Oscar De La Hoya vs. Antonio Cervantes at 140

Call me crazy, but I think Quartey showed how a rock solid, fundamentally sound stand-up stylist could take away De La Hoya's strengths. I'd favor Cervantes to do the same. Also, he wasn't as slow and unathletic in his younger days as is being made out here.

 

He strongly disagrees is what i think he meant

 

I did have Quartey winning but I don't think Cervantes is nearly as good as Quartey

 

DLH was on a much higher level than that exhibition boxer.

 

:good

just kidding

atsch

 

I didn't hear the argument for him being better than Oscar but OK.

136 fights but only 8 title fights. 6 wins 2 losses.

105 fights before he wins the title against the very limited banger Fuji.

SD win, in 1 of his 5 successful defenses, against the mediocre Corpas in Buenos Aires. :think

Then he supposedly won every round against Cervantes in Buenos Aires. From what I have seen of the fight the most he could've won is 14.

A couple of months later he was outpointed by Alfonso Frazer :think .By all accounts Frazer was a deserved winner.

One year after the 1st fight with Pambele, Locche couldn't repeat his reputed dominance and was stopped in the 10th round.

He also has a controversial draw with Ortiz in Buenos Aires in his exhibition days. Most ring observers had Ortiz winning.

We have selected snippets of his fights but little in the way of full fights even against that low level opposition.

It seems the imagination has filled in the blanks.

 

Nobody said he was better, you said it isn't close, which i strongly disagree with.

He fought very often, and lost once early in his career, lost once more under the same schedule. The likes of Archier Moore etc are excused for losing to lower level opposition when subjected to the heavy schedule of fighting often, i'm willing to apply the same logic to Locche. He never lost again until past his prime. Are you telling me he was in his prime when he lost to Frazer and Cervantes, who by all accounts was schooled by him for sustained periods throughout their two fight series? He never even fought for the title until he was about 29/30 years old.

I haven't seen it all but from what i have seen he's giving one of the greatest lightweights and spoilers of all time fits. And oh yeah, i don't rate Oscar at the highest level.:good

 

Well maybe not but he is stronger,bigger,harder punching and overall the tougher opponent. If im ODLH id rather face a JW Cervantes than a Prime Quartey at welter.

 

Oscar wins this and is criticized for fighting Cervantes during whatever happened to be going on at that time in Cervantes' life.

 

Very true someone always makes an excuse for Oscars wins, and many here make excuses for Cervantes losses.

 

I really think Oscar could have been one of the real monsters H2H at 140 if he had stayed there a bit longer and proved himself against a greater range of opposition.

I think he holds a lot of advantages over Antonio but at the same time like has been mentioned before I think Cervantes' consisent and no nonsense stand up style gives him trouble and pays dividends down the track..Some people might see Antonio as one-dimensional but it can also be seen has a guy who sticks to a gameplan, who has strong fundamentals and who prefers to get the job done by the book rather than with flashy spurts and low percentage manourves.

I dont think Oscar's style and abilities puzzle Cervantes the same way Lochee or Benitez did..I think he is a little more there to be hit, he brings a little less to figure out..Not that he is not as good as they were, at his best he is probably better, he is just a different type of fighter..but once he gets a bit tired I think Antonio can match him and overcome the speed discrepency.

I would have liked to see Oscar carve out more of a career at 140 to be sure about this one but obviously that wasnt realistic at the time.

I think Oscar is the better fighter...Im pick him over 12 but Id be really interested to see how this one plays out in the last 1/3.