Rescoring De La Hoya-Trinidad....what is your new scorecard

[SuzieQ49]

Round 1: Oscar 10-9

Round 2: Oscar 10-9

Round 3: Oscar 10-9

Round 4: Trinidad 10-9

Round 5: Oscar 10-9

Round 6: Oscar 10-9

Round 7: Oscar 10-9

Round 8: Even 10-10

Round 9: Oscar 10-9

Round 10: Trinidad 10-9

Round 11: Trinidad 10-9

Round 12: Trinidad 10-9


Final Tally 116-113 Oscar De La Hoya 7 rounds to 4 with 1 even




* how Jerry Roth had tito winning 3 of the first 4 rounds is preposterous.

[teeto]

I know my original card was a 2 point win for Oscar, this fight can look different secnd time around though, like Hagler-Leonard in that respect.

[la-califa]

No matter what the scoring. De La Hoya did not deserve to win due to his performance in the last half of the fight. Disgraceful. He had the fight won plain & simple, then just gave it away. Trinidad came to fight twelve hard round & earned the victory. Just as simple as that.

[Thread Stealer]

Round 1: Even
Round 2: Oscar
Round 3: Oscar
Round 4: Tito
Round 5: Oscar
Round 6: Oscar
Round 7: Oscar
Round 8: Tito
Round 9: Oscar
Round 10: Tito
Round 11: Tito
Round 12: Tito

6-5-1, or 115-114 for Oscar.

[Sweet Pea]

edit

[teeto]

I always give credit to the guy who wins the fight (or who i have), that means Duran beat Leonard the first time, not Leonard LOST the fight. And same case here, no matter what occurred, at the end i had Oscar so he deserved it imo

[teeto]

Suzie , check out my luv 4 Oscar in the post above! Cherish it, u wont be seein that again! Haha (kiddin)

[ChrisPontius]

No matter what the scoring. De La Hoya did not deserve to win due to his performance in the last half of the fight. Disgraceful. He had the fight won plain & simple, then just gave it away. Trinidad came to fight twelve hard round & earned the victory. Just as simple as that.
Bullshit. Fights are scored on a round by round basis and as such, Oscar definitely deserved the victory and this should have been (was) his career best win. Fucking corrupt judges.


Unless you can show me a rule in the WBC regulations that says "it's okay if you're getting outboxed, as long as you work hard, you deserve to win, we'll cheat some rounds that you clearly lost on your side".

[la-califa]

Bullshit. Fights are scored on a round by round basis and as such, Oscar definitely deserved the victory and this should have been (was) his career best win. Fucking corrupt judges.


Unless you can show me a rule in the WBC regulations that says "it's okay if you're getting outboxed, as long as you work hard, you deserve to win, we'll cheat some rounds that you clearly lost on your side". Trinidad wasn't "Given" Anything. He continued to fight hard all the way & was given the nod in a close fight. What I'm saying is De La Hoya had it in the bag, But not overwelming, and he just coasted the last few rounds, Making the fight very close.

[slicksouthpaw16]

Round 1: Oscar 10-9

Round 2: Oscar 10-9

Round 3: Oscar 10-9

Round 4: Trinidad 10-9

Round 5: Oscar 10-9

Round 6: Oscar 10-9

Round 7: Oscar 10-9

Round 8: Even 10-10

Round 9: Oscar 10-9

Round 10: Trinidad 10-9

Round 11: Trinidad 10-9

Round 12: Trinidad 10-9


Final Tally 116-113 Oscar De La Hoya 7 rounds to 4 with 1 even




* how Jerry Roth had tito winning 3 of the first 4 rounds is preposterous.

Thats exactly the way i scored it. I guess the judges scored the last 3 rounds 10-8 becuase Oscar wasn't throwing punches and Trinidad won the rounds by simply throwing. People may critize Oscar however that was a smart move. He was gassed out and if he allowed Trinidad to hit him, then he could have been stopped. Trinidad was a big banger at 147 and he had excellent condition.

[Robbi]

Round 1: Oscar 10-9

Round 2: Oscar 10-9

Round 3: Oscar 10-9

Round 4: Trinidad 10-9

Round 5: Oscar 10-9

Round 6: Oscar 10-9

Round 7: Oscar 10-9

Round 8: Oscar 10-9

Round 9: Oscar 10-9

Round 10: Trinidad 10-9

Round 11: Trinidad 10-9

Round 12: Trinidad 10-9


The fight is scored over 12 rounds, not decided on the last three because one fighter decides to back off on the backfoot. I think Trinidad never deserved the decision based on his lack of variation and poor defense over the vast majority of the contest. He couldn't land more than one punch at a time.

[Russell]

Thats exactly the way i scored it. I guess the judges scored the last 3 rounds 10-8 becuase Oscar wasn't throwing punches and Trinidad won the rounds by simply throwing. People may critize Oscar however that was a smart move. He was gassed out and if he allowed Trinidad to hit him, then he could have been stopped. Trinidad was a big banger at 147 and he had excellent condition.

If he wasn't landing anything than why would they be 10-8 rounds? :?

[Robbi]

One round which is actually close is the 12th. I urge anyone who thinks Trinidad won that round clearly to re-watch it. Trinidad is coming forward and chasing De La Hoya down but misses mostly everything he throws. It fools you a little as De La Hoya is on the defensive back pedalling but actually seems to make it a close round by landing more.

Just watch the round and look out for clean punches landing. Forget about Trinidad coming forward and De La Hoya on the retreat. You'll more than likely agree that it could have gone either way.

[TommyV]

It was Oscar by 2. Will have to find the fight again and re-score it.

[BOGART]

When I saw the fight on ppv I knew DLH had won the fight when it ended, despite him fighting defensivly the last three rounds. Me and the other three or four guys watching it were all surprised Tito got the decision. I've rewatched it once and still scored it for DLH, 7-5. Bad decision.

[Longhhorn71]

I think Oscar will try to get a "Seniors' Tour" match with Teeto and limit the fight to 10 rounds. Ball shots will also be banned.

Oscar by points 6-3-1.

[sweet_scientist]

Been a while since I last watched it and I do want to review it, but always find better things to do - which is not saying much considering what a dull fight it was.

In any case: 116-112 DLH

Rounds 1,10,11 and 12 to Tito, the rest going to DLH. From memory I thought a couple of the rounds were close and could have gone Tito's way, but there's no way he did more than earn a draw on a VERY generous appraisal.

BTW, whilst watching it live I was ecstatic when DLH finally lost, even though I thought he did enough to win. Kind of a karma thing for other fights I thought DLH was lucky to be on the winning end of.

[Jbuz]

No matter what the scoring. De La Hoya did not deserve to win due to his performance in the last half of the fight. Disgraceful. He had the fight won plain & simple, then just gave it away. Trinidad came to fight twelve hard round & earned the victory. Just as simple as that.

Yeah no.

Unless someone changed the definition of "half the fight" to 2 rounds, you probably haven't seen the fight. Oscar ran in the 11th and 12th. He won the 9th, and arguably the 10th.

[ChrisPontius]

Trinidad wasn't "Given" Anything. He continued to fight hard all the way & was given the nod in a close fight. What I'm saying is De La Hoya had it in the bag, But not overwelming, and he just coasted the last few rounds, Making the fight very close.

Like you say, De La Hoya had it in the bag. He could take a crap on a ringpost for all i care, as long as he lost those 3 rounds by 10 9, which he did, he won the fight. End of discussion.

