Your scorecard for these two Hoya fights

KuRuPT · Mar 20, 2018

Oscar vs. Felix Trinidad
Oscar vs. Mosley 2

mrkoolkevin · Mar 20, 2018

I've had several different scores for Oscar-Tito but always with Oscar winning by a point or two.

Had Oscar winning the Mosley rematch but haven't seen it since it aired in 2003.

klompton2 · Mar 20, 2018

I watched both live. I bet on Oscar to win the Tito fight and was rooting for him to beat the Don King fighter BUT when he lost I was glad. He deserved to lose. I had him ahead on the cards but his absolutely gutless attempt to run out the clock the last few rounds in what was the most expensive fight at that point was absolute bull****. If that fight had been held in the 1920s he would have been DQd, thrown out of the ring, suspended, and had his purse withheld. So I have no problem with him losing.

I had the second Mosely fight a draw. The first was an alltime classic with both guys performing at the highest level.

Thread Stealer · Mar 28, 2018

Oscar 115 Tito 114

I need to rewatch DLH-Mosley 2 and rescore. I remember watching it live and intoxicated and having it for Oscar, then rewatching it and thinking the decision was fair as there were a lot of close rounds that could have gone either way.

KuRuPT · Mar 28, 2018

klompton2 said: ↑

I watched both live. I bet on Oscar to win the Tito fight and was rooting for him to beat the Don King fighter BUT when he lost I was glad. He deserved to lose. I had him ahead on the cards but his absolutely gutless attempt to run out the clock the last few rounds in what was the most expensive fight at that point was absolute bull****. If that fight had been held in the 1920s he would have been DQd, thrown out of the ring, suspended, and had his purse withheld. So I have no problem with him losing.

I had the second Mosely fight a draw. The first was an alltime classic with both guys performing at the highest level.
Click to expand...

Not really understanding some of this though. It's not a fighters job to look good, and to continue to dominate once the fight is in the bag. We aren't critical of football teams who try and run out the clock by running the ball when they have the lead. We don't take the victory away because of it. Same thing in basketball or any number of sports. If you've done enough to win, you've done enough to win. If you had Oscar ahead on your cards, well, you thought he deserved the victory. You win by winning more rounds than another guy on a card, not by looking having to take unnecessary risks to look good.

expljose · Mar 28, 2018

it's not a fighters job to look good correct... but it IS his job to fight ..he wasn't

klompton2 · Mar 28, 2018

KuRuPT said: ↑

Not really understanding some of this though. It's not a fighters job to look good, and to continue to dominate once the fight is in the bag. We aren't critical of football teams who try and run out the clock by running the ball when they have the lead. We don't take the victory away because of it. Same thing in basketball or any number of sports. If you've done enough to win, you've done enough to win. If you had Oscar ahead on your cards, well, you thought he deserved the victory. You win by winning more rounds than another guy on a card, not by looking having to take unnecessary risks to look good.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Are you saying its not a movies job to be entertaining? Thats what you are paying for, entertainment. As I said before, they understood this better in the old days when if a fighter dogged it he got thrown out and docked his pay. I agree with that 100%. Its a sign of the times that weve become so used to shitty fights and shitty fighters that you would actually agree with a fighter NOT FIGHTING for four rounds just because he thinks he has the fight "in the bag." So, no, I dont agree. If I have a fighter winning seven rounds and doing nothing for the next five hes a loser in my opinion. I paid for a 12 round fight with 12 rounds of fighting, and I paid a serious premium on DLH-Tito. I deserve to get what I paid for. If I pay for a movie with a 2 hr running time and the first hour is the greatest action movie ever and the second hour is a black screen with white noise should I leave satisfied? No. If I show up for an 8hr shift and bust my ass for 6hrs and then go home did my boss get what he paid for? No. Oscar got what he deserved and Im perfectly fine with that. I wish it happened to every fighter who pulled that ****. Not long after that Winky Wright fought a great fight against Vargas basically fighting even up only to stop fighting the last two rounds because he thought he had it "in the bag" and lost then claimed a robbery just like DLH. If these guys actually fought for 12 rounds there wouldnt have been a shadow of a doubt as to who won. You know it. I know it. They know it. The fact is they tried to game the system and cheat the fans in the process and they got what was coming to them. Frankly DLH should have lost 1/3 of his purse for only fighting 2/3 of a fight.

