BoxRec

Posted: **27 Aug 2008, 09:59**

Excellent article by Glynn Leach in this months Boxing Monthly about Oscar De La Chicken Tikka Anna Kournikova Hoya and his insistence re: fighting smaller fighters.

I have always said ODLCTAKH looks for the most advantages he can get.

Read it - about time someone told it as it is re Oscar.

PBF at Light Middle

He wanted Hatton

Forbes at 150lbs and now he is after one time Superfly Pacman.

What a tosser!

Posted: **27 Aug 2008, 10:04**

I agree, these are purely money-making fights. Which is fair enough (before K-G pipes up), but I don't like these type of fights.

Posted: **27 Aug 2008, 10:10**

With all due respect, I don't think anyone can question DLH's career as he's got the best resumé of any active fighter. I also think PBF at 154 criticism is a bit harsh, as I'm convinced Oscar cannot make 147 anymore.

Forbes was a "free" fight.

That said, Pacman is just odd, and I guess he wants to go out on a win.

Posted: **27 Aug 2008, 10:46**

Which PPV would you be more likely to buy?

Mike Tyson v Henry Akinwande

or

Mike Tyson v Prince Naseem Hamed?

Ya see....not as daft as you think is it!

Posted: **27 Aug 2008, 10:50**

DavidPayne wrote:Which PPV would you be more likely to buy?

Mike Tyson v Henry Akinwande

or

Mike Tyson v Prince Naseem Hamed?

Ya see....not as daft as you think is it!

Neither...I'd be saving my money for Khan - Prescott

Posted: **27 Aug 2008, 11:30**

I dont want Hoya-Pac purely because i want Pacman to fight Hatton next year,
and i dont want a pumped up Pac ruined by a Delahoya fight.

Posted: **27 Aug 2008, 11:40**

DG, I know I've debated the Oscar issue with you in the past and historically I've felt you were too harsh - great performances against Quartey, Vargas, Trinidad and Moseley etc. However, there's no doubt his recent track record is pretty shocking with the Forbes fight in particular being completely unjustifiable.
However, I do think you need to be consistent as Floyd has been equally culpable if not more so in this regard - avoiding the Margaritos and Williams of this world while facing Hatton etc. And yet I haven't seen you take the same stance with him.

Posted: **27 Aug 2008, 11:43**

Hopkins was smaller too was he?

Posted: **27 Aug 2008, 11:48**

Loftgroov wrote:Hopkins was smaller too was he?

True, but he had nothing to lose and It wouldn't effect his legacy and reputation at all.

Posted: **27 Aug 2008, 12:00**

Deserter wrote:DG, I know I've debated the Oscar issue with you in the past and historically I've felt you were too harsh - great performances against Quartey, Vargas, Trinidad and Moseley etc. However, there's no doubt his recent track record is pretty shocking with the Forbes fight in particular being completely unjustifiable.
However, I do think you need to be consistent as Floyd has been equally culpable if not more so in this regard - avoiding the Margaritos and Williams of this world while facing Hatton etc. And yet I haven't seen you take the same stance with him.

Oscar can do no wrong and Floyd can do no right.

Pre-fight, Mayweather-Hatton was seen as an interesting test at worst, and a fascinating match at best. A great many knowledgeable fans picked Ricky to win. He was the undisputed and undefeated 10st champ. The fact Floyd won easily does not detract from any of that. In fact, if Floyd had fought and beaten Margarito or Cotto instead on that night, the critics would then be saying he was avoiding Hatton. You might scoff at that now you know Floyd beat Hatton easily, but if they hadn't fought then and Hatton was still unbeaten now, that would have been the scenario.

Posted: **27 Aug 2008, 12:09**

Deserter wrote:DG, I know I've debated the Oscar issue with you in the past and historically I've felt you were too harsh - great performances against Quartey, Vargas, Trinidad and Moseley etc. However, there's no doubt his recent track record is pretty shocking with the Forbes fight in particular being completely unjustifiable.
However, I do think you need to be consistent as Floyd has been equally culpable if not more so in this regard - avoiding the Margaritos and Williams of this world while facing Hatton etc. And yet I haven't seen you take the same stance with him.