[divac]

One fighter came to fight and win, and another came to stall and not to lose.

Thank God for boxing that the judges got this one right!:happy

[Robbi]

One fighter came to fight and win, and another came to stall and not to lose.

Thank God for boxing that the judges got this one right!:happy

Coming to win? Trinidad's effort over the first 8-9 rounds was a poor effort. Just because you come forward and look to get into exchanges doesn't mean your coming to win and the other fighter isn't as he's on the backfoot.

The fighter coming not to lose is also coming to win. And the fighter coming to win is not coming to lose. Nice try with that statement.

[divac]

Coming to win? Trinidad's effort over the first 8-9 rounds was a poor effort. Just because you come forward and look to get into exchanges doesn't mean your coming to win and the other fighter isn't as he's on the backfoot.

The fighter coming not to lose is also coming to win. And the fighter coming to win is not coming to lose. Nice try with that statement.

Sorry Robbi, but a fighter like JMM is a perfect example of what it is to box.
It does'nt matter if you're moving foward or backward, you still got to let your hands go to dish out punishment.
The key to boxing imo is to retaliate with counterpunching exchanges when the aggressor is coming to you.

DLH was moving backward faster than Trinidad was moving foward, thus Trinidad quite could'nt find the niche to cut the ring and gain the angles.
The problem I had with DLH and the reason why I had it razor close for DLH after 9 rounds (when alot of you here had DLH winning by a landslide) was that DLH did very little effective punching fighting moving backwards.
Too many of the rounds were spent with both fighters not being able to land anything that was effective.
When this happens, I usually will side with the aggressor, whether his aggression was effective or not.

The non-effective aggressor imo gets the round over the non-effective fighter who is simply running away from boxing related exchange.

I was'nt looking for DLH to stand his ground and trade with Trinidad, but I was looking for him to crack Trinidad on a more consistent basis when Trinidad was coming foward.

JMM without running a trackmeet made Pacquiao come to him, in the process of Pacquiao going to JMM, JMM gained the angles (this is called boxing) and made Pacquiao uncomfortable and unbalanced in the process.....
....did JMM run during Pacquiao's chase????? To the contrary, JMM gained the angle, forced Pacquiao offbalance, and cracked him with with authoritative combinations that forced Pacquiao to backdown and reset.
.....and a handful of times of these combinations through an entire fight is not enough, you've got to show it and look to unleash your boxing on a consistent basis round after round....
That is what is called boxing, not the trackmeet, avoidance type of a plan that DLH accomplished in his fight with Trinidad.

From my point of view, the boxer should relish and salivate at the opportunity that is there to land his countershots when an aggressor is advancing.
That my friend is not trading shots, its gaining the angle advantage, getting your foe offbalance, and firing shots.
Its called boxing!
and I did'nt see any of it from DLH!!!!


Both Trinidad and DLH were ineffective in that fight, and when that happens, on my scorecard the aggressor wins everytime!

[la-califa]

But why did De La Hoya do that? was he hurt? Just doesn't make sense definatly he was up going into the ninth. But not by four or five points, to coast like that... He' been around Boxing long enough to not leave it up to the judge's like that,especcially in Vegas! Same thing with Mayweather, he was getting into a good rythum & then suddenly he abandend the jab. allowing Mayweather to get momentum back. It's just fustrating especcially with a Mexican fighter, if you got the advantage over your opponent, you step up the pressure, never ease off!

[divac]

But why did De La Hoya do that? was he hurt? Just doesn't make sense definatly he was up going into the ninth. But not by four or five points, to coast like that... He' been around Boxing long enough to not leave it up to the judge's like that,especcially in Vegas! Same thing with Mayweather, he was getting into a good rythum & then suddenly he abandend the jab. allowing Mayweather to get momentum back. It's just fustrating especcially with a Mexican fighter, if you got the advantage over your opponent, you step up the pressure, never ease off!

Exactly!

I vividly remember JC Chavez being interviewed on his opinion of the outcome of the DLH-Trinidad fight........
......Chavez was caught visibly drunk on camera (I hate when newspeople do that to legends like Chavez, they should have never put him on camera like that) but in any regards, what Chavez said in a drunk state, made all the sense in the world......he said, referring to DLH, "the kid had all that it took to beat Trinidad, but he did'nt have the balls to go and and get it!"

Oh, I agreed with that statement 100%, DLH had better skill, but not the intestinal fortitude to go out and prove it!

[AussieMauler]

Have not watched the fight...there i said it.


Why have all the people who thought Oscar won posted their scores.

When the Tito believers have just posted discussion points?

[cuchulain]

Have not watched the fight...there i said it.


Why have all the people who thought Oscar won posted their scores.

When the Tito believers have just posted discussion points?


Good point.

Let me see....

Maybe because it's difficult to post a credible round-by-round that shows Tito getting the nod ?

[divac]

Good point.

Let me see....

Maybe because it's difficult to post a credible round-by-round that shows Tito getting the nod ?

Maybe because its been so long that they dont remember which rounds they gave who......

......and who the heck but a DLH sack swinger wants to re-watch a nonfight all over again?:nut

As I said earlier, I'm not sure of my exact score, but I think its ridiculous to think that a non-fight like that would be scored 9-0 for the non-effective runner.

DLH imo did barely enough to be ahead after 9 rounds by a point or two, then I racked the remaining 3 or four rounds to Trinidad.

I believe I had it 7-5 or 7-4-1 Trinidad, and I have no intentions of rewatching it for the sake of re-scoring it!


Let those who stall fights, go down to defeat!:deal :yep

[AussieMauler]

Ok so i dont like either fighter but because of the perceptions going one way or the other i thought it would be intersting which is the only reason i am in the thread at all

It is a thread about RESCORING the fight- if you dont want to watch it again then dont.

[divac]

Ok so i dont like either fighter but because of the perceptions going one way or the other i thought it would be intersting which is the only reason i am in the thread at all

It is a thread about RESCORING the fight- if you dont want to watch it again then dont.

You're right AM, the thread is about re-scoring, but I just thought I'd throw my two cents and stop the avalache of DLH sack swingers anyways!:D ;)

I'm honestly posting my opinion of the fight, and truly it was a non-fight!

[sweet_scientist]

If DLH was ineffective, Tito was non-existent.

Trinidad did two-thirds of fuck all in the first 8 rounds.

Oh wait, I take that back, he did paint his trunks the colour of a nice claret.:good

[cuchulain]

Maybe because its been so long that they dont remember which rounds they gave who......

......and who the heck but a DLH sack swinger wants to re-watch a nonfight all over again?:nut

How does disagreeing with your take on the fight make someone a DLH sack swinger ?

And the thread is titled:

Re: Rescoring De La Hoya-Trinidad....what is your new scorecard

So if you don't want to rewatch it and provide an actual round by round score, then maybe you're making my earlier point.




Maybe because it's difficult to post a credible round-by-round that shows Tito getting the nod ?

[SuzieQ49]

I believe I had it 7-5 or 7-4-1 Trinidad, and I have no intentions of rewatching it for the sake of re-scoring it!



:lol:

[Thread Stealer]

But why did De La Hoya do that? was he hurt? Just doesn't make sense definatly he was up going into the ninth. But not by four or five points, to coast like that... He' been around Boxing long enough to not leave it up to the judge's like that,especcially in Vegas! Same thing with Mayweather, he was getting into a good rythum & then suddenly he abandend the jab. allowing Mayweather to get momentum back. It's just fustrating especcially with a Mexican fighter, if you got the advantage over your opponent, you step up the pressure, never ease off!

