"De La Hoya feasts on brawlers and only struggles with slick boxers"

And he beat him by atleast 8 points in the rematch.

The first fight was a very close clear win for Mosley. But if you dissect the fight, you can see DLH chose the wrong type of fight against Mosley. Instead of boxing him, he stood toe to toe, won the first half of teh fight, lost the second half of the fight.

7-5 for Mosley.

 

Mosley isn't exactly a "brawler"

 

He's a slick brawler and one of those losses is debatable. Who are you quoting anyway?

 

The majority of fans and Merchant saw it the other way.
Anyway, yeah, Hoya ****ed up the first one because he thought he lost the Trinidad fight because he didn't brawl. Other than this he had trouble with Whitaker as would anyone else, Hopkins was slick but didn't beat him in a slick way but by sheer violence, had the same trouble with Mayweather anyone else would have however I see this as a silly fight plan more than anything else, and its this fight that everyone keeps referencing to show he is slow and shot forgetting he was implementing Roach's fightplan which was silly. His fight against Forbes shows he is still plenty fast, his combinations are still great, and he can be conditioned properly by the right trainer.

 

It's true, DLH shines against brawler, sluggers, pressure fighters.

DLH struggles against elusive fighters.

 

DLH ran from a brawler (Trinidad) which ruined his reputation as a Mexican Warrior. He did much better against fellow Mexican Americans, than he did against slicker "brothas" and a lot of folks have heartburn with that. I was sent on a Mission From God, like the Blues Brothers to remind all of his fans of this sad fact.

 

You feast on DLH's sack.

 

The first Mosley fight he failed at but he did succeed in warring and getting his reputation back. Hoya fights a mean fight in that one and overrides the Trinidad fight by miles.

 

:yep

 

Yeah I kinda agree, he's got his own style.