BoxRec

Do you agree with Marvin Hagler that DeLaHoya was robbed in his match with Felix Trinidad?


Please discuss.


Thank you in advance.

I watched it live and scored it for Trinidad by a pt. Watched again a few yrs later and had it a draw. Either way I'm glad Tito got the decision as he clearly wanted it more.

Ah...my friend Seamus....by that logic, I suppose I should hand you over my money. IF you want it more than I do. Besides you would probably know what to do with it better than I.
Such a "social" fella you are.

In my opinion?

No....DLH won the fight. It just so happened that he worked for and earned a win. He was far enough ahead that he then took some time off to celebrate.....and some very lousy judges....like our friend Seamus decided that he would "intervene" and "pass judgment". On DLH's "work ethic". lol.

It's over and done with, but such are the foibles of human judgment. Very lousy decision.

In this case I agree with Hagler over Seamus in this boxing related matter.

I scored the bout a draw on fight night.
The next day I rewatched it and gave it to Oscar 7-5.

I suppose some opine that Tito supposedly wanted it more simply because he applied the pressure and was more aggressive.
That's true, but he wasn't more effective. Couldn't cut the ring off on ODLH.

Oscar boxed nicely and easily landed the more effective, clean punches.
Sometimes he fought like he was frightened of Tito, but he was merely following a smart battle plan--box, box, box and don't get into any stupid exchanges with Trinidad.
I would have liked to have seen Oscar throw a few more meaningful combos at Trinidad and put a punctuation mark on the bout.

The fight was close, so therefore Oscar wasn't exactly robbed, but I find it difficult to see how all 3 judges gave that match to Tito. He simply didn't land enough to deserve the verdict. Following Oscar around the ring for 12 rounds may have made it appear that he set the tone, but in reality his punches were far too sporadic to warrant a victory.

I picked DLH to win, was rooting for him, and felt on a strict points basis he won. However, as someone who paid a ton of money to watch that fight live at the time I had no problem with him losing for his performance. He is a paid performer, I paid for 12 rounds of activity from him and got 8. He got a ton of money for that fight and should have actually tried to earn it instead of trying to steal a decision. In the old days had he tried that tactic he would have been DQd or thrown out of the ring. How he thought he could run out the clock and get away with it is beyond me. So in essence, in my opinion, he deserved to lose and I have no problem with it.

I got that nugget from Mike Tyson's memoir, "Undisputed Truth". He saw Marvin at the fight and told him he thought DLH won. Marvin said "That's Vegas."


Lots of anecdotes from Iron Mike.

klompton wrote:I picked DLH to win, was rooting for him, and felt on a strict points basis he won. However, as someone who paid a ton of money to watch that fight live at the time I had no problem with him losing for his performance. He is a paid performer, I paid for 12 rounds of activity from him and got 8. He got a ton of money for that fight and should have actually tried to earn it instead of trying to steal a decision. In the old days had he tried that tactic he would have been DQd or thrown out of the ring. How he thought he could run out the clock and get away with it is beyond me. So in essence, in my opinion, he deserved to lose and I have no problem with it.

I totally agree. it's exactly how I felt.

Well boxing is subjective. So if you want to rule out "effective" and give better grades to "intent" then Felix had the upper hand.

But I suspect Felix went home nursing more bruises and physical consequences, and that says a lot.

But he probably felt pretty good about getting the nod. So that made up for the fact that he was beaten in the area of "effectiveness".

If you dont mind there being no consequences for a guy getting 20 million dollars to only do 2/3 of the work he was contracted to do then by all means keep pissing your money away. I for one thought it sent the right message. I felt the same way, to lesser extent, when Winky Wright fought Fernando Vargas shortly after and in a very competitive fight took off and ran the final two rounds because he thought he had it sewn up and then lost. As far as Im concerned if a fighter tries to flee the final rounds he has given up trying to win and should lose. Simple as that. Call it a "tactical retreat" if you want but its still ceding the battle field and in boxing that should be an automatic loss. I pay for fights not for track meets. DLH didnt even have the argument that he was boxing. He was simply running to run out the clock and it was obvious to everyone involved.

close decision. could have gone either way.
oscar's corner did cost him the fight IMHO.
running for two in a close bout is a pretty
bad move.

but throughout the fight oscar's stance and
moving away made him look better than
he was. you don't get points for dancing.

in my opinion a class act by the judges
to give a close one not to the local guy.

Wholeheartedly

Klompton,....then by your reasoning their are "more important rounds" in boxing.

I'm not saying that's good or bad in this case, but it seems to be what you're saying here.

For me it's quite alright if someone wants to get ahead, and then cruise. This may not make for as exciting a game for some.

What if in football, the points you scored in the first half only counted for 80% as much actual value? Would that be better for the game?

Of if in Hockey, the "last" goal of the game counted for "2" instead of "1".?