De La Hoya was fatigued. He has admitted this a few times.

There is the whole myth about his corner telling him to run, but when I watched the fight all I hear in the corner is "box, box, box", and "no more rounds like that" after the 10th.

[Thread Stealer]

* how Jerry Roth had tito winning 3 of the first 4 rounds is preposterous.

What is it with Vegas judges being drunk at De La Hoya fights?

Jerry Roth gave De La Hoya 9 rounds against Whitaker. So did another judge. Then he gives Trinidad 3 of the first 4 rounds.

Ken Morita had De La Hoya beating Quartey by 2 points.....going into the 12th. Quartey could've actually won the 12th round on all three cards and still not won the fight.

Then there was the Felix Sturm debacle.

[Robbi]

I believe I had it 7-5 or 7-4-1 Trinidad, and I have no intentions of rewatching it for the sake of re-scoring

I find your scoring and opinion sad. Extremely sad, especially someone who had Marquez beating Pacquaio.

How Trinidad can win rounds on 2-3 clean effective power is beyond belief. Some of the rounds were close. I'll say one thing thats a fact and not even an opinion. Trinidad landed one punch at a time, throughout the entire fight, and sometimes he only threw one punch a time, never mind land one.

The biggest factor for me, variety. And De La Hoya had much better variety. Jabs, combos, defense, clean power punches. All Trinidad had was power punches, but for the most part his shots were blocked or hit fresh air.

Trinidad the aggressor? He was extremely ineffective. De La Hoya while on the backfoot and side to side was doing better and more consistent work. He was scoring, landing, something Trinidad wasn't doing enough of I'm afraid.

Variety

[Robbi]

And mostly everyone. 90% easily. Trainers, journalists, fighters, etc. All thought De La Hoya should have won.

[Thread Stealer]

De La Hoya winning 4 rounds?

Divac is a cool poster, but I love the unintentional humor of some of his scorecards.

:lol:

[divac]

I find your scoring and opinion sad. Extremely sad, especially someone who had Marquez beating Pacquaio.

How Trinidad can win rounds on 2-3 clean effective power is beyond belief. Some of the rounds were close. I'll say one thing thats a fact and not even an opinion. Trinidad landed one punch at a time, throughout the entire fight, and sometimes he only threw one punch a time, never mind land one.

The biggest factor for me, variety. And De La Hoya had much better variety. Jabs, combos, defense, clean power punches. All Trinidad had was power punches, but for the most part his shots were blocked or hit fresh air.

Trinidad the aggressor? He was extremely ineffective. De La Hoya while on the backfoot and side to side was doing better and more consistent work. He was scoring, landing, something Trinidad wasn't doing enough of I'm afraid.

Variety

Are you going to sit at your keyboard Robbi, and tell me that DLH's so called boxing against Trinidad was on the level of JMM against Pacquiao?

If you say yes, then thats what is sad.

I posted earlier that what DLH accomplish against Trinidad was to completely avoid boxing exchanges.

When you're that much better as a boxer than your opponent, you dont avoid him, you relish the opportunity to let your hands flow and proving just how much better you are.
.....that was the case with JMM vs Pacquiao.
DLH did'nt get within sniffing distance of proving boxing superiority against Trinidad, and certainly he was'nt going to prove that superiority the way he was consistently lateraling his feet on high speed turbo.

Felix Trinidad did not impress me what so ever, but when a fighter fights the way DLH did....afraid to get into a boxing related exchange for the great majority of the fight, then I just cant and will not give him rounds.

There was two or three of the rounds where DLH did a little bit of letting his hands go, and as Scientist said, he turned Trinidad's trunks a different color.
.....there was'nt enough of that, and certainly DLH was'nt even attempting to let his hands flow in a round by round basis.
In alot of the round, DLH would land a two or three punch combo during the round, and then rest on that laurel, lateraling on high speed turbo for the remainder of the round.
Those rounds to me, are rounds that Trinidad gets landing his one punch at a time as he's on the chase.

DLH fought scared, and quite simply, it cost him the fight.
Not a whole lot of journalist complained about it either!!!

To be honest, I think more people complain about this decision now, than they did back when it happenend.

[Cobra33]

I hate De La Hoya but he easily outboxed Tito the whole bout with the exception of the last 3 rounds.
Felix did nothing but follow Oscar around the entire bout except in rounds 10,11, and 12.

HOW CAN A FIGHTER WIN AT LEAST 8 ROUNDS AND LOSE THE BOUT BECAUSE HE GAVE THE LAST 3 ROUNDS AWAY?AND REMEMBER ITS CALLED EFFECTIVE AGGRESION!

[Black Eyes To You]

I thought to win a round you actually had to hit the opponent. DLH gave tito a boxing lesson til he got on his bicycle. That was a disgraceful decision. Not the first in history, but if you watched that and can truthfully give that fight to Tito, you are a nuthugger or punchdrunk.

[El Matador]

I thought to win a round you actually had to hit the opponent.
Well, Oscar was not landing in the final three rounds - on my card (I scored a while back), I remember scoring it a draw.

He did not perform like a champion - neither did Tito, for that matter.

BTW - didn't Willie Pep win a round without throwing a punch? Not sure if this is a myth or not, but always hear about him doing that.

[Thread Stealer]

BTW - didn't Willie Pep win a round without throwing a punch? Not sure if this is a myth or not, but always hear about him doing that.

He supposed won a round without throwing a punch against Graves, but apparently it's just a myth.

[la-califa]

The scoring doesn't really seem to be the issue with me. It is just the way the fight unfolded at the end. If De La Hoya was dominating the way many of you say, & Trinidad was so inneffective, winning eight rounds or whatever. Why didn't he close the show like a true champion? When Chavez had Rosario at a didsadvantage after nine. Did he start backpeddaling the rest of the way? Hello no! Like a true Champion, Chavez turned up the heat and took Rosario out.

[Thread Stealer]

The scoring doesn't really seem to be the issue with me. It is just the way the fight unfolded at the end. If De La Hoya was dominating the way many of you say, & Trinidad was so inneffective, winning eight rounds or whatever. Why didn't he close the show like a true champion? When Chavez had Rosario at a didsadvantage after nine. Did he start backpeddaling the rest of the way? Hello no! Like a true Champion, Chavez turned up the heat and took Rosario out.

De La Hoya was tired and did what he felt would help him win the fight.

[Sizzle]

I regard this fight, given the grandeur of the event, the worst robbery I've ever seen. Even worse than Whitaker-Chavez.

I really can't see a case for Trinidad winning.

I'm not a particularly big fan of Oscar - But I thought that he gave Trinidad a boxing masterclass for the first ten rounds, dropping just one.

He landed a shitload more punches than Trinidad, outjabbed him, outboxed and outmanuevered him, My score was 117-111, and I didn't think it was all that bad a fight as some people have suggested.

[Sizzle]

The scoring doesn't really seem to be the issue with me. It is just the way the fight unfolded at the end. If De La Hoya was dominating the way many of you say, & Trinidad was so inneffective, winning eight rounds or whatever. Why didn't he close the show like a true champion? When Chavez had Rosario at a didsadvantage after nine. Did he start backpeddaling the rest of the way? Hello no! Like a true Champion, Chavez turned up the heat and took Rosario out.

