How much would it have helped De La Hoya's legacy if he had beaten Mosley in 2003?

It was a disputed decision where more viewers at home scored it for Oscar, while more of the sports writers polled at ringside scored it for Mosley.

On the one hand, Shane was in his early 30s (and proved his effectiveness in years later), and DLH would have evened the score against him. Shane was also found out later on have been on PEDs. Beating a terrific fighter like Mosley when he's in/near his prime is a big deal.

On the other hand, there's the stage where Mosley was in his career. He hadn't won a fight in over 2 years. After getting beaten badly by Forrest in the first fight, Mosley looked gun-shy in the rematch, not fighting with the same confidence. Mosley also showed in the future that he never really looked good fighting at 154, except for the rematch with Vargas (who looked shot and terrible).

Where would this have ranked among DLH's best wins? Is he already often given credit by those who feel he was robbed?

Note: people have said that since Mosley looked bad in this fight, that the PEDs didn't help. I don't necessarily agree. DLH was using the right tactics, unlike the first fight, that helped make Mosley look bad. Also, Mosley did show good power and strength in this fight, hell look at Oscar's reaction in the first round when Mosley landed that left hook. Mosley finished stronger and had more in the tank in the later rounds. You can argue that one how you like, that the EPO helped Shane in this regard, or you can just attribute it to Shane having better stamina anyway than Oscar, who's been inconsistent in how strong he finishes.