PBF was a Superfeather always fighting bigger men. I wish he fought Cotto and Margariito!

To the poster who mentioned Hatton....PBF was not bigger than HATTON ever. Hatton was/is bigger.

Post Hopkins ( remember OSCAR BAILED OUT AT THE FIRST SIGN OF TROUBLE and made Hopkins come in light 158 ?- but Hopkins called him bluff and came in at 156) Oscar has been taking the piss!

PBF should fight Margarito - but we all Know that is the fight that Oscar shoiuld take, but he knows Margarito whoops dat.

Also,

Quartey. Oscar faked a cut eye to keep Quatey out of the ring for 18 months.

Mosley was much smaller in the first fight and still beat Oscar.

Vargas, Oscar waited for Trinidad to RUIN him - DLH wanted no part of a hot Vargas.

He ran like a thief against Trinidad.

Remember - according to the judges - Oscar has lost most of the big fights you mentioned apart from a shot Vargas.

Mosley x 2
Trinidad x 1
Hopkins x 1 ( bailed out)

Posted: **27 Aug 2008, 12:13**

Loftgroov wrote:Hopkins was smaller too was he?

That is the reason Oscar bailed out at the first opportunity!

Posted: **27 Aug 2008, 12:21**

oliverfennell wrote:
Deserter wrote:DG, I know I've debated the Oscar issue with you in the past and historically I've felt you were too harsh - great performances against Quartey, Vargas, Trinidad and Moseley etc. However, there's no doubt his recent track record is pretty shocking with the Forbes fight in particular being completely unjustifiable.
However, I do think you need to be consistent as Floyd has been equally culpable if not more so in this regard - avoiding the Margaritos and Williams of this world while facing Hatton etc. And yet I haven't seen you take the same stance with him.
Oscar can do no wrong and Floyd can do no right.

Pre-fight, Mayweather-Hatton was seen as an interesting test at worst, and a fascinating match at best. A great many knowledgeable fans picked Ricky to win. He was the undisputed and undefeated 10st champ. The fact Floyd won easily does not detract from any of that. In fact, if Floyd had fought and beaten Margarito or Cotto instead on that night, the critics would then be saying he was avoiding Hatton. You might scoff at that now you know Floyd beat Hatton easily, but if they hadn't fought then and Hatton was still unbeaten now, that would have been the scenario.

Oliver, I'm merely pointing out DG's biased stance - we all know how easy it is to perform a bit of historical revisionism and what you've said above doesn't detract from what I was saying.
Mayweather-Hatton was indeed seen as an interesting test, but so was De La Hoya versus Trinidad etc. You can't have one rule for one and one for the other.

Posted: **27 Aug 2008, 12:23**

Max Molyneux wrote:
Loftgroov wrote:Hopkins was smaller too was he?
True, but he had nothing to lose

Well, except for having his brains smashed in my someone a lot bigger than him

Posted: **27 Aug 2008, 12:26**

DG. wrote:
Deserter wrote:DG, I know I've debated the Oscar issue with you in the past and historically I've felt you were too harsh - great performances against Quartey, Vargas, Trinidad and Moseley etc. However, there's no doubt his recent track record is pretty shocking with the Forbes fight in particular being completely unjustifiable.
However, I do think you need to be consistent as Floyd has been equally culpable if not more so in this regard - avoiding the Margaritos and Williams of this world while facing Hatton etc. And yet I haven't seen you take the same stance with him.

PBF was a Superfeather always fighting bigger men. I wish he fought Cotto and Margariito!

To the poster who mentioned Hatton....PBF was not bigger than HATTON ever. Hatton was/is bigger.