Because Trinidad is an explosive puncher, and a split second concentration lapse on De La Hoyas part (most likely when he's tired in the last couple of rounds) could cost him the fight - He played it safe.

Katsidis decided to try and finish off Casamayor in similar circumstances and got caught and knocked out.

By the way, one judge actually scored the 12th round in De La Hoyas favour.

[divac]

Because Trinidad is an explosive puncher, and a split second concentration lapse on De La Hoyas part (most likely when he's tired in the last couple of rounds) could cost him the fight - He played it safe.
So to is Mike Tyson an explosive puncher, I did'nt see that stopping Evander Holyfield from continueing to lay a can of whoop ass, despite the fact that 100% of those watching had him well in front.
Holyfield clearly showed his superiority over Tyson, and thank God for fighters like Holyfield who fight consciously knowing that there are people out there who are paying good money to see him at work!!!


Katsidis decided to try and finish off Casamayor in similar circumstances and got caught and knocked out.
Yeah, damn Katsidis for trying to live to his end of the bargain and entertaining the viewer by trying to finish the show.:roll:

Bottom line, there was not a whole lot of Boxing media that were upset with this decision, because they knew that DLH had not done enough even in the early rounds to make it clear that he was winning those rounds.

I've said this about Pernell Whitaker also, at the end of the day, history has shown us that judges dont reward the fighter that fights timidly cautious!


Can you imagine the state of boxing today, if every fighter who thought he was winning rounds, just went out and played it safe???

Open your minds friends, there is a good reason why judges normally dont reward cautiousness, it would completely ruin boxing.

........and the saddest part about DLH's performance against Trinidad is that he was supposed to have been "THE DRAW" the fighter that people pay to see.
Point blank, that performance by DLH was not one from a GREAT fighter!

[Sizzle]

So to is Mike Tyson an explosive puncher, I did'nt see that stopping Evander Holyfield from continueing to lay a can of whoop ass, despite the fact that 100% of those watching had him well in front.
Holyfield clearly showed his superiority over Tyson, and thank God for fighters like Holyfield who fight consciously knowing that there are people out there who are paying good money to see him at work!!!


Yeah, damn Katsidis for trying to live to his end of the bargain and entertaining the viewer by trying to finish the show.:roll:

Bottom line, there was not a whole lot of Boxing media that were upset with this decision, because they knew that DLH had not done enough even in the early rounds to make it clear that he was winning those rounds.

I've said this about Pernell Whitaker also, at the end of the day, history has shown us that judges dont reward the fighter that fights timidly cautious!


Can you imagine the state of boxing today, if every fighter who thought he was winning rounds, just went out and played it safe???

Open your minds friends, there is a good reason why judges normally dont reward cautiousness, it would completely ruin boxing.

........and the saddest part about DLH's performance against Trinidad is that he was supposed to have been "THE DRAW" the fighter that people pay to see.
Point blank, that performance by DLH was not one from a GREAT fighter!

I give Holyfield credit for finishing off Tyson. But the fact is Tyson was poorly conditioned, rendered senseless by the headbutt in the 3rd round, and being badly beaten. Trinidad was still fresh and a genuine threat at any point of the fight. He was outboxed but not brutalized.

I'm not glorifying what De La Hoya did - I'm just saying I can understand it.

Katsidis fought valiantly, and deserves to be commended for that, but even he seemed remorseful for the way he fought late on in the fight in the postfight interview, citing inexperience for his rash offense.

If I was his trainer I certainly would've told him not to take chances in the late rounds. And he'd be an undefeated titlist and on the verge of a much bigger payday in the future had he fought that way.

[jc]

Nothin Tito done actually won him any rounds, it was all what Oscar threw away. Imo if trinindad only got the last 3 rounds that would be totally fair. De La Hoya was quicker, landed more blows more often and hardly took any damge at all over 12.

Blatant win for Oscar, disgusting decision.

[DINAMITA]

Bullshit. Fights are scored on a round by round basis and as such, Oscar definitely deserved the victory and this should have been (was) his career best win. Fucking corrupt judges.


Unless you can show me a rule in the WBC regulations that says "it's okay if you're getting outboxed, as long as you work hard, you deserve to win, we'll cheat some rounds that you clearly lost on your side".

Super post. De La Hoya could have tap-danced those last 3 rounds if he wanted and, even though it isn't admirable, the rules are if you win more rounds you win the fight, he won. 117-111. Disgusting decision, but don't worry, DLH will be remembered as a greater fighter than Trinidad, who was an absolute shambles as soon as his power couldn't bail him out.

[Stonehands89]

I just watched it again.

First of all, the commentators -all of them- Merchant, Foreman, Lampley, and even Lederman were shameless in their cheerleading. In round 6, Oscar was running and running and fans are booing, and Lampley says "they don't know that they are witnessing a superb boxing exhibition." Now hear this: Dancing around safely outside of the perimeter and skipping backwards as your opponent comes in -is not "superb boxing".

Lederman says "Oscar is moving beautifully -that's ring generalship." That is not only erroneous, it drives home the point. And the point is that it is most assuredly NOT superb boxing and it is NOT ring generalship -by definition!

I would ask those of you are consider this fight a disgrace to first define what great boxing is. I think that we have a problem of definition.

I think it likely that "safety first" boxing has been inflated since the days of Ali (who moved like Sugar Ray Robinson although Sugar was not "safety first", but a mobile assassin), and reached their fruition with Ray Leonard. The American media is thus complicit in glorifying something that really is a second-rate skill -running and dancing outside of the danger zone. They did it because they had wet dreams about Leonard.

First rate defensive skill is not staying out of harm's way -it is operating within harm's way and effectively avoiding shots by inches (not by feet).

Ring generalship is this and delivering textbook shots effectively inside, mid-range, outside, and combining the different skill sets you need that include but are not limited to mobility!

Now don't misunderstand. Tito fought like Duran in New Orleans -he fought like a narcoleptic. Single digit punches in a round is pathetic. It is not effective aggression. However, some rounds of the Tito-DLH had one man coming forward, throwing and missing single shots and the other man running right, left, and backwards and throwing and missing combinations. The former is fighting, albeit ineffectively -the latter is running. That ain't great boxing!

[Thread Stealer]

Even though I scored it for DLH, I don't see this great big robbery that people are talking about. There were indeed some close rounds.

Rounds 1, 4, 8, 9....close rounds. Hell, even Tito's rounds late were close.

gS_D0I2ZtMI

dfNhA8rx5s0

GsAPiTLO7yM

g9y4FJyBRFc

s_FyQqDKBpo

[Robbi]

First rate defensive skill is not staying out of harm's way -it is operating within harm's way and effectively avoiding shots by inches (not by feet).

I would say first rate defensive skill can be staying out of harms way as long as your landing as well and doing effectively with a sufficent amount of offense while doing so. By a fighter letting his hands go he's always vulnerable to be being countered. So if he a boxer can judge his distance well, keep on the move; avoid exchanges, and score with clean accurate punches. Then thats first rate defense.

However, the even tougher way is what you said above. Operating within harms way and still doing as good a job as what I mentioned above. More boxers are prone to being hit when standing within range, mid-distance and inside, but not hit cleanly if they are good. Top of the head, gloves, hips, and low blows. Toney and Whitaker were both brilliant at covering up inside.

What is great defense? Making your opponent miss altogether or blocking his punches and not taking anything that would count as 'scoring' type punches?. If you can combine both then IMO you have a very varied defense. It's a lot harder to make an opponent hit fresh air up close then it is at long range. Obviously as you can see punches coming which are further away from you, thus giving you time to react.