KuRuPT · Mar 28, 2018

klompton2 said: ↑

I disagree. Are you saying its not a movies job to be entertaining? Thats what you are paying for, entertainment. As I said before, they understood this better in the old days when if a fighter dogged it he got thrown out and docked his pay. I agree with that 100%. Its a sign of the times that weve become so used to ****ty fights and ****ty fighters that you would actually agree with a fighter NOT FIGHTING for four rounds just because he thinks he has the fight "in the bag." So, no, I dont agree. If I have a fighter winning seven rounds and doing nothing for the next five hes a loser in my opinion. I paid for a 12 round fight with 12 rounds of fighting, and I paid a serious premium on DLH-Tito. I deserve to get what I paid for. If I pay for a movie with a 2 hr running time and the first hour is the greatest action movie ever and the second hour is a black screen with white noise should I leave satisfied? No. If I show up for an 8hr shift and bust my ass for 6hrs and then go home did my boss get what he paid for? No. Oscar got what he deserved and Im perfectly fine with that. I wish it happened to every fighter who pulled that ****. Not long after that Winky Wright fought a great fight against Vargas basically fighting even up only to stop fighting the last two rounds because he thought he had it "in the bag" and lost then claimed a robbery just like DLH. If these guys actually fought for 12 rounds there wouldnt have been a shadow of a doubt as to who won. You know it. I know it. They know it. The fact is they tried to game the system and cheat the fans in the process and they got what was coming to them. Frankly DLH should have lost 1/3 of his purse for only fighting 2/3 of a fight.
Click to expand...

But you skirted around the questions though, and conflating different points together that don't belong. If a football team starts running the ball every down because they are up 30-3 in the middle of the third. Then proceeds to have a few drives where knees a taken... is the victory taken away from them? It's not. If a Golfer on Sunday is up by 5 strokes, and decides not to go for the green in 2 on a par 5, or lays up on a par 4, or plays for pars to finish the round.. instead of "going for the win and going all out every hole" does the governing body take away the win? Of course not. Same thing in basketball, a team gets up, they use up all the clock every possession to make the game shorter and secure the win. Is there win taken away? Of course not.

You're conflating two separate concepts that aren't mutually inclusive. You're talking about getting your money's worth, you're talking about respecting a fighters performance, you're talking not liking a fighter coasting once it's in the bag... Those AREN'T the same as who won or lost the fight. They have nothing to do with one another. A fighter won the fight based on the rules on the governing body and how fights are judge, that doesn't mean you have to order his fights again if you didn't like how he won. Doesn't mean you have to respect him as a fighter because of how he fought. You can think whatever you want about a fighter, but who won is who won. Period, end of story. There are ZERO two ways about that. If you had Oscar up on your cards, EVEN AFTER RUNNING, guess what, you had Oscar winning that fight. Doesn't mean you have to like it, and you clearly don't, but make no mistake, he won that fight and you agree with that. Don't order a fight on his again if you don't like his safety first style, and that will be your choice. These are new concepts, as I illustrated in my many examples of above, that is how things go in sports, and frankly I'm starting to think you haven't participated in any high level sports. That isn't an insult, as most haven't. Shoot, many would think I haven't since I only played in college and not for a top school. In playing then, and in other sports my whole life, I can easily see how if big goals are in front of you and you're up, how you might let off the peddle. If that means running out the clock, that is exactly what one might do in that situation, even you. What you have huge goals and aspirations, and they are right there in front of you, and you're winning the fight and all you need to do is "run out the clock", you act like it's a crime. Which is why I think you haven't competed at certain levels before, or you'd likely think different. You're watching somebody who has their dreams right there in front of them, and you being so far removed from his feelings and emotions, and going only by your own (and your money spent), is how you'd come with such a hardline stance. If you were ever in a similar situation, or were in his shoes, I think you would view things vastly differently imo.

klompton2 · Mar 28, 2018

KuRuPT said: ↑

But you skirted around the questions though, and conflating different points together that don't belong. If a football team starts running the ball every down because they are up 30-3 in the middle of the third. Then proceeds to have a few drives where knees a taken... is the victory taken away from them? It's not. If a Golfer on Sunday is up by 5 strokes, and decides not to go for the green in 2 on a par 5, or lays up on a par 4, or plays for pars to finish the round.. instead of "going for the win and going all out every hole" does the governing body take away the win? Of course not. Same thing in basketball, a team gets up, they use up all the clock every possession to make the game shorter and secure the win. Is there win taken away? Of course not.