Just seems to me that every round should have equal value. And if you invested early, you should be paid the interest due. lol.


And by the way, if Tito was a better fighter, he could have caught DLH on the run. Wasn't that Joe Louis's claim to Billy Conn?

A fight should be judged round by round. On that basis De La Hoya should have won 7-5. Normally, that arguable. However, in this fight, the rounds were very easy judge. Give Trinidad every close round and he still doesn't get to 6, much less 7.

De la Hoya was up 7-2 after 9. He wasn't doing anything special but Trinidad was doing almost nothing at all. Then on the terrible advice of his corner (ie Gil Clancy) he ran for three rounds. In boxing you never know what the judges are going to do. Call De la Hoya a coward, stupid or whatever, but all you can do is give Trindad the 10th, 11, and 12 rounds; you can't give him the fight.

It was a bad fight for each man, but Trinidad overall was clearly the worse of the two.

Yes, much like Whitaker was robbed against Oscar.

what people seem to have forgotten is that even the
commentator team, though being enthusiastic in the
beginning, came to the conclusion this was a very
close one, letterman had it even after twelve. larry
merchant interestingly had the first an even too.

in my book this was by far no "boxing lesson", as
oscar tries to portray his ability to stay out of range.
this bout was difficult to judge, because they hardly
landed anything.

i am actually surprised that hagler sees it as a robbery,
because if anything this fight reminds of his against
leonard and there he rather seemed to have favoured
the stalker … but the real difference is that ray, in
contrast to oscar, did way more punching.

i watched it again yesterday after reading this thread
and i think it was terrible corner work. when they saw
that oscar could time tito so well, they should have
switched to "engage more". it is a shame that oscar,
being the brave warrior that he proved to be throughout
his career, looses the biggest fight of his career in such
fashion. but his corner kept padding his confidence;
angelo dundee would have gone furios, as would emanuel
stewart and teddy atlas.

BoxBuzz wrote:Just seems to me that every round should have equal value.

So you propose we return to the rounds scoring system?

The Great John L wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Just seems to me that every round should have equal value.

So you propose we return to the rounds scoring system?

I assume all Buzz is saying is that the later or championship rounds should not have more scoring value than the earlier ones. And no the old round system is terrible IMO close rounds should not be the same score as rounds with knockdowns etc. That's not to say the current system isn't flawed.

p4p1 wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Just seems to me that every round should have equal value.

So you propose we return to the rounds scoring system?

I assume all Buzz is saying is that the later or championship rounds should not have more scoring value than the earlier ones. And no the old round system is terrible IMO close rounds should not be the same score as rounds with knockdowns etc. That's not to say the current system isn't flawed.

I thought DLH won a close decision, but you could make a case for giving someone who runs away from his opponent less than 9 points for a round, and DLH was actually running away during stretches of the final rounds.

Yes, the rounds scoring system is flawed, but so is the lame way that the 10 point must system is currently utilized.

I agree that the way the 10 point must system is utilized is dumb. If a fighter doesn't get knocked down, it's almost always 10-9, even if it's lopsided. If judges are going to do that, in reality, if there is no knockdowns, the 10 point must system is really the same as the rounds system.


I guess you could argue the decision is just if the judges had scored the late rounds 10-8 for Trinidad, and that is how he won.

However that is not what happened. They actually had Trinidad winning 4 of the first 9 nine rounds, and there is no way he did that. Somewhere a long the line Trinidad was given 2 rounds that he clearly did not deserve by the judges.

Be much better if an average round was 10-8 and a close round 10-9. A KD could be 1 point or 2? But I'm sure someone will point out a problem with this system.

DLH allowed the fight to be close and paid the price. It's hard to have any sympathy with him.

He was definitely robbed. Trinidad was able to do almost nothing effectively until De La Hoya pumped the breaks, and even then Trinidad could barely do anything. I had De La Hoya winning 9-3 or 8-4.

In a fight that close theres no robbery, this type of thing happens when you try and "nick" a fight on points should have gone for it more, in fact they both should, too much big talk and not enough action

You can't just say a fight was close and that means the decision is fine. Holmes/Spinks II is a perfect example. Larry clearly won the first 8 rounds and then Michael fought his ass off. The 14th was a swing round for either 8-7 Holmes or 9-6 Holmes. Close as hell, also very clear. Oscar/Tito fits that mold for me.

Just don't think either of them left it all in the ring so don't have the right to complain, besides have seen bigger robberies involving Eubank and Toney, some of these superstar types think a decision should swing their way based just on their name alone then cry about it when they don't get the nod, anyway Oscar was repaid with the terrible decision over sturm

That fight sucked, I certainly don't feel the least bit sorry for Oscar but I have to answer honestly and i feel like he had it sowed up by the end of eight and I can't justify a 10-8 round when a guy lands a few glancing blows.