Not disagreeing with you, just adding more to what you posted. More questions being asked so to speak.

[Robbi]

Even though I scored it for DLH, I don't see this great big robbery that people are talking about. There were indeed some close rounds.

Rounds 1, 4, 8, 9....close rounds. Hell, even Tito's rounds late were close.

One round I have watched many times is the 9th. After viewing this round and watching intently I think De La Hoya wins that round.

[sweet_scientist]

I regard this fight, given the grandeur of the event, the worst robbery I've ever seen. Even worse than Whitaker-Chavez.

Is that because you thought it was more one sided or because you thought DLH-Tito was a bigger event?

In pure boxing terms it was in no way shape or form bigger than Chavez vs. Whitaker. There you had two fighters of a higher calibre, ranked no.1 and no.2 p4p at the time squaring off. And they certainly displayed more skill and ability than DLH and Tito did in their fight.

Now in terms of capturing the imagination of the public, DLH vs. Tito probably was bigger, even thought Chavez vs. Whitaker was fought in front of 56,000 fans.

[sp6r=underrated]

I just watched it again.

First of all, the commentators -all of them- Merchant, Foreman, Lampley, and even Lederman were shameless in their cheerleading. In round 6, Oscar was running and running and fans are booing, and Lampley says "they don't know that they are witnessing a superb boxing exhibition." Now hear this: Dancing around safely outside of the perimeter and skipping backwards as your opponent comes in -is not "superb boxing".

Lederman says "Oscar is moving beautifully -that's ring generalship." That is not only erroneous, it drives home the point. And the point is that it is most assuredly NOT superb boxing and it is NOT ring generalship -by definition!

I would ask those of you are consider this fight a disgrace to first define what great boxing is. I think that we have a problem of definition.

I think it likely that "safety first" boxing has been inflated since the days of Ali (who moved like Sugar Ray Robinson although Sugar was not "safety first", but a mobile assassin), and reached their fruition with Ray Leonard. The American media is thus complicit in glorifying something that really is a second-rate skill -running and dancing outside of the danger zone. They did it because they had wet dreams about Leonard.

First rate defensive skill is not staying out of harm's way -it is operating within harm's way and effectively avoiding shots by inches (not by feet).

Ring generalship is this and delivering textbook shots effectively inside, mid-range, outside, and combining the different skill sets you need that include but are not limited to mobility!

Now don't misunderstand. Tito fought like Duran in New Orleans -he fought like a narcoleptic. Single digit punches in a round is pathetic. It is not effective aggression. However, some rounds of the Tito-DLH had one man coming forward, throwing and missing single shots and the other man running right, left, and backwards and throwing and missing combinations. The former is fighting, albeit ineffectively -the latter is running. That ain't great boxing!

Great post,

Also I will add, and I believe this will be disagreed with, blatant running like De la Hoya's in the last 3 rounds warrants 10-8 scoring regardless of what the agressor does (as long as he keeps pressing). There should be a strong deterent for fighters who refuse to fight.

[eliqueiros]

I scored the fight same way, 7 to 4 with one draw for Oscar. I love Trinidad but just don't think he deserved the win just cuz Oscar got tired. The fact that Trinidad could not close off the ring to an extremely fatigued boxer is very telling. Had Trinidad tired in the tenth Oscar would have knocked him out, just better at controlling the ring. Trinidad should have been able to knock Hoya out, instead he chased while missing most punches. Therefore he sure as hell does not deserve that win.

[slicksouthpaw16]

If he wasn't landing anything than why would they be 10-8 rounds? :?

By simply throwing punches. When you have a fighter that is bring the fight to the other fighter and hes not doing anything but running, then you pretty much dominated the round by throwing. It was a combination of what Trinidad did and what Oscar didn't do. Its not something that i agree with, but thats the way they scored the fight. Like i stated, i had Oscar winning by unanimous decision.

[divac]

I just watched it again.

First of all, the commentators -all of them- Merchant, Foreman, Lampley, and even Lederman were shameless in their cheerleading. In round 6, Oscar was running and running and fans are booing, and Lampley says "they don't know that they are witnessing a superb boxing exhibition." Now hear this: Dancing around safely outside of the perimeter and skipping backwards as your opponent comes in -is not "superb boxing".

Lederman says "Oscar is moving beautifully -that's ring generalship." That is not only erroneous, it drives home the point. And the point is that it is most assuredly NOT superb boxing and it is NOT ring generalship -by definition!

I would ask those of you are consider this fight a disgrace to first define what great boxing is. I think that we have a problem of definition.

I think it likely that "safety first" boxing has been inflated since the days of Ali (who moved like Sugar Ray Robinson although Sugar was not "safety first", but a mobile assassin), and reached their fruition with Ray Leonard. The American media is thus complicit in glorifying something that really is a second-rate skill -running and dancing outside of the danger zone. They did it because they had wet dreams about Leonard.

First rate defensive skill is not staying out of harm's way -it is operating within harm's way and effectively avoiding shots by inches (not by feet).

Ring generalship is this and delivering textbook shots effectively inside, mid-range, outside, and combining the different skill sets you need that include but are not limited to mobility!

Now don't misunderstand. Tito fought like Duran in New Orleans -he fought like a narcoleptic. Single digit punches in a round is pathetic. It is not effective aggression. However, some rounds of the Tito-DLH had one man coming forward, throwing and missing single shots and the other man running right, left, and backwards and throwing and missing combinations. The former is fighting, albeit ineffectively -the latter is running. That ain't great boxing!

Awesome post Stonehands!
You beautifully and eloquently described what I consider boxing just about to a tee!:good


I'm baffled that so many posters around here would consider great defense as someone who is just avoiding getting hit.

I think you will agree that avoiding getting hit in a scoring sense is worthless, if its not going to lead to you putting yourself in position to score.


I've got to pay you the ultimate compliment Stonehands, I cant remember reading a better post around here!
Great Post!!!:good

[divac]

I would say first rate defensive skill can be staying out of harms way as long as your landing as well and doing effectively with a sufficent amount of offense while doing so. By a fighter letting his hands go he's always vulnerable to be being countered. So if he a boxer can judge his distance well, keep on the move; avoid exchanges, and score with clean accurate punches. Then thats first rate defense.

However, the even tougher way is what you said above. Operating within harms way and still doing as good a job as what I mentioned above. More boxers are prone to being hit when standing within range, mid-distance and inside, but not hit cleanly if they are good. Top of the head, gloves, hips, and low blows. Toney and Whitaker were both brilliant at covering up inside.

What is great defense? Making your opponent miss altogether or blocking his punches and not taking anything that would count as 'scoring' type punches?. If you can combine both then IMO you have a very varied defense. It's a lot harder to make an opponent hit fresh air up close then it is at long range. Obviously as you can see punches coming which are further away from you, thus giving you time to react.

Not disagreeing with you, just adding more to what you posted. More questions being asked so to speak.


So if he a boxer can judge his distance well, keep on the move; avoid exchanges, and score with clean accurate punches. Then thats first rate defense.

Keep on the move and avoid exchanges???
I could'nt disagree anymore with your view of what boxing is and should be.

Stonehands described it beautifully, and I agree with him 100%.

Boxing to me is all about the exchanges, and hitting while avoiding being hit during them.
Great defense is avoiding your opponent to cleanly and effectively hit you while at the same time putting yourself in a position to effectively hit.