You're conflating two separate concepts that aren't mutually inclusive. You're talking about getting your money's worth, you're talking about respecting a fighters performance, you're talking not liking a fighter coasting once it's in the bag... Those AREN'T the same as who won or lost the fight. They have nothing to do with one another. A fighter won the fight based on the rules on the governing body and how fights are judge, that doesn't mean you have to order his fights again if you didn't like how he won. Doesn't mean you have to respect him as a fighter because of how he fought. You can think whatever you want about a fighter, but who won is who won. Period, end of story. There are ZERO two ways about that. If you had Oscar up on your cards, EVEN AFTER RUNNING, guess what, you had Oscar winning that fight. Doesn't mean you have to like it, and you clearly don't, but make no mistake, he won that fight and you agree with that. Don't order a fight on his again if you don't like his safety first style, and that will be your choice. These are new concepts, as I illustrated in my many examples of above, that is how things go in sports, and frankly I'm starting to think you haven't participated in any high level sports. That isn't an insult, as most haven't. Shoot, many would think I haven't since I only played in college and not for a top school. In playing then, and in other sports my whole life, I can easily see how if big goals are in front of you and you're up, how you might let off the peddle. If that means running out the clock, that is exactly what one might do in that situation, even you. What you have huge goals and aspirations, and they are right there in front of you, and you're winning the fight and all you need to do is "run out the clock", you act like it's a crime. Which is why I think you haven't competed at certain levels before, or you'd likely think different. You're watching somebody who has their dreams right there in front of them, and you being so far removed from his feelings and emotions, and going only by your own (and your money spent), is how you'd come with such a hardline stance. If you were ever in a similar situation, or were in his shoes, I think you would view things vastly differently imo.
Click to expand...

Im not conflating anything. Im telling you basic principles that sport was founded on. People PAID HARD EARNED MONEY TO SEE A FIGHT. I cannot be more clear on that. Historically if you stopped fighting it was taken as a sign of one of two things: capitulation or cheating the public who just paid your salary. You were punished accordingly. If you want to pay a premium for a twelve round fight only to have a guy fight 8 rounds and run, literally run away for 4 rounds, then you I are payimg for two different forms of entertainment. And thats what boxing is, entertainment, because without people paying to see a fight this sport doesnt exist and I have yet to meet anyone who thinks they got their moneys worth from that fight. You really wanna sit here and tell me it was worth $60 on TV or $1500 ringside? I call b.s. If thats what people paid for Usain Bolt would get $10 mil per race. Newsflash, he doesnt. No, there has to be accountability so you wont see me crying over a decision like that. If it convinces other fighters not to run out the clock then great. Your going to try to convince me that I should feel bad that a multimillionaires dreams were crushed in a sport where hungry fighters fight their asses off for 1/1000 of what he made that night? Ha! He sure didnt fight like his hopes and dreams hung on that decision and thats what I paid to see. Nope. He lost fair and square imo.

Mendoza · Mar 28, 2018

KuRuPT said: ↑

Oscar vs. Felix Trinidad
Oscar vs. Mosley 2
Click to expand...

Scoring for Oscar can be tricky. He usually throws and lands more, but the other guy usually lands the harder shots. Oscar often disengages in the later rounds just trying to keep things close.

I felt Oscar based on the way you score it round by round edged Tito by a shade. He won the early rounds, and did just enough edge it late while running. If you asked me who was the better in the entire fight without round by round scoring...maybe Tito.

I think Mosley beat Oscar by two rounds. 7-5

As a bonus, I think Oscar lost clearly to Strum but got a golden goose / PPV star type of decision as it was in the best interests of boxing.

KuRuPT · Mar 28, 2018

klompton2 said: ↑

Im not conflating anything. Im telling you basic principles that sport was founded on. People PAID HARD EARNED MONEY TO SEE A FIGHT. I cannot be more clear on that. Historically if you stopped fighting it was taken as a sign of one of two things: capitulation or cheating the public who just paid your salary. You were punished accordingly. If you want to pay a premium for a twelve round fight only to have a guy fight 8 rounds and run, literally run away for 4 rounds, then you I are payimg for two different forms of entertainment. And thats what boxing is, entertainment, because without people paying to see a fight this sport doesnt exist and I have yet to meet anyone who thinks they got their moneys worth from that fight. You really wanna sit here and tell me it was worth $60 on TV or $1500 ringside? I call b.s. If thats what people paid for Usain Bolt would get $10 mil per race. Newsflash, he doesnt. No, there has to be accountability so you wont see me crying over a decision like that. If it convinces other fighters not to run out the clock then great. Your going to try to convince me that I should feel bad that a multimillionaires dreams were crushed in a sport where hungry fighters fight their asses off for 1/1000 of what he made that night? Ha! He sure didnt fight like his hopes and dreams hung on that decision and thats what I paid to see. Nope. He lost fair and square imo.
Click to expand...