Post Hopkins ( remember OSCAR BAILED OUT AT THE FIRST SIGN OF TROUBLE and made Hopkins come in light 158 ?- but Hopkins called him bluff and came in at 156) Oscar has been taking the piss!

PBF should fight Margarito - but we all Know that is the fight that Oscar shoiuld take, but he knows Margarito whoops dat.

Also,

Quartey. Oscar faked a cut eye to keep Quatey out of the ring for 18 months.

Mosley was much smaller in the first fight and still beat Oscar.

Vargas, Oscar waited for Trinidad to RUIN him - DLH wanted no part of a hot Vargas.

He ran like a thief against Trinidad.

Remember - according to the judges - Oscar has lost most of the big fights you mentioned apart from a shot Vargas.

Mosley x 2
Trinidad x 1
Hopkins x 1 ( bailed out)

You can't keep on saying PBF was/is a super-feather as De La Hoya started in the same division! Both outgrew it, and I fully accept that Oscar's natural weight now is probably around light-middle whereas Floyd could probably still make light-welter, but to claim he's still to all intents and purposes a super-feather is laughable.
The claims you've made regarding Mosley and Trinidad are just so ridiculously skewed as to not even be worthy of a reply.
De La Hoya's no legend, but there are few fighters in this era who've got the sort of resume he has.
Floyd's the better fighter, but facing the likes of Bruseles, Mitchell and Gatti at light-welter was truly shocking, and by your own admission he's never faced the men who would give him his toughest test at Welter, so how is any of that justifiable?

Posted: **27 Aug 2008, 13:01**

Deserter wrote:
DG. wrote:
Deserter wrote:DG, I know I've debated the Oscar issue with you in the past and historically I've felt you were too harsh - great performances against Quartey, Vargas, Trinidad and Moseley etc. However, there's no doubt his recent track record is pretty shocking with the Forbes fight in particular being completely unjustifiable.
However, I do think you need to be consistent as Floyd has been equally culpable if not more so in this regard - avoiding the Margaritos and Williams of this world while facing Hatton etc. And yet I haven't seen you take the same stance with him.

PBF was a Superfeather always fighting bigger men. I wish he fought Cotto and Margariito!

To the poster who mentioned Hatton....PBF was not bigger than HATTON ever. Hatton was/is bigger.

Post Hopkins ( remember OSCAR BAILED OUT AT THE FIRST SIGN OF TROUBLE and made Hopkins come in light 158 ?- but Hopkins called him bluff and came in at 156) Oscar has been taking the piss!

PBF should fight Margarito - but we all Know that is the fight that Oscar shoiuld take, but he knows Margarito whoops dat.

Also,

Quartey. Oscar faked a cut eye to keep Quatey out of the ring for 18 months.

Mosley was much smaller in the first fight and still beat Oscar.

Vargas, Oscar waited for Trinidad to RUIN him - DLH wanted no part of a hot Vargas.

He ran like a thief against Trinidad.

Remember - according to the judges - Oscar has lost most of the big fights you mentioned apart from a shot Vargas.

Mosley x 2
Trinidad x 1
Hopkins x 1 ( bailed out)

You can't keep on saying PBF was/is a super-feather as De La Hoya started in the same division! Both outgrew it, and I fully accept that Oscar's natural weight now is probably around light-middle whereas Floyd could probably still make light-welter, but to claim he's still to all intents and purposes a super-feather is laughable.
The claims you've made regarding Mosley and Trinidad are just so ridiculously skewed as to not even be worthy of a reply.
De La Hoya's no legend, but there are few fighters in this era who've got the sort of resume he has.
Floyd's the better fighter, but facing the likes of Bruseles, Mitchell and Gatti at light-welter was truly shocking, and by your own admission he's never faced the men who would give him his toughest test at Welter, so how is any of that justifiable?

I think PBF could make Lt welter with ease. He walks around at 10st 10lbs.

I did not mean he was still a Spuer feather. But he is nearer a lightweight than a natural light Middle.

