Thoughts on DeLaHoya-Whitaker

Oscar had 23 fights actually going against Pea. Name 2 other fighters with that, going in against a P4P champ like Whitaker please.

Ruelas, Chavez, Gonzales, Leija, Hernandez, Molina, Rivera, Whitaker is a fighter taking the easy road atsch :rofl

 

Definitely not saying that's an easy road, but he took his foot off the pedal after the Whitaker fight for about a year and a half.

 

Out of a 15 year career that's not bad. Never understood why Katz hated Oscar so much either, he saved boxing and made the best fights possible.

Even after those fighters, he fought on top of that, out of his best weight:
Carr
Quartey
Shane on steroids
Vargas on roids
Mayorga on PEDs
Campas
Trinidad
Hopkins
Pacquiao
Mayweather

Legendary competition.

 

Katz probably felt DLH was going to rest on his laurels once becoming the recognised best p4p. I'm sure he'd take the chicken label back if he considered how his career has now panned out.

 

Here's a nice (but long) article where Katz shows Oscar some (begrudging) respect:

http://www.thesweetscience.com/arti...thats-blue-ribbon-for-you-non-french-speakers

 

I had Whitaker winning, but think a draw wouldn't have been a bad call either.

 

After (eventually) watching it, I had De La Hoya up by two. Sure some Whitaker die hards swear blind he was robbed. But as a 'general opinion', the feeling was at best Whitaker deserved a draw and a rematch.

I think some got carried away, because Whitaker really did look 'damaged goods' going into the bout, and some (including me) were pissed because we lost money being 'smart' and picking Oscar to stop Sweet Pea.

History shows time and again, classy fighters who look (slightly) over the hill, can often put together a very solid performance when they need to, and Whitaker did; but he was still a level below De La Hoya that night.

 

I had Whitaker up by 2 myself. Plus let's not forget that silly rule about a point being taken away for a cut, even though it was accidental. What a lame rule, and if not for that, and I had an even clearer victory for Pea

 

I go back and forth on this fight.

Oscar lands the harder shots, but is made to look foolish an uncomfortable amount.

Whitaker lands his jab well, but never connects with a punch of consequence.

The cut point deduction is weak, but the knockdown is pretty damn weak too.

Both guys have an argument, and i go back and forth. Can't dispute the result.

 

The KD was legit.. a punch was thrown.. Oscar goes down... The point deduction was not legit... so I really don't see a comparison or equallly out there myself.

 

It was a 50/50 fight, neither figther did enough to deserve the win IMO.

People that call this fight a robbery should really learn the meaning of word robbery though.

 

Oscar was lucky he wasn`t in with a pre Vasquez version of Whitaker, that version of Pernell would have outboxed Oscar. He caught Pernell at the right time & still never proved any superiority.

 

fight reminded me of Calzaghe vs Hopkins in a sense that neither guy was all that impressive and who you think won comes down to who you like more as a fighter or what style you prefer

the ineffective attacker or the effective but inactive defender

On my last viewing it appeared to me that Whitaker spent too much time clowning and not fighting

he could make Oscar miss sure but could not make him pay or deter him from what he was doing

I thought Oscar won but it wasnt pretty

 

This is how I saw it a few months ago. I liked what Whitaker was doing in some rounds, but in others he'd just switch off. And in a close round, I'll always take the guy doing the fighting. Whitaker was maybe 2 or 3 timely, flashy left hands from a win on my most recent card.

 

Wow that must have killed him Thanks for that man, nice read. Never heard much from Katz after around 2000. Wonder what happened. :huh