I respect you and your opinions Robbi, but on this matter we're on complete opposite ends!:?

[Robbi]

Keep on the move and avoid exchanges???
I could'nt disagree anymore with your view of what boxing is and should be.

Stonehands described it beautifully, and I agree with him 100%.

Boxing to me is all about the exchanges, and hitting while avoiding being hit during them.
Great defense is avoiding your opponent to cleanly and effectively hit you while at the same time putting yourself in a position to effectively hit.


I respect you and your opinions Robbi, but on this matter we're on complete opposite ends!:?

I don't see what the problem is Divac. I have covered what Stonehands has said and added a bit of my own feelings. Lets simplify it. Any fighter who steps into a ring and makes his opponent miss yet lands clean effective punches of his own has a good defense. Trust me my friend, it's that simple.

Whats wrong with making an opponent miss, then making him pay. An exchange is when both fighters are opening up at the same time. Yes, very good fighters who can stand in harms way, get into exchanges, and avoid punches have a damn excellent defense. But the bottom line is that if you can avoid incoming traffic and return effective offense then your doing well.

I have clearly pointed out that it takes a special defensive fighter to stand within range, exchange punches, and avoid whats coming towards him. And I have agreed with Stonehands on my last post about it.

But a fighter who uses lateral movement and even lets his hands go while backing up in a straight line is also among a rare breed.

Whitaker avoided exchanges against Nelson through the vast majority of their fight. You trying to tell me he wasn't effective? I'll tell you one thing. Whitaker at one point backed up in a straight line. ________ like that, looking to avoid an exchange, and at the same time cracked right through Nelson's guard with three clean jolting jabs. You don't see many fighters do that.

[Stonehands89]

Awesome post Stonehands!
You beautifully and eloquently described what I consider boxing just about to a tee!:good


I'm baffled that so many posters around here would consider great defense as someone who is just avoiding getting hit.

I think you will agree that avoiding getting hit in a scoring sense is worthless, if its not going to lead to you putting yourself in position to score.


I've got to pay you the ultimate compliment Stonehands, I cant remember reading a better post around here!
Great Post!!!:good
I appreciate the credit -especially because a poster with the caliber of Divac doesn't speak out of the wrong end.

A post script: it's getting redundant for me to keep harping on, but boxing fans, even the more knowledgeable ones at ESB confuse skill with youthful athleticism. Duran's demonstration of skillful defense in Montreal far exceeded Leonard's in New Orleans -and that may be the line that divides the camps here -I'd welcome any opposition on that one.

Here's another example: I for one am far less impressed with a Michael Nunn jumping around to avoid shots than I am by Mike McCallum slipping and countering Julian Jackson's bombs -operating like a surgeon inside the perimeter. There is no comparison, but people like showy things, not subtle skill.

[Robbi]

A post script: it's getting redundant for me to keep harping on, but boxing fans, even the more knowledgeable ones at ESB confuse skill with youthful athleticism. Duran's demonstration of skillful defense in Montreal far exceeded Leonard's in New Orleans -and that may be the line that divides the camps here -I'd welcome any opposition on that one.

Yeah, Duran showed that he could bull forward and slip punches. Leonard said after the fight he found Duran hard to hit cleanly. Most of the punches brushed off Duran or missed altogether, and at times Leonard landed. Duran's defense was not just brilliant inside, but he also countered well from the outside in Montreal. He stepped in effectively so to speak. Much of Duran's long range work was choosen carefully. He timed his shots extremely well. A great example was when Duran rocked Leonard back into the ropes near the end of the 2nd round. He slipped Leonard's jab with head and waist movement, then came back with a right hand followed by a half left hook/uppercut. Beautiful.

[Robbi]

I appreciate the credit -especially because a poster with the caliber of Divac doesn't speak out of the wrong end.

A post script: it's getting redundant for me to keep harping on, but boxing fans, even the more knowledgeable ones at ESB confuse skill with youthful athleticism. Duran's demonstration of skillful defense in Montreal far exceeded Leonard's in New Orleans -and that may be the line that divides the camps here -I'd welcome any opposition on that one.

A good defense is enchanced further with the ingredients of youthful athleticism. It's not about being confused. It's about aknowleding both skill, which I assume you mean defensive skill, and athleticism.

Leonard's defense in New Orleans was basic, but effective. He was hit far less for as long as the fight lasted than Duran was in Montreal over the first 8 rounds. Obviously they were both showing different styles in each fight. This ties in with what I said about it being harder for a fighter to stand in harms way and totally avoid punches than it is at long range while on your bicycle.

I do tend to agree that Duran's defense was complex and varied. Their are so many aspects to a fighters defensive game that he can use to avoid punches while hitting his opponent. Slipping punches, feinting, countering, lateral movement, blocking punches, covering up, waist movement. Duran showed a little bit of everything in Montreal, with Leonard only ticking a few boxes. Lateral movement being the strongest aspect of his defense in New Orleans.

[Stonehands89]

Leonard's defense in New Orleans was basic, but effective. He was hit far less for as long as the fight lasted than Duran was in Montreal over the first 8 rounds. Obviously they were both showing different styles in each fight.
Leonard's defense in New Orleans may have been "effective" but it was only because he was "hit far less often" -and that was only because he was usually out of harm's way against a man who was half-asleep.

You're right about it being a demonstration of a different form of defense -a less impressive and less skilled form of defense.

[Robbi]

Leonard's defense in New Orleans may have been "effective" but it was only because he was "hit far less often" -and that was only because he was usually out of harm's way against a man who was half-asleep.

You're right about it being a demonstration of a different form of defense -a less impressive and less skilled form of defense.

I have always been a fan of boxers; Holmes, Hearns, Whitaker, etc. But Duran is one those aggressive fighters I appreciate to the core. Not many aggressive bulls are among my favourite fighters, but Duran happens to be at the very top. Number one actually.

Duran and Whitaker come hand in hand although they are polar opposites. Whitaker's offense and inside fighting gets overlooked, as does Duran's defense and boxing ability. And it you swap those attributes around with each fighter, thats exactly whats comes to mind first and foremost when we think of either.

[divac]

I appreciate the credit -especially because a poster with the caliber of Divac doesn't speak out of the wrong end.

A post script: it's getting redundant for me to keep harping on, but boxing fans, even the more knowledgeable ones at ESB confuse skill with youthful athleticism. Duran's demonstration of skillful defense in Montreal far exceeded Leonard's in New Orleans -and that may be the line that divides the camps here -I'd welcome any opposition on that one.

Here's another example: I for one am far less impressed with a Michael Nunn jumping around to avoid shots than I am by Mike McCallum slipping and countering Julian Jackson's bombs -operating like a surgeon inside the perimeter. There is no comparison, but people like showy things, not subtle skill.

:good

Duran-Leonard in Montreal is a prime example of exellent defense within what I would call boxing parameters.

I've made myself clear on numerous occasions.....some people appreciate extreme lateral movement to avoid getting hit.
I just dont consider that true boxing within its parameters.

DLH-Trinidad, Hagler-Leonard, being prime examples of extreme lateral movement for the sake of avoiding having to box within parameters.

Let me just add that both DLH and Leonard did well in those fights when they actually slowed down somewhat to actually try some boxing.
.....the problem for me was that so much of the rounds were loaded with long stretches of pure lateral motion without the boxing.
Its elementary in scenario's such as this that the faster footed fighter will avoid getting hit......but is he avoiding getting hit while boxing within the parameters that could be called boxing?
I say no to both DLH vs Trinidad, and Leonard vs Hagler.