Mosley!!? Remember - Oscar did not want a rematch....UNTIL Forrest mashed down Mosley twice.

PBF should come back and fiht Cotto anf Margarito - in my eyes he bottled it!

Why doesn't Oscar fight Margarito? - answer me that! GO ON!!

Posted: **27 Aug 2008, 13:24**

Deserter wrote:
oliverfennell wrote:
Deserter wrote:DG, I know I've debated the Oscar issue with you in the past and historically I've felt you were too harsh - great performances against Quartey, Vargas, Trinidad and Moseley etc. However, there's no doubt his recent track record is pretty shocking with the Forbes fight in particular being completely unjustifiable.
However, I do think you need to be consistent as Floyd has been equally culpable if not more so in this regard - avoiding the Margaritos and Williams of this world while facing Hatton etc. And yet I haven't seen you take the same stance with him.
Oscar can do no wrong and Floyd can do no right.

Pre-fight, Mayweather-Hatton was seen as an interesting test at worst, and a fascinating match at best. A great many knowledgeable fans picked Ricky to win. He was the undisputed and undefeated 10st champ. The fact Floyd won easily does not detract from any of that. In fact, if Floyd had fought and beaten Margarito or Cotto instead on that night, the critics would then be saying he was avoiding Hatton. You might scoff at that now you know Floyd beat Hatton easily, but if they hadn't fought then and Hatton was still unbeaten now, that would have been the scenario.
Oliver, I'm merely pointing out DG's biased stance - we all know how easy it is to perform a bit of historical revisionism and what you've said above doesn't detract from what I was saying.
Mayweather-Hatton was indeed seen as an interesting test, but so was De La Hoya versus Trinidad etc. You can't have one rule for one and one for the other.

Sorry, I don't get your point. I said Mayweather-Hatton was a good match and I also thought De La Hoya-Trinidad was also a good match.

I like both Oscar and Floyd as boxers and I think neither man's resume can be seriously criticised, however much people try to put a negative spin on things.

So Floyd "avoided" one or two welters by fighting the world's leading light-middle... how is that a bad thing?? People bend over backwards to criticise Floyd - if he came back and trounced Margarito, they'd only say "well, Margarito had been beaten five times before, I wish Mayweather would stop ducking X and Y...."

Posted: **27 Aug 2008, 14:43**

DG. wrote:
Deserter wrote:
Why doesn't Oscar fight Margarito? - answer me that! GO ON!!

Where have I said he shouldn't - I've already said his fight with Forbes was a shocking bit of match-making and for what it's worth as far as Margarito's concerned I agree with you completely!

Posted: **27 Aug 2008, 14:57**

oliverfennell wrote:Oscar can do no wrong and Floyd can do no right.

Pre-fight, Mayweather-Hatton was seen as an interesting test at worst, and a fascinating match at best. A great many knowledgeable fans picked Ricky to win. He was the undisputed and undefeated 10st champ. The fact Floyd won easily does not detract from any of that. In fact, if Floyd had fought and beaten Margarito or Cotto instead on that night, the critics would then be saying he was avoiding Hatton. You might scoff at that now you know Floyd beat Hatton easily, but if they hadn't fought then and Hatton was still unbeaten now, that would have been the scenario.

Oliver, I'm merely pointing out DG's biased stance - we all know how easy it is to perform a bit of historical revisionism and what you've said above doesn't detract from what I was saying.
Mayweather-Hatton was indeed seen as an interesting test, but so was De La Hoya versus Trinidad etc. You can't have one rule for one and one for the other.

Sorry, I don't get your point. I said Mayweather-Hatton was a good match and I also thought De La Hoya-Trinidad was also a good match.

I like both Oscar and Floyd as boxers and I think neither man's resume can be seriously criticised, however much people try to put a negative spin on things.

So Floyd "avoided" one or two welters by fighting the world's leading light-middle... how is that a bad thing?? People bend over backwards to criticise Floyd - if he came back and trounced Margarito, they'd only say "well, Margarito had been beaten five times before, I wish Mayweather would stop ducking X and Y...."

