Oscar and his close-run decisions; a case study, part one

Good afternoon, lads.

I doubt there's been another pound for pound operator and major boxing star in the modern age who has been involved in as many controversial - or razor-thin - verdicts in big fights as Oscar De la Hoya. From the outset, this hasn't harmed him too much; the 'Golden Boy' is still considered one of the finest fighters of his era and, I imagine, would be a nailed-on top sixty / seventy-odd man for most people, pound for pound, in an all-time sense.

Nonetheless, it's interesteing to wonder what exactly it was about Oscar which contributed to him being involved in so many close-run and highly-publicised controversies, and even more interesting to wonder how highly he'd be regarded if a few of them had gone the other way which, in some cases, they almost certainly should have done.

So, I've picked out the six fights Oscar's been involved in which, to some degree or another, caused a stir or remain a point of debate. I'll give you my take on them, you can give yours, and then we can try to decide amongst ourselves how exactly De la Hoya's position in boxing history has been effected for the better / worse because of them. Has it been only unfortunate decisions which has stopped him being elevated to that ultra-great and 'elite' category? Or has good fortune slightly outshone the bad in his case, giving him a standing which perhaps flatters him?

For the sake of everyone's sanity, I'm going to break these six bouts up in to two articles - all of them in one go would just make this offering too long, even by my standards!

Anyway, the place to start is De la Hoya's challenge for Pernell Whitaker's WBC and lineal Welterweight titles in 1997. There were some interesting caveats to consider going in to this fight; firstly, despite the fact that Whitaker had been the top man at Welterweight for four years, had spent a lot of that time regarded as the best fighter in the sport pound for pound (and was still in just about everyone's top three by 1997, despite being visibly in decline) and also that De la Hoya was having his first fight at 147 lb, it was Oscar rather than Pea who had been installed as the bookmakers' favourite for the fight. Also, there was the issue that De la Hoya was, by now, the biggest attraction in the sport outside of the Heavyweight division whereas Whitaker, for all his talent, had never managed to capture the public's imagination and affection in the same way, despite being an Olympic gold medal winner, just like De la Hoya.

There were whispers that, given he could transcend boxing in a way 'Sweet Pea' never could and that he was nine years younger and in his prime, De la Hoya could gain favourable judging from the officials, who may have had one eye on the numerous mega-fights and big money gates a De la Hoya victory would probably result in. This suspicion only intensified when, in the days leading up to the fight, Oscar was asked if his good looks and superstar status could result in the judges perhaps giving him an unfair edge. Oscar replied, "I think it's possible. Unfortunately, that's boxing. It's all about money. What the WBC sees is that I'm a young fighter - if I win the title, I'll obviously make more money than Whitaker or anyone else."

What happened: A fairly cagey and mechanical fight ended with De la Hoya receiving a unanimous decision, by margins of 116-110, 116-110 and 115-111, which resulted in some severe scrutiny being cast over the scoring of the fight and the men who did it.

How I scored it: I had Whitaker edging this fight by a score of 115-113. In rounds, I had it 6-5-1 in the defending champion's favour, with the knockdown he scored (despite it not being the most convincing one) widening the margin ever so slightly. I have, at other times, had Whitaker's winning margin just a single, solitary point, and also had it a draw once as well, but in general I think Whitaker just did enough clean work (particularly with the jab, an area in which he dominated) and showed a superb defence to basically shut Oscar down - most of De la Hoya's rounds were won on work rate as much as anything else.

Granted, this was a close one. I guess, seeing as you could perhaps make an argument for De la Hoya by a round, him winning wasn't a disgrace in itself, but the horrendous margins on the cards of the judges were. Even the minority (though it wasn't a microscopic one) who had De la Hoya in front were at a loss for words with regards to the margins of four, six and six points and, as Larry Merchant said afterwards, the only way Whitaker was ever going to emerge from that fight victorious was if he knocked De la Hoya out, sadly.

There'd have been absolutely no shame in De la Hoya dropping a decision in this one, particularly as it was such a tight affair, but while I can understand how someone might have thought he nicked it, I do think that lady luck gave him a boost here.