Let me add also that not so long ago, I revisited the Duran-Leonard rematch, and found that through the first six rounds, Leonard was'nt doing much more than DLH did against Trinidad......

.....Duran imo who was in piss poor shape for a fight of that magnitude, had visibly lost some of his steam during his chase of Leonard, that I noticed his punches were far from sharp and were dragging.....it was during the 7th round I believe that Leonard noticed this as well and got brave enough to stop some of his lateral running and stop some to fight.
So visible was Duran's fatigue, that Leonard was even mocking him.

In the state of physical shape Duran was in that night, he had no business competing with Leonard.
It is at that point that Duran himself realized it and said, "no mas!"


Extreme lateral movement is boxing?
Leonard-Duran in New Orleans is yet another example that judges dont consider it to be.....despite Duran looking like crap, the judges scorecards after at the time of Duran quitting had Leonard up by only 1 point on one card and two points on the other two cards.
.....proof yet again right there that professional judges dont appreciate extreme lateral running and dont equate it to good defense.

[BENNY BLANCO]

Even though I scored it for DLH, I don't see this great big robbery that people are talking about. There were indeed some close rounds.

Rounds 1, 4, 8, 9....close rounds. Hell, even Tito's rounds late were close.I agree with this post now don't get me wrong Oscar probably did win the fight essentially because no way in hell did Tito win 7 rounds, but for any boxing fan to act as if the case for a draw in this fight is non-existant is simply not judging the fight by a round by round basis which is what one is suppose to do when a fight goes to a decision especially when they are'nt any knockdowns that would swing the fight in any fighter favor. In some of the rounds that were difficult to judge, they were difficult to judge because Oscar would land a combination and take a minute break then try to go on the attack again and take another 45 second to 1 minute break while Tito continued to be the agressor even though alot of his punches were only partially landing but still in that scenario I can see if a judge or fan would score that round for Tito.

[eliqueiros]

:good

Duran-Leonard in Montreal is a prime example of exellent defense within what I would call boxing parameters.

I've made myself clear on numerous occasions.....some people appreciate extreme lateral movement to avoid getting hit.
I just dont consider that true boxing within its parameters.

DLH-Trinidad, Hagler-Leonard, being prime examples of extreme lateral movement for the sake of avoiding having to box within parameters.

Let me just add that both DLH and Leonard did well in those fights when they actually slowed down somewhat to actually try some boxing.
.....the problem for me was that so much of the rounds were loaded with long stretches of pure lateral motion without the boxing.
Its elementary in scenario's such as this that the faster footed fighter will avoid getting hit......but is he avoiding getting hit while boxing within the parameters that could be called boxing?
I say no to both DLH vs Trinidad, and Leonard vs Hagler.

Let me add also that not so long ago, I revisited the Duran-Leonard rematch, and found that through the first six rounds, Leonard was'nt doing much more than DLH did against Trinidad......

.....Duran imo who was in piss poor shape for a fight of that magnitude, had visibly lost some of his steam during his chase of Leonard, that I noticed his punches were'nt far from sharp and were dragging.....it was during the 7th round I believe that Leonard noticed this as well and got brave enough to stop some of his lateral running and stop some to fight.
So visible was Duran's fatigue, that Leonard was even mocking him.

In the state of physical shape Duran was in that night, he had no business competing with Leonard.
It is at that point that Duran himself realized it and said, "no mas!"


Extreme lateral movement is boxing?
Leonard-Duran in New Orleans is yet another example that judges dont consider it to be.....despite Duran looking like crap, the judges scorecards after at the time of Duran quitting had Leonard up by only 1 point on one card and two points on the other two cards.
.....proof yet again right there that professional judges dont appreciate extreme lateral running and dont equate it to good defense.

You and Stonehands 89 are making very lucid and interesting points. But what it sounds like is a very long overview of your own subjective view of what true boxing is. I agree that a great boxer can slip punches on the inside while landing with pin-point accuracy but in no way does this take away credit from those who use lateral movement and distance to control the pace of the fight. Doing what it takes to win is what it comes down to, three judges' scorecards or a knockout if it happens. What difference does it make how the boxer pulls it off so long as its legal? Truth is, some fighters it would be murderous to trade with and if you have the distance fighting skills of a Leonard or Hoya than you should use it.

[divac]

You and Stonehands 89 are making very lucid and interesting points. But what it sounds like is a very long overview of your own subjective view of what true boxing is. I agree that a great boxer can slip punches on the inside while landing with pin-point accuracy but in no way does this take away credit from those who use lateral movement and distance to control the pace of the fight. Doing what it takes to win is what it comes down to, three judges' scorecards or a knockout if it happens. What difference does it make how the boxer pulls it off so long as its legal? Truth is, some fighters it would be murderous to trade with and if you have the distance fighting skills of a Leonard or Hoya than you should use it.

I have no problem with fighters who use their leg speed and footwork to to keep distance......

.....for instance, In Marco Antonio Barrera's rematch with Rocky Juarez, he ran circles with lateral movement, Juarez on the chase unable to cut the ring against a faster footed fighter......

How did I score that fight? Although I agreed with the live crowd that night and would have booed MAB, clearly imo, MAB did just enough consistently thoughout most rounds with his jab to merit the rounds.

Unlike DLH, MAB thoughout consistently pumped his jab as he retreated.
.....and as for Rocky Juarez, unlike Trinidad, he was'nt even landing one punch at a time.....Juarez was just chasing, and that was it.

Tommy Morrison against George Foreman is another case where alot of lateral movement beat the stalker.......Morrison, unlike DLH, on a consistent round by round basis consistently pumping the jab and keeping his hands busy without long lapses in punch output.

The runner in these cases beat the stalker.

In punchoutput and punches landed, there was a monumental disparity in these fights and more importantly, consistently throughout the rounds, that there is no choice but to reward the runner.

Running is the key that cost DLH the Trinidad fight. To have won that fight, he would have had to overwhelmingly had a punchoutput disparity consistently round by round.
Kept his hands busy without the long stretches of not throwing punches.

DLH did'nt do that, like Benny Blanco described it a few posts above, and imo its the reason that he lost the fight.....DLH would throw a combination and then coast for a minute or so before even attempting to mount another offensive move.....

An average of two combinations per round, alot of which does'nt land, and coasting with pure lateral motion, with no intent to mount an offense during the endless time he spent running circles, is not going to get it done.

[Boom_Boom]

Rewatched this fight with the sound off, I had it

Round 1 - Tito (close)
Round 2 - Dela Hoya (close)
Round 3 - Dela Hoya (clear)
Round 4 - Tito (clear)
Round 5 - Dela Hoya (clear)
Round 6 - Dela Hoya (clear)
Round 7 - Dela Hoya (clear)
Round 8 - Dela Hoya (clear)
Round 9 - Dela Hoya (clear)
Round 10 - Tito (close)
Round 11 - Tito (clear)
Round 12 - Tito (clear)

Close but clear decision for Dela Hoya, theres a case it could possibly be a draw but you would have to be reaching for Tito, to have Tito winning you gotta be insane and reaching out of your ass the best you can for Trinidad.

I thought it was a great fight though, just a bad ending.

[eliqueiros]

DLH would throw a combination and then coast for a minute or so before even attempting to mount another offensive move.....

