Cotto's first fight against an elite fighter: no better than ODH's times out

ODH is constantly getting criticism and his career denigrated for his lack of dominant performances over elite competition.

Well, having recently rewatched Cotto/Mosley, I just have to say that Cotto is no step closer to achieving what so many claim ODH has failed to achieve - a dominant, non-controversial win over an elite opponent.

Cotto showed some nice things in that fight, and had Mosley uncomfortable in the ring for many of the early rounds, but one could easily make the argument that he lost the fight. And even if you thought he won, it was far from dominant.

Point is, as well as Cotto's career has gone thus far, he's yet to achieve a PBF/Corrales or RJJ/Toney type of performance. And the more I see of him, the more skeptical I am that he'll be able to do so.

There's pleny of guys at 147, guys most wouldn't even consider elite, that would give Cotto every bit as much trouble as Mosley did, if not beat him. It's hard to see Cotto emerge as a phenom, at least not in the mold that PBF, RJJ fans like to think of as proof of a truly great fighter.

I'm not sure if it's one way or the other. I tend to think great fighters "should" have tough times with other "great" fighters, and if they don't, then they've not really proved much. I don't believe in super man. I don't believe in HBO's mythological invincible fighter they're always trying to suggest exists in their stable.

 

Could you please "easily make the argument that he lost the fight"?

 

i don't have the score-cards in front of me, but there were plenty of close rounds. plenty. hand those over to Mosley, and he would've won. that's "easy."

there were plenty of rounds, especially later ones, in which Mosley was walking Cotto down, and landing body shots and the occasional right hand. Lots of people gave those rounds to Cotto, based on his "under-rated" boxing skills. you could just as easily have given em to Mosley based on the fact that he was pushing Cotto back, and landing the harder shots at that point.

 

But if you're going to say one could easily make the argument, it leaves something to be desired when you leave it up to someone else to do it instead of doing it yourself.

Vagaries of "close rounds" and the styles they fought doesn't exactly make much of an argument.

It was a close and competitive fight with ebbs and flows, but in the end most people had Cotto winning.

It's not even one of the more controversial fights of the year, so I don't see how it's that easy to make the argument.

 

Why on earth would anyone expect Cotto to achieve what De la Hoya couldn't?

 

dsimon writes:

Mitchell youhave inadvertently opened up a portel to Double L's psyche. He is not intellectually dishonest, just intellectually lazy. Not so much Myopic as lazy, or wall eyed. ::

 

well, it's not a question of what anyone's expectations may or may not have been - i'm just pointing out that like ODH, Cotto has managed to beat an elite fighter, but not in dominant fashion.

i guess the reason i bring it up is not to discredit Cotto in any way, but rather to point out that possibly, a lot of the criticism and dismissal that ODH's accomplishments have been met with are unfair.

 

COtto clearly won that fight 8-4. What fight were you watching?

 

see. there's few if any worthy discussions that can be had with you because your mind apparently has little tolerance for ambiguity or subjective consideration. so in response to your question, i'll simply state that i was watching a "different" fight than you. so next time you feel the need to breach the topic with me, realize first what i've stated here: i watched a different fight than you. given this, we can't possibly have a discussion about it. fair enough?

 

THIS I agree with.

If the truly elite, best fighters are facing each other, a one-sided domination SHOULD, by DEFINITION, be a rarity - the exception, not the norm.

Most fights of that kind should go the Calzaghe-Kessler, Quartey-DLH, Corrales-Castillo I or Mosley-DLH I routes, with varying degrees of competitiveness and clarity of victory.

That being said, I'm not sure that I'd equate Cotto-Mosley to things like DLH-Quartey or DLH-Whitaker or Trinidad-DLH.

If anything I'd equate it to Morales-Pacquiao I or Mosley-DLH I -- competitive and close but with a clear winner.

Peace.

 

I see your point. But it is about expectations. Cotto is praised where Oscar was criticised because A) he's performing to the best of his ability + B) delivering performances in proportion to the hype he receives.

 

well, Mosley/DLH I was a split decision - not sure about Morales-Pacquiao.

also, there's the whole other question - is Mosley at this stage, and at his age, in the same category as a prime Quartey, prime Mosley or prime Trinidad?

i'll give Cotto the benefit of the doubt and say, "yes." but no way did he win clearly. if anything the so-called "clarity" perceived in his victory was due at least in part to the fact that he's the up-coming "super-star" and the undefeated guy, with the looming question going into his fight with Mosley not whether or not he could win, or knock Mosley out, but whether or not he could hang with Mosley. He hung with him all right. And unfortunately, that gets mistaken a lot in circumstances like these for having won clearly.

 

What is the need to use Cotto (and Cotto-Mosley) to justify DLH's career?

Mosley may not have veen at the level he was at when he beat DLH, or Trinidad when he "beat" DLH, or Quartey when he came back from his layoff to "lose" to DLH, but then Cotto arguably beat Mosley more decisively than the winners of any of those three fights won...certainly moreso than Trinidad-DLH and DLH-Quartey.