Again though, he didn't lose fair and square, in fact, he was up on your card. So he won that fight according to you, you just didn't like how he won it. Those are two completely different things. I also disagree that boxing was founded on the principles of entertainment and fiscal considerations. In antiquity, when boxing was invented, it was the spirt of competition that drove the sport, not people's hard earned money. It later became something that people would pay to see, and that drove the sport in new ways, but that wasn't the principle it was founded on. Listen, I don't disagree that in older times, where judging was different, Oscar was more likely to lose. I also to disagree with you that Oscar could've done more those last 4 rounds. Okay, he likely could've. However, regardless of that, he still won the fight based on the system and criteria used at the time. We don't judge a fight from 1950 based on the rules and criteria of 1905. That is revisionism at it's worst. We certainly don't use a criteria from the past to judge a fight in the 2000's. Just like I wouldn't call P.I. on a football team from the 50's, using modern criteria of what a foul is, and then retroactively take that win away from a team based on the rules of today. It can't work that way. Again man, I understand your point, and why you didn't like it, but Oscar won more rounds that Tito and there are no two ways about that. Even you agree.

klompton2 · Mar 28, 2018

KuRuPT said: ↑

Again though, he didn't lose fair and square, in fact, he was up on your card. So he won that fight according to you, you just didn't like how he won it. Those are two completely different things. I also disagree that boxing was founded on the principles of entertainment and fiscal considerations. In antiquity, when boxing was invented, it was the spirt of competition that drove the sport, not people's hard earned money. It later became something that people would pay to see, and that drove the sport in new ways, but that wasn't the principle it was founded on. Listen, I don't disagree that in older times, where judging was different, Oscar was more likely to lose. I also to disagree with you that Oscar could've done more those last 4 rounds. Okay, he likely could've. However, regardless of that, he still won the fight based on the system and criteria used at the time. We don't judge a fight from 1950 based on the rules and criteria of 1905. That is revisionism at it's worst. We certainly don't use a criteria from the past to judge a fight in the 2000's. Just like I wouldn't call P.I. on a football team from the 50's, using modern criteria of what a foul is, and then retroactively take that win away from a team based on the rules of today. It can't work that way. Again man, I understand your point, and why you didn't like it, but Oscar won more rounds that Tito and there are no two ways about that. Even you agree.
Click to expand...

I think you are misunderstanding me. I dont care that oscar scored more points, maybe, or won more rounds, maybe. This wasnt amateur (and frankly even in amateur boxing he would have been warned, docked, and eventually dq'd) for that "performance." I dont care how the officials reached that decision, whether there was a machanism for it or not, in the end I believe that short of a no contest, the right guy won. As far as Im concerned points dont factor into it. Points dont matter if a guy gets knocked out so why should they matter if a guy quits? And lets be clear, thats what oscar did. He quit fighting. To me its just poetic justice that the judges used what oscar was banking on, points, to teach him a much needed lesson.

mark ant · Mar 29, 2018

Hoya won the first two rounds, the second he boxed Mosely`s ears off 12 hits to two, at that stage Mosely was awful he just can`t cope with a jab, I feel this fight wasn`t as important as people think.

KuRuPT · Mar 29, 2018

mark ant said: ↑

Hoya won the first two rounds, the second he boxed Mosely`s ears off 12 hits to two, at that stage Mosely was awful he just can`t cope with a jab, I feel this fight wasn`t as important as people think.
Click to expand...

Huh? So how did you score these fights? You only mention two rounds of a fight.

scartissue · Mar 29, 2018

Felix Trinidad - Oscar De La Hoya

Rd 1 - 10-10 Even
Rd 2 - 10-10 Even
Rd 3 - 10-9 De La Hoya
Rd 4 - 10-9 Trinidad
Rd 5 - 10-9 De La Hoya
Rd 6 - 10-9 De La Hoya
Rd 7 - 10-9 De La Hoya
Rd 8 - 10-9 De La Hoya
Rd 9 - 10-9 De La Hoya
Rd 10 - 10-9 Trinidad
Rd 11 - 10-9 Trinidad
Rd 12 - 10-9 Trinidad

116-114 De La Hoya

I did not score the Oscar-Shane fights on paper, but felt Shane won the first and Oscar won the second.

Log in or Sign up

Your scorecard for these two Hoya fights

KuRuPT Boxing Junkie Full Member

mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

klompton2 Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

Thread Stealer Loyal Member Full Member

KuRuPT Boxing Junkie Full Member

expljose Active Member Full Member

klompton2 Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

KuRuPT Boxing Junkie Full Member

klompton2 Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

Mendoza Hrgovic = Next Heavyweight champion of the world. banned Full Member

KuRuPT Boxing Junkie Full Member

klompton2 Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

mark ant Canelo was never athletic Full Member

KuRuPT Boxing Junkie Full Member

scartissue Boxing Junkie Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Your scorecard for these two Hoya fights

KuRuPT Boxing Junkie Full Member

mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

klompton2 Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

Thread Stealer Loyal Member Full Member

KuRuPT Boxing Junkie Full Member

expljose Active Member Full Member

klompton2 Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

KuRuPT Boxing Junkie Full Member

klompton2 Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

Mendoza Hrgovic = Next Heavyweight champion of the world. banned Full Member

KuRuPT Boxing Junkie Full Member

klompton2 Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

mark ant Canelo was never athletic Full Member

KuRuPT Boxing Junkie Full Member

scartissue Boxing Junkie Full Member