Next, in 1999, we have the De la Hoya showdown against Ike Quartey. Boxing politics prevented this from being a unification match up; Quartey, hitherto undefeated, had held the WBA Welterweight belt from 1994 to 1998 before being stripped due to a year of inactivity, but De la Hoya's WBC strap was still on the line. By this time, the boxing world was talking non-stop of an eventual Welterweight showdown between De la Hoya and the undefeated IBF champion Felix Trinidad - the big-punching Quartey, however, wanted to scupper those plans and was considered a very, very live underdog.

What happened: In a somewhat topsy-turvy fight, which fluctuated between the serene and the frantic, De la Hoya came out on top via a split decision, one judge thinking Quartey had edged it 115-114, but the other two backing him by margins of 116-112 and 116-113. Both men were down from left hands in round six, but De la Hoya's trademark left hook scored a priceless knockdown in the twelfth, too. For the rest of his career, Quartey would claim that he was robbed, and there are some fans and writers alike who support that idea.

How I scored it: Personally, I thought De la Hoya did enough here, and I had him winning 115-113. Curiously, while Oscar has a tendancy to tail off in the championship rounds of big fights, it was actually his ability to stay busy and strong in the latter stages that saved his bacon here. Quartey's booming jab, which was a sight to behold, was certainly on top for the early part, but I think oscar swept up the last three rounds by working both head and body more effectively, throwing more punches in bunches and, of course, pulling out that huge last round. Quartey was out on his feet throughout the twelfth, and I feel that the fight got away from him a little in those closing stages. Though the 116-112 card looks a bit too wide to me, I tend to think that the charges of a political decision to facilitate the De la Hoya-Trinidad showdown in the future don't particularly hold water here.

So then, of course, came the Welterweight showdown not matched since Leonard-Hearns I in 1981, and also not matched since in terms of scale and significance; Oscar De la Hoya, 31-0, facing off against Felix Trinidad, 35-0, in September 1999. De la Hoya's WBC strap and Trinidad's IBF title were both at stake, the fight made more money than any other non-Heavyweight title fight up until that point in history. Even promoters Bob Arum and Don King, representing De la Hoya and Trinidad respectively, had managed to put their differences aside to make the fight the whole world wanted to see. As one of the last mega fights of he century, the result should, in theory, have brought a sense of finality - the winner , as well as being maybe the best pound for pound operator in the sport alongside Roy Jones Jr, would also earn a place amongst the Welterweight immortals. Instead, we got an unsatisfactory fight, a hotly-disputed verdict and a whole lot of confusion....

What happened: A terse twelve rounds was concluded with Trinidad, the slight underdog beforehand, receiving a majority decision victory, by scores of 114-114, 115-113 and 115-114.

How I scored it: After studying this fight a few times over, and trying to consider all angles as best as I possibly can, I can still only have one result for this fight - that De la Hoya won it, with 116-113 being my score, or 115-113 if I'm in the right mood. We all know the story; Oscar, on the advice of his corner who told him he'd pitched a shutout up until that point, danced, back-peddled, clowned and dipped his way through the last three rounds which, in the end, proved a catastrophic error in misjudgement. There's not a single soul who could have anything other than De la Hoya winning after nine rounds - the biggest bone of contention is, did he dominate enough in those first nine stanzas to make Trinidad's late surge, in which he chased and cuffed Oscar all over the ring, irrelevant?

Well to me, he did. The first round had nothing in it and was open to interpretation. I had it as a 10-10. After that, in the first three quarters of the bout the only round I can give to 'Tito' was the fifth. Early on, De la Hoya wasn't just winning rounds, he was winning them decisively; the second, third and fourth weren't really up for debate, and neither was the sixth.

As is often said, a fighter can have one of his better rounds, but that doesn't automatically mean he won the round in itself. I personally think that the judges in Vegas that night forgot this once the mid-way stage of the fight had passed. De la Hoya had used up a lot of energy using the full area of the ring, mindful of Trinidad's huge power. So naturally, by rounds seven to nine, he was looking a little more tired and a little less busy than he'd been at the start. On top of that, Tito realised by now that he needed to make something happen, so wasn't trying to box at range as much anymore.

But while Tito was making a better fist of these rounds, he still wasn't doing enough clean work to win them, surely? He was throwing a damn sight more than he'd done earlier, but De la Hoya was producing one of the better defensive performances of his career (defence had never been the Golden Boy's strong point!). The fight had been so one-sided for the first half that the judges, as well as many spectators, must have been wondering what was going on, and must have been stunned, too. I genuinely think that this resulted in them over-compensating in rounds seven to nine - for me, while De la Hoya was less dominant in those rounds, he was still the more impressive fighter. The last three rounds, of course, require little discussion.

Unlike many others, I don't feel that there was any skullduggery behind Trinidad getting his shock decision. Rather, I just think that the ringside judges misread the action in that crucial third quarter of the bout, with Trinidad finally being competitive for a sustained period - and having better rounds - giving the illusion that he was winning them. To me, despite his and his team's awful tactical error in the championship rounds, Oscar was dreadfully unlucky to not be awarded a draw at the very, very least here. For me, there's absolutely no way his unbeaten run should have ended in this fight.

So, that's Whitaker, Quartey and Trinidad done - watch out in the enar future for part two, in which we'll tackle Mosley II, Sturm and Mayweather!

How do you remember the above bouts? Who was sawn off, who got lucky and how much did the outcomes harm / benefit Oscar's legacy?

Looking forward to hearing what anyone has to say if they're interested. Cheers, everyone.

I had Delahoya beating Whittaker easily.......One guy seemed to want to make it a fight...

I had Delahoya beating Mosley 115-113 the first time......and roughly by the same score the second time around....

I also had him beating Trinidad too.......

I also scored Floyd a draw...

Poor old Oscar he did get the rough end in some of his biggest fights....

However one has to take into account what people thought of Oscar!!

If you liked him like I did ..more than likely you gave him more close rounds than the other guy!!

Boxing is rarely objective and you must have subconsciously had the likeability factor 9plus or minus) when scoring too...Chris

Well I'm an equally big 'fan' of both Oscar and Pernell really, Truss, so I'd like to think I can plead not guilty to any charge of bias on that one!

Don't particularly object to anyone who had Oscar edging that one, as long as that's how they had him winning, if you see what I mean. Suggesting that he won it with a bit to spare seems off-base to me, and I'd say the same to anyone who had Pea more than a couple of points or so up as well.

A close fight, for sure, but I tend to think that clean work, ring generalship and defence were all with Whitaker. As you allude to, work rate and pressure largely favoured Oscar, though that's pretty much what you'd epect from a style perspective.

Anyway, I'll leave my opinions on Mosley II, Sturm and Mayweather until part two!

Hope it's like Superman 2.....Better than the original!!

I think I would need to revisit the Quartey fight before commenting. Its a while since Ive seen that one.

I thought de la Hoya beat Whitaker and Trinidad although in the latter case I think he did contribute heavily to his own downfall. Definately a case where the better fighter lost a one off contest for me.

I had Quartey winning -- if he hadn't been inactive for so long prior, I think he'd have won clearly.

Oscar was robotic and lacked the natural instincts of the all-timers. Look at what happened when Mosley went southpaw on him -- he had no idea what to do. When Quartey dropped him he closed down, when Trinidad charged he just ran (rather than staying safe while nicking points).

For a robot everybody seemed to struggle with him....

Try watching Ali when Lyle didn't come forward......Robinson struggled with Turpin's crouch....

He is an all-timer...and you're being too harsh...

Thanks for commenting, Haz.

As you allude to, maybe Ike's inactivity did hinder him a bit against De la Hoya; he did seem to tire out in the late stages. I think Quartey got an absolute shafting against Forrest a few years later, and the way he pushed Oscar all over the place in the first six or seven rounds was very impressive, but I think Oscar just about pulled it out of the bag due to his superior conditioning on the night.

Yeah it was close enough for argument, no problem with Oscar winning it.

He was great fighter Truss, not trying to lay the boot in on him. To go more or less even up with Whitaker, Quartey, Trinidad and Mosley says it all, really. I do feel he's slightly overrated, though, certainly a full level below the likes of Hearns and Leonard (as a welter).

It's a shame he never rematched Trinidad and Quartey, or took on the other big dog at welterweight back then, Jose Luis Lopez but 90s boxing was a different game -- even compared to today. There was a huge emphasis on staying unbeaten and Oscar was such a cash cow, it precluded the likes of Trinidad and Quartey getting it on as they didn't want to lose their place in the queue. That'd have been a barnburner and a half!

I felt he was better as a lightweight -- he looked phenomenal coming through (albeit against oversized oppo).

ODLH was his own worst enemy. At times.

I felt Quartey had done enough for a draw at least - certainly the knockdown in the 12th saved the fight from Oscar's point of view.

I can't comment on the Whittaker fight as I didn't see it, but as for the Trinidad fight I had that one round up for Oscar despite him losing the last 3. I never told my mate this though as I had a bet with him that Trinidad would win.

The odd thing about the Trinidad result is that it was derided by just about all pundits and writers, except in Britain, basically. On the Sky team, McCrory had Trinidad up by one, Watt had it the same, and McGuigan had it by three (!) to Tito. Even Eubank scored it a draw (which was, at least, a little more understandable).

As Manos alluded to, I suspect that if they fought many times more afterwards Oscar would always come out on top. He should never have lost to Trinidad, and as such it took a bizarre set of circumstances to make it happen.

Interesting exercise Chris. I can't add much to it because I think they were controversial simply because they were big fights and close. I found the Whittaker fight very difficult to score so can understand a wide variety of scores. I think I had Oscar edging the Trinidad fight, and had the quartey fight pretty even from memory.

Always fought Trinidad was an over-rated banger to be honest, and agree with haz that I think de la Hoya looked a better fighter at lighter weights, albeit against lesser opposition. So much slower looking and flatter footed at welter.

Cheers, Milky.

Although I liked Trinidad a lot, and he was a damn good fighter (damn good Welterweight anyway, at least), I do agree that he probably overachieved in some senses. If you stayed at range and moved away from his left then he always struggled.

Fantastic puncher though, as brave as they come and would likely give a good account of himself against most of history's 147 lb men.

I agree that De la Hoya looked a little more cumbersome as a Welter than he did a Lightweight, but then again you have to consider who he was fighting at those respective weights. Considering he was only a Welterweight for three (maybe four?) years or so, his list of opposition at that weight is incredible; Whitaker, Rivera, Quartey, Trinidad, Mosley, Gatti etc. Not that he was avoiding anyone at Lightweight, of course, but the opposition there just wasn't as top-notch as that, although his unification win over Ruelas was an asbolutely fantastic performance, maybe his best.

Wouldn't argue with any of the above Chris.

Had Oscar winning against Trinidad by at he hatton-esque "country mile". Winning eight rounds and not suffering a KD in any of the other four should have secured the win for DLH with no trouble. When we get the occasional "Biggest robbery" threads on here, I generalyl vote for DLH v Tito.

Thought that the 30 second flurry Oscar threw against Quartey was enough to eke out the win, but wouldn't have been too offended by a draw. Can say it's a fight I'm in no rush to watch again and my decision is based solely on watching it live at the time way waaaaay back when so apologies if I'm miles off with my assessment.

McCrory had Trinidad up by one, Watt had it the same

That seals it for me. Oscar won. Debate over!

Your takes on both De la Hoya-Trinidad and De la Hoya-Quartey are perfect Dave, basically because they're pretty much the same as mine!

One thing that's always struck me as strange is that people seem to consider the second fight against Mosley to stand as a result, despite Mosley later admitting to using EPO.

Good write up!

As you mentioned in opening few lines, I do think he'd be rated much higher if he'd got 1 or 2 of those wins as ultimately and for whatever reason, he lost his major fights.

For a guy that, at his peak, didn't seem to duck anybody, it makes me sad to see him head of this horrid GBP company with the snake Schaefer but I digress.