An average of two combinations per round, alot of which does'nt land, and coasting with pure lateral motion, with no intent to mount an offense during the endless time he spent running circles, is not going to get it done.

So what about a fighter like RJJ who backpedals quite often, doesn't let the other guy land, while creating a lot of time between his one punch at a time attacks? I think this whole situation comes down to what you like. Hagler fans don't like that Leonard didn't fight in the pocket so Hagler could've knocked him out, Hoya fans don't like that Mayweather didn't exchange in the pocket so Hoya could've knocked him out, and Trinidad fans were booing cuz Hoya wasn't letting Trinidad fight a Trinidad style fight. Leonard in the first Duran fight was a great fighter but he lost that one, when he fought on the backfoot not only did he win but he made Duran look terrible. I don't think a fighter should always fight this way but when it is the best way to fight given the circumstance then by all means do it. But I agree, you should look good while doing it. I personally think the reason Hoya tired so much in this fight was all the damn bouncing and moving he did, the energy he wasted was tremendous compared to the energy Trinidad was using.

[jecxbox]

Trinidad beats DLH Monday Through Saturday and twice on Sunday in a 15 round fight. DLH knew what he was dealing with and he barely made it through with a decision win. (thats what happens when you let it rock back that close, the judges fuck you in the ass almost as hard as DLH fucked himself in the ass that night)


I had DLH up by 2..... You could have him winning by 1 point if you were ridiculously biased scoring for Tito.

[TIGEREDGE]

The scoring doesn't really seem to be the issue with me. It is just the way the fight unfolded at the end. If De La Hoya was dominating the way many of you say, & Trinidad was so inneffective, winning eight rounds or whatever. Why didn't he close the show like a true champion? When Chavez had Rosario at a didsadvantage after nine. Did he start backpeddaling the rest of the way? Hello no! Like a true Champion, Chavez turned up the heat and took Rosario out.
some good points but you forget that oscar was tired in 10th and 11th. he fought trinidad differently than when chavez fought rosario. moving around the ring consumed energy

oscar should of rallied in the 12th. he seemed to get his second wind then. he would of got a knockdown i still reckon he won easily though

[Stonehands89]

I have always been a fan of boxers; Holmes, Hearns, Whitaker, etc. But Duran is one those aggressive fighters I appreciate to the core. Not many aggressive bulls are among my favourite fighters, but Duran happens to be at the very top. Number one actually.

Duran and Whitaker come hand in hand although they are polar opposites. Whitaker's offense and inside fighting gets overlooked, as does Duran's defense and boxing ability. And it you swap those attributes around with each fighter, thats exactly whats comes to mind first and foremost when we think of either.
Well said!

[Stonehands89]

:good
Let me add also that not so long ago, I revisited the Duran-Leonard rematch, and found that through the first six rounds, Leonard was'nt doing much more than DLH did against Trinidad......

.....Duran imo who was in piss poor shape for a fight of that magnitude, had visibly lost some of his steam during his chase of Leonard, that I noticed his punches were far from sharp and were dragging.....it was during the 7th round I believe that Leonard noticed this as well and got brave enough to stop some of his lateral running and stop some to fight.
So visible was Duran's fatigue, that Leonard was even mocking him.

In the state of physical shape Duran was in that night, he had no business competing with Leonard.
It is at that point that Duran himself realized it and said, "no mas!"

Extreme lateral movement is boxing?
Leonard-Duran in New Orleans is yet another example that judges dont consider it to be.....despite Duran looking like crap, the judges scorecards after at the time of Duran quitting had Leonard up by only 1 point on one card and two points on the other two cards.
.....proof yet again right there that professional judges dont appreciate extreme lateral running and dont equate it to good defense.
Solid points. I watched Tito-DLH again and was thinking of New Orleans too.

PS/I think we mean "perimeter" not "parameter" -perimeter suggesting an imaginary and fluid line between two fighters where one can reach the opponent and the opponent can reach him.

[Stonehands89]

You and Stonehands 89 are making very lucid and interesting points. But what it sounds like is a very long overview of your own subjective view of what true boxing is. I agree that a great boxer can slip punches on the inside while landing with pin-point accuracy but in no way does this take away credit from those who use lateral movement and distance to control the pace of the fight. Doing what it takes to win is what it comes down to, three judges' scorecards or a knockout if it happens. What difference does it make how the boxer pulls it off so long as its legal? Truth is, some fighters it would be murderous to trade with and if you have the distance fighting skills of a Leonard or Hoya than you should use it.
It's all subjective. Divac and I have an opinion about what boxing should be -he believes that it consititues "true boxing" whereas I believe it to be the most advanced demonstration of it. We more or less believe that it is a matter of level of sophistication and skill. Jumping around out of reach and jumping in to land a quick shot is athleticism. Staying inside the perimeter or in the pocket if you will -is harder.

Watch kids with gloves in a ring or on the street and what are they doing? The former -not the latter. They jump in and out with their hands down relying on speed of foot.

I'd go even further -infighting is a major distinguishing factor that indicates skillful boxing. Advanced practioners can do what McCallum does here:

4TJBxxVz4CE

He could have ran and perhaps made it easier, and if he wasn't capable of hurting Julian, that may even be advisable, but this remains a great demonstration of boxing.

This isn't:

TNzaenl-FJ0

And yet you can count on post Ali/Leonard commentators to assert that Nunn is a better "boxer" simply because of his gams. I say "no he ain't" -great practitioners have more than gams.

[Mantequilla]

I agree with you in principle stonehands, but Nunn is not a good example imo.

he was usually a highly accomplished infighter that could be well schooled when he wanted to...his uppercuts on the inside were a thing of beauty.His mentality and work ethic were simply awful.he had his flaws for sure and i am no big fan, but even against Toney there were moments of textbook brilliance and he had the better of what infighting there was.

You could easily post a youtube link of the latter rounds of McCallum's fight with Kalambay and make him look a lot worse than he actually was technically as well.A fight where he showed no knowledge of how to cut the ring off and a complete inability to set up his combos on a defensively sound opponent.

As far as Tito vs DLH goes, it was the fight that hit home to me that neither of these two were likely to go down as all-timers.Mediocre stuff through and through

[Stonehands89]

I agree with you in principle stonehands, but Nunn is not a good example imo.

he was usually a highly accomplished infighter that could be well schooled when he wanted to...his uppercuts on the inside were a thing of beauty.His mentality and work ethic were simply awful.he had his flaws for sure and i am no big fan, but even against Toney there were moments of textbook brilliance and he had the better of what infighting there was.

You could easily post a youtube link of the latter rounds of McCallum's fight with Kalambay and make him look a lot worse than he actually was technically as well.A fight where he showed no knowledge of how to cut the ring off and a complete inability to set up his combos on a defensively sound opponent.

As far as Tito vs DLH goes, it was the fight that hit home to me that neither of these two were likely to go down as all-timers.Mediocre stuff through and through
Good eye, although what McCallum "does here" is what I am upholding as pure mastery. What Nunn "did there" is what I am asserting is not. McCallum did not look like much of a technician against Curry either, and nor did Toney against Nunn, although Toney was beautiful against McCallum.

I think that we disagree more than agree about Nunn though, he struck me as vulnerable -always. He fought smugly and lankily -his hands were often low and his chin had a flag on it. His technical prowess was never that solid although I'm sure that we could both pick out brief examples of good technique in a given fight of his. I think those are exceptions to the norm.