Tale of the Tape - Who had the better Career De La Hoya or Trinidad

Oscar might have the better resume but Tito has the slightly better career
IMO bcuz he took on challenges more consistently, especially recently even
with the losses. Face it, Tito fought Winky and got owned but at LEAST
he had some nuts and fought him cuz Goldie aint gonna ever do it cuz he's afraid
of a loss, better to fight midgets for more money and less risk. How many of
Oscars best wins were Tito leftovers who were picked when they were faded
or shot?

 

Dude, you're a serious DLH nuthugger, and that's fine. It's true DLH has all the millions in the world, and blah, blah, blah. But the fact is that he made a career of beating old, shot or small fighters. He was a 6 division champ because he was able to squeeze to 130, 135 & 140 and beat little guys. Whenever he fought great fighters on his prime he was beaten and will be again beaten in September.

The only reason Tito wasn't such a big draw as DLH was is simple and it has nothing to do with boxing. He didn't speak english and didn't had the looks DLH has and wasn't able to attrack the mainstream US market. Simple.

If we circumscribe to pure boxing, their accomplishments are pretty similar. But, as much as I love Tito and for impartiality sakes, I have to give the edge to DLH.

 

Fine. My point isn't that Tito's resume is better. I'm just saying that they are both fairly close and you can't say, like the DLH nuthugger I was answering, that DLH's career or resume is "clearly" better.

 

It is 5 unless you wanna count the IBO.

 

you are wrong because if you followed there careers you can see that tito boxed most of his competition when his opponents were undefeated and oscar got most of his left overs

 

good way of putting it because you are correct

 

Its so gay when men bring up how much money Oscar has made like it means
he's a better fighter.

 

I might have to do some more research on this, but off the top of my head, I say DLH. Both fighters have lost to other elites.

 

I say you can't go wrong with either guy. Both beat some big names and only lost to other big names. Oscar fought some guys that Tito didn't fight and Tito fought some guys that Oscar did not fight. Both had great careers. head to head I feel Oscar was the better fight and was more versatile. I thought he was outright robbed in their fight and I laugh when people say it was a close fight but that's no knock on Tito. he just went in the ring and did his thing it's not like he was the one scoring the fight.

 

What's funny is that they beat many of the same guys and lost to pretty much the same guys.

 

I didn't ask you to try and pick out some of Oscar's wins and give your bias opinions of them. I asked how TITO has the better resume. How come you guys just try to bash Oscar, but can't explain what Tito has done and beat to give him the better resume?

And don't give me any of that "Tito's leftovers" bull****. Unless a fighter is undefeated, then by that standard everyone is someone's "leftovers". That's flawed logic.

 

They only had one common opponent whom they both lost to. :huh

 

I think De La Hoya's a better fighter than Trinidad but Trinidad left behind a stronger legacy.

 

Oscar

 

Who cares what MAY have happened?

What happened is what matters. DLH lost a controversial decision in a close fight when he fatigued in the late rounds and the ego and greed of the two sides couldn't come to terms on a rematch.