For many of his decisions, I'm with the majority that simple inactivity down the stretch cost him. That's certainly how I saw it against Floyd. It wasn't pretty (pun intended) but I had him winning until the last 2 or 3 then he let Floyd pinch the rounds and get the nod.

I didn't see the Trinidad fight as I was on my way back to New Zealand from the UK but all the reports I read in magazines such as Ring and reports from friends who watched the fight all agreed that De La Hoya won the first seven rounds then slackened off a little but as there were no Knockdowns nor one sided rounds for Trinidad I fail to see how he was awarded the win.

But he didn't deserve the win against Sturm, but then the megga earning fight with Hopkins wouldn't have happened. How did someone who was only fighting in his second fight at Middleweight come to be fighting for a World title?

Money.

Revisionist history sees Oscar as a guy who took on all-comers, which is not exactly how it used to be. This is a guy NY writer Mike Katz christened "Chicken" De la Hoya back in the day.

The fights against Chavez and Gatti were horrible mismatches in terms of size. Whitaker was above his best weight also. Mosley, Mayweather, Pacquiao -- same deal. Quartey and Trinidad were legit quality welterweights but Oscar hardly shone against either.

And here's the thing with this guy: When a close, arguable decision went against him he'd saunter in front of the press and talk of corruption and the need for a federal investigation. Yet those who were aggrieved against him: Whitaker, Quartey and Sturm were left to go dangle. Classy.

His defining fight came against Trinidad and he blew the chance to be truly great. His best win came against Vargas. Fernando had been calling him out for years yet Oscar waited until Trinidad ruined him before signing on for that one.

Not the most balanced post you've ever written haz. Yeh Whitaker was above his best weight and past his best, but he had been welterweight champ for four years. By your own admission, and I agree with you, de la Hoya, was better at lighter weights also. Are you saying because he was tall, he held unfair advantages over mosley etc, because Shane was better at lightweight.

Vargas called him out. Wow. That never happens. You can pick holes in anyone's record if you want to. Did he fight everyone in and around his weight class of note. Yes. Were some past their best, yes. Were some not at their best weight, yes. Were some not at his best weight, fewer but yes. Big shocker.

I'm not in love with Oscar like trussy, but he was the marketing dream and could pick his fights, considering thus, he put his neck on the line plenty for me.

I dont understand that post from hazharrison either I must say. What weight was he supposed to fight Whitaker at? He was basically unbeaten and had been a welterweight champion for years.

He fought Chavez at Chavez best weight the first time out. He may have been somewhat faded but the fight was perfectly legitimate considering Chavez was a world champion as was Mosely when he fought him.

I can sometimes see the argument that de la Hoya might be overrated in terms of ability by alot of people but I really cant see how his level of opposition can be questioned.

Whitaker was a wonderful lightweight who was able to have success at higher weights due to his skillset (this is before the Memo Heredias of the world starting fashioning light welterweight knockout artists out of non-punching featherweights).

Oscar was a natural welterweight. The size difference between the pair was pointed. Tito Trinidad beat the living daylights out of Whitaker and had a better welterweight run than Oscar, yet De la Hoya seems to be the more highly regarded fighter on these boards. Tito destroyed Vargas before Oscar finished him off, same with Mayorga and he pushed Hopkins far harder.

JC Chavez's best weight was probably super featherweight. He'd grown into a light welterweight (his ceiling). Oscar was still growing -- that was a horrible mismatch in terms of size.

I take your point milky -- of course he was right to fight Whitaker (Chavez was one hell of a money spinner, also) but he held all the aces (and still couldn't beat Sweet Pea convincingly).

Mosley, too, was a natural lightweight who bulked up to higher weights (with help from Victor Conte) but was never as effective as he was at 135.

I just feel the general opinion many have on Oscar is a tad lazy. He was never seen as a warrior who took on all-comers during his heyday -- I remember it. He was viewed as manipulative. He made Quartey wait 14 months before their fight; He took the Trinidad fight when it appeared Tito had become tight at the weight; Chavez was old and small, Whitaker, too; Mosley was a lightweight; Vargas shot; Hopkins old; Pacquiao a pygmy. Christ, he made Floyd fight at 154. That the majority of those backfired doesn't make him less so.

As I said, the fact he went even up with Whitaker, Trinidad and Quartey proves his worth. He got his fair share of favourable decisions to go with the ones he felt went against him but he didn't have make a fuss about those losses.

Im struggling to see you way of thinking on this one.

Chavez I think had only lost once or twice prior to fighting de la Hoya and is considered to be one of the best ever light welters. I would dispute he was considered better at lightweight, an in any case he hadnt fought there in about 5 years prior to Oscar. He was a world champion, albeit past his best years.

Whitaker was essentially unbeaten and regarded as the best welterweight in the world (some would say the best fighter in the world) when de la Hoya fought him.

Trinidad, Quartey, Mosley and Sturm were all unbeaten. Hopkins was in the midst of his peak middleweight years. Added to that there is a whole load of decent ranked fighters between light welter to light middleweight he faced.

As for the close fights, well would anyone expect any less? All fighters believe they won close fights.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I had Delahoya beating Whittaker easily.......One guy seemed to want to make it a fight...

I had Delahoya beating Mosley 115-113 the first time......and roughly by the same score the second time around....

I also had him beating Trinidad too.......

I also scored Floyd a draw...

Poor old Oscar he did get the rough end in some of his biggest fights....

However one has to take into account what people thought of Oscar!!

If you liked him like I did ..more than likely you gave him more close rounds than the other guy!!

Boxing is rarely objective and you must have subconsciously had the likeability factor 9plus or minus) when scoring too...Chris

I've got to agree with this post, although he did get one in his favour with Strum.

I've always had a lot of time ODH, so much so I paid for me and the Mrs (even she likes him) to make the trip to Vegas for the Floyd fight. I thought he won, but that said the MGM have some rather attractive girls, serving drinks direct to your seat, so the booze did flow that night. However, I've watched it a few times since and I still believe (even with sober eyes) he was unlucky.

But as this is part 1, I'm guessing Chris is going to cover this in part 2.

I don't see how anyone could have De La Hoya winning the Mayweather fight, he was comprehensively outboxed, barely landed anything meaningful and was being countered all night long.

i appreciate you're doing a devil's advocate job against what you think are rose tinted spectacles, haz, but Pretty much every champion gets accused of cherry picking.

Like manos. I can 't agree super feather was chavez's best weight. He had his hands full with lockridge and la Porte, decent fighters but gate keepers and past their best, and he didn't beat anyone else of note at the weight. Wasnt til he pasted Rosario at lightweight that we really took note. The mismatch was Chavez' age if anything.

I think its probably fair looking at the ages they moved up and where they ended up that oscar was maybe naturally a half weight class bigger than mayweather whittaker and chavez... but generally the fights were made at the weights the guys were at the time. And if the guys did take peds to bump weight thats hardly advantage oscar is it? Admit it haz... You just have a problem with guys in frocks

Poor Chris, I think his, 'save the debate til part 2' hopes have all but vanished.

I sit in the middle on the mayweather fight. I can't find a way to give it to Oscar... He faded Badly down the stretch and stopped jabbing. He was hardly outboxed all night though ghosty. I thought fmj probably gave him too much respect, and did too little in the first half of the fight, giving the rounds away to Oscar who was at least trying to make the fight.

A lot of hard rounds to score, but i had nothing in it after 8 or 9, with floyd pulling away at the end... More through Oscar gassing than anything special from mayweather. Made me think that a younger Oscar might have done him.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I don't see how anyone could have De La Hoya winning the Mayweather fight, he was comprehensively outboxed, barely landed anything meaningful and was being countered all night long.

I don't think anyone has said they thought he won, just rose tinted glasses I guess, I wanted him to win and I wanted to see Mayweather lose. I just don't like the guy, however, I do respect the fact that he's the finest boxer of his generation. I didn't like SRL in his day but I now have the utmost respect for the guy. Sometimes it can come come down to whether you like them as a person or not.

You got me. Those stocking pictures still grind my gears...

when's part 2 coming out??