jezz, but seriously!?

Like what often happened to Whitaker, DLH fought a sound winning fight, but displayed to much caution and defense. Very unusual for DLH as he usually was aggressive. He truly won the fight and was punished for operating defensively.

Judges often do not understand much more than superficial stuff in this sport. And some of these sorts of decisions prove the truth of this.

Though it was close...it's hard to give Trinidad enough rounds to call this a win for him. But DLH fought in such a manner as to allow judges to intervene and keep it from being a loss for Felix.

i had it 115-114 for Tito, but this fight was bad for boxing. It promised so much and delivered so little.

Most of the best fights in boxing are never PPV main events. Look at the Ring Magazine Fight of the Year for the last 15 years or so. Only 2 of them I believe were PPV fights, Barrera vs Morales 3 and Holyfield vs Tyson 1.

And we all know Holyfield vs Tyson 1 was not the best fight of 1996 really, Gatti vs Rodriguez and Barrera vs Kennedy McKinney were both better fights.

It's rare that PPV main events deliver on the hype, DLH vs Vargas was good, Pac vs Morales 1 and 2 were good. Tarver vs Jones 1 was pretty good too, and I didn't regret order the rematch either just for how shocked I was to see Jones go down in the 2nd round. It was one of the most shocking things I've ever seen in boxing live.

PPV main events that dissapointed would be these

DLH vs Hopkins
DLH vs Mayweather
Mayweather vs Baldomir
Mayweather vs damn near everybody basically ( Round 2 of the Mosley fight being the most exciting thing I've ever seen in a Mayweather PPV fight )

Pac vs Clottey
Pac vs Hatton ( the knockout was spectacular, but fans expected much more than a 2 round blowout )
Holyfield vs Tyson 2 ( included a much talked about incident but was definitely not a satisfying ending to a much hyped fight )

More often than not, you'd be doing yourself a favor by keeping the 50 or so bucks in your wallet.

jezzamundo wrote:Good blog and an interesting read. I haven't seen the fight, but intend to!

You're better off skipping it. One of the worst fights you will ever see.

Edit: 7-5 Oscar, I won money on it. But I actually paid my friend before the decision and he had to give it back. People have manufactured ways to talk it into a Tito win. But none of them that I can buy.

BoxBuzz wrote:Like what often happened to Whitaker, DLH fought a sound winning fight, but displayed to much caution and defense. Very unusual for DLH as he usually was aggressive. He truly won the fight and was punished for operating defensively.

Judges often do not understand much more than superficial stuff in this sport. And some of these sorts of decisions prove the truth of this.

Though it was close...it's hard to give Trinidad enough rounds to call this a win for him. But DLH fought in such a manner as to allow judges to intervene and keep it from being a loss for Felix.

Sometimes Whitaker was his own worse enemy. He tried so hard to embarrass his opponents that it worked against him a few times. He complained bitterly about his losses to both De La Hoya and Trinidad. The complaints were part of his bag of tricks. He lost both fights. I never liked Whitaker and I have absolutely no sympathy for him.

I thought Oscar was the clear winner despite the last four rounds. It was a lousy tactical move, to be sure, but he was clearly the better fighter and the winner. Trinidad did nothing in the prior rounds that would have caused De La Hoya to run. I just think it comes down to "What was I thinking?"

Randy

this fight was supposed to be like a world war 3 for a puerto rican and mexican clash oscar boxed the crap out of trinidad but ran out of gas and just gave up in the last 4 crucial rounds. everyone expected to see someone get knock down or knock out and it didnt happen because oscar had to much respect to trinidads power so he boxed him which it was very smart but not to the judges and definatly not the true puerto rican and mexican fans...

None of the two ain't shiiiiittt!!! They cannot be in nobody's list of the 100 greatest fighters pound per pound of all-time. These two cats (Oscar and Tito) were the fake fighters of the last 15 years. When it was time to fight a real fight, both flopped.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:Good blog and an interesting read. I haven't seen the fight, but intend to!

WTF!? I know you have a heavy bent for HW's, Jezz, but seriously!?

I know, I know!

To be honest boxing isn't even my number one interest and I have a rather busy life with little time for watching full fights, plus I've only been into boxing since 2002. I consider my knowledge of heavyweights since 1960 (and moreso since 1990) to be pretty good and I have a keen interest in a handful of current boxers, but outside of that my knowledge is patchy to say the least.

the first rounds are said to be masterpieces of boxing
in DLH's favor, but if you look at them more critically,
one could judge them either way - ending in a not
clear to judge situation which could have been given
either way. in my book this was no blatant robbery. i
can live with decisions that punish boxers for running
for too long.

man wrote:the first rounds are said to be masterpieces of boxing
in DLH's favor, but if you look at them more critically,
one could judge them either way - ending in a not
clear to judge situation which could have been given
either way. in my book this was no blatant robbery. i
can live with decisions that punish boxers for running
for too long.

How is the weather lately on the Island of Enchantment, mate? 8)

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

man wrote:the first rounds are said to be masterpieces of boxing
in DLH's favor, but if you look at them more critically,
one could judge them either way - ending in a not
clear to judge situation which could have been given
either way. in my book this was no blatant robbery. i
can live with decisions that punish boxers for running
for too long.

How is the weather lately on the Island of Enchantment, mate? 8)

He ranks Duran at the bottom of the fab four. Wait until Elmer see that. I think you are correct he must be Puerto Rican Only a Puerto Rican could rank Duran so low

Elmer will take his first-born for a crime of that magnitude.

Idisagree wrote:

He ranks Duran at the bottom of the fab four. Wait until Elmer see that. I think you are correct he must be Puerto Rican Only a Puerto Rican could rank Duran so low [/quote]

couldn't help it with duran. i find him very diffcult
to rank. it is not so much that i would rank him last,
it is just in comparison to hagler, i see in hagler the
man with the more convincing record. leonard was
the shining figure and ATG in my book. and against
hearns duran simply lost too decisively. you can twist
and turn it as much as you want: of all 4 duran had
the most controversial career. and to me that does
not go well with putting him on top of their list.

i think sometimes the "experts" find it quite fancy to
not do the obvious pick and take the guy with the long
great record which might have quite some losses ...
but still. in this case i just can't do that. in each 1:1
matchup duran is simply the second guy that comes
to mind. in this other thread people had duran on top
of the list ranked by "achievement and ability". i for
myself cannot rank duran higher than someone who
koed him in the fashion of hearns. "achievement" might
be debatable ... but how could "ability" be better proven
than in the way it happened in the direct matchup?

but i sense this is kind of a principle discussion and i
am not too keen on going back and forth in exhausting
and fruitless debates like this would probably turn out
to be one.

on the DLH-trinidad thing there was this HBO legendary
nights on it and one ref who gave trinidad advised arum
to watch the first rounds with audio turned off. i did that
and i could see why you could give one or the other to
trinidad. controversial decision? yes. robbery? no. oscar
did dig his own grave. only one to blame: he himself.