You directly quoted me earlier and stated in your first line "Oscar can do no wrong and Floyd can do no right", but that wasn't my point at all. I was simply pointing out that the accusations that DG throws at Oscar can be aimed at other fighters like Floyd, hence the reference to historical revisionism. I've got no problem with him making those accusations but he has to be consistent and apply it across the board, rather than being 'misled' by his personal sentiments regarding a fighter.

Posted: **28 Aug 2008, 04:24**

Remind me how Oscar was the world's leading light middle at that time. Was it beating vargas 5 years earlier in his only previous meaningful fight at the weight in which he actually won? Or maybe he proved it by losing to Mosley again? or was it beating a shot mayorga? Oscar may be still half decent but its impossible to say where he fits in any of these divisions because he just doesn't campaign regularly in any of them. The mayweather fight was an "attraction", just that.

Posted: **28 Aug 2008, 04:45**

All DLH fights are attraction fights. Everyone needs to stop trying assimilate his bouts with divisions, or rankings or any sort of elimination process.

Its a PPV race. DLH could sign to fight SRL or Hector Camacho and probably do mroe buys than Paul Williams would.

Hence, we we get Pacman not PW.

Its commercial sense.

Posted: **28 Aug 2008, 08:04**

I spoke to De La Hoya briefly in May and he is a big bloke.

I'd much rather he fought Margarito but hey, it seems people are interested in the freak show.

Duran moved up from the lower tiers happily, but Pacquaio is a whole different physique who is very lean and does not lend himself to piling on huge pounds i think.

Posted: **28 Aug 2008, 08:23**

DavidPayne wrote:Which PPV would you be more likely to buy?

Mike Tyson v Henry Akinwande

or

Mike Tyson v Prince Naseem Hamed?

Ya see....not as daft as you think is it!

Personalities have always sold PPV's and tickets since the dawn of man (Ok maybe not that long) Mohammed Ali was boxing in front of 2,000 people 1 night, and after the show he went to see "Gorgeous George (no, I have no idea who he is either) wrestle in front of 20,000.
Obviously they werent there to see the "action" they were there to see the personalities, the interviews, the playing to the crown etc. Soon after Ali started with the outrageous interviews etc and boxing changed forever.
Thats the sory Ali told, anyway

However the Boxrec forum is some 40 odd years behind the times if people on here think that the quality of matchup is the main selling point of a PPV...

Hatton - Lazcano 55,000 tickets, yet the boxrec forum (all 25 of you) think it was a joke fight

hmmmmmmm

Posted: **28 Aug 2008, 08:29**

And as the pinnacle attraction in the world of PPV, those sentiments are magnified in DLH's case.

Posted: **28 Aug 2008, 08:33**

DavidPayne wrote:And as the pinnacle attraction in the world of PPV, those sentiments are magnified in DLH's case.

If i may play Devils Advocate for a moment, who has fought in better class than DLH over the last 10 years?

Mosely
Vargas
Trinidad
Quartey
Chavez
Mayorga
Gatti
Whitaker

not bad, not bad

BoxRec

Cynical and damaging

Cynical and damaging

Re: Cynical and damaging

Re: Cynical and damaging

Re: Cynical and damaging

Re: Cynical and damaging

Re: Cynical and damaging

Re: Cynical and damaging

Re: Cynical and damaging

Re: Cynical and damaging

Re: Cynical and damaging

Re: Cynical and damaging

Re: Cynical and damaging

Re: Cynical and damaging

Re: Cynical and damaging

Re: Cynical and damaging

Re: Cynical and damaging

Re: Cynical and damaging

Re: Cynical and damaging

Re: Cynical and damaging

Re: Cynical and damaging

Re: Cynical and damaging

Re: Cynical and damaging

Re: Cynical and damaging

Re: Cynical and damaging

Re: Cynical and damaging