The most direct DLH-comparison for Cotto-Mosley might be DLH-Whitaker, except the difference being the older fighter was the champion and the younger fighter the challenger in that fight, but that's thrown off by the fact that Mosley had come down in weight (and did win an interim title) whereas Whitaker wasn't...and that was DLH's first fight at 147 (unlike Cotto).

DLH got plenty of credit for fighting Whitaker - still a p4p fighter at the time despite some bad recent performances (Rivera I, Hurtado) in fights he had won - because he was such a tough fight for his first opponent at welterweight.

But that fight was razor close, and the majority of people thought there was a slight margin of victory (for whoever they sided with)...and many of those who thought DLH won still thought Whitaker deserved a rematch...and part of that had to do with it being his belt that was on the line.

Instead, DLH won controversially, then went to the post-fight presser where Arum dismissed a rematch and DLH went and fought a string of out-matched opponents in Kamau (without Merchant ringside, ), Camacho, Rivera, Charpentier, and then the completely ridiculous rematch with Chavez.

I have seen very few people consider Cotto-Mosley that controversial, or call for Cotto-Mosley II...(whereas there were calls from all over for DLH-Whitaker II, DLH-Quartey II and Trinidad-DLH II). Furthermore, Cotto isn't likely to take on a list of opponents as bad as those DLH fought (immediately afterwards).

 

I disagree with most of Double L's initial post, though oddly enough I do agree with the spirit of the thread.

What people lose sight of in praising Cotto and swearing he's the one guy that'll flatten Floyd if they ever fight - this is Cotto's SEVENTH year as a pro. We've been hearing "he's special" pretty much since the start of his career.

He had a very good 2007 campaign, but a potential star wins these types of fights in his 4th or 5th year as a pro. With the comparisons to Oscar, bear in mind that at this point in his career, he was facing the other two best welterweights on the planet - Quartey and Tito, the latter being high among p4p lists, and both of whom were undefeated.

Oscar was facing the best of yesterday as early as year three into his career. There was also more at stake in his first fight w/ Chavez and in the Whitaker fight than in Cotto-Zab and Cotto-Shane.

I like watching Cotto's fights, but I'm not quite ready to sip on the Top Rank Kool Aid. And I've yet to see the fight that guarantees Cotto does any better than pose some problems for Floyd, never mind out and out beat hm.

 

No...Cotto won clearly; though of course there are those that disagree like there are in almost EVERY fight of any kind of magnitude.

It wasn't because he "hung in." It wasn't because he's the "up & coming superstar."

It was because he won more rounds clearly than Mosley did - and outfought and outboxed him, competitive as it was.

He won....and again, without nearly the level of controversy as any of the De La Hoya wins/losses in question.

Does that make Cotto "better" than DLH? No. Not yet.

We'll have to wait and see.

Peace.

 

well. okay. but the main point of my argument has yet to be dismantled, which is that Cotto has yet to dominate a fellow elite opponent, which in all discussions involving ODH, has become the primary grounds to discredit his career.

i guess the bottom line is, Cotto has yet to pull off a PBF/Corrales, or a RJJ/Toney, or even a Hatton/Tszyu or Hatton/Castillo. He remains without such a distinction. and maybe nobody around here has claimed otherwise (I haven't seen anyone do so), but it's still a point worth noting when like Jake said, there's claims all over the place that Cotto would or will beat PBF, or that he's top 5 p4p, or even that his resume as of this time is somehow beyond reproach.

 

Totally agree.

That IS the one knock on Cotto. He's been brought along quite slowly - especially when compared to guys like DLH and Trinidad (focusing on this generation, of course).

Obviously though, when comparing that kind of thing the amateur experience has to be taken into account, and Cotto was 102-23...a good record as elite pro fighters go, but not a stellar one. DLH, by contrast, was 223-5 (63 by KO).

Trinidad just breaks the mold, however, being like 51-6 and then starting Pro at 17 years old (both DLH and Cotto started at 20, I believe).

Cotto did face Juuko, Brown, Bazan, Maussa and Sosa before his 20th fight - but agree that's not quite the caliber as what DLH or Trinidad faced.

Mosley and Judah are very good scalps, though, and I wouldn't equate them to the "best of yesteryears" that DLH and Trinidad were facing 4-5 years into their careers. Both Shane and Zab are still relevant, top forces in and around their division.

Well, we'll see what's what now...Cotto's at Welterweight and there are plenty of top natural WWTs to face there.

Nowhere to run.

Peace.

 

Well...I would say he beat Mosley clearly. And Mosley is a fellow elite opponent.

I would also say he absolutely beat Judah up. And Zab may not be elite, but he's very good and quite a threat.

The point I was making (actually agreeing with you) is that truly one-sided affairs like the ones you point out (though I'd dispute that Hatton-Tszyu was that one-sided), when truly elite fighters are facing each other, are relatively rare and infrequent.

We'll see if Cotto nets one like that....but there are reasons why DLH didn't, and it comes back to the point above.

DLH doesn't get criticