Who won, Whitaker or De La Hoya?

De La Hoya, and reasonably clearly, too.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Actually, defense only keeps opponents from scoring; it doesn't score per se.

 

Osacr won. he had his share of troubles, but in the end I gave it to him. Sweet Pea just didn't do enough.

 

DLH didn't do enough to take the champs belt. IMO Whitaker's previous 3 fights before DLH were even harder.

 

Oscar, but it was close.

 

Though I thought Pea won, I disagree with the notion of the challenger having to do something special to take the belt (i.e. "doing enough").

All the challenger needs to do is to win the fight and that could be by as little as it would take to win non-title matchups.

The correct notion makes it that the belt becomes "vacant" the moment the fight starts.

 

Oscar himself has made the statement that you have to take it to the champ to get the belt. In 1997 that rule didn't apply to him.

 

Hurtado, and the the two fights against Rivera were harder fights for Sweet Pea than the DLH?

Well, maybe thats just how you see it, but I beg to differ mate. Oscar had Pernell on the defensive way more than either two.

 

Whitaker should have lost his first fight to Rivera and he was behind with Hurtado. ****, he got knocked down with the first punch against Hurtado and would have lost if not for a very rare knock out.

 

Sometimes i wonder what fight the judges were watching. Whilst the fight could have gone either way, 116-110 is just disgusting.

 

:good

 

How wrong I was. Thanks for the tip :good

 

DLH throwing those bull**** flurries was missing alot and getting a fool made out of him --

DLH's right hands weren't effective ... Sweet Pea won that fight ... he true loss came to Tito.

 

Did you see DLH's nose bleeding from the 6th round on? All those phantom jabs must have tickled Oscar's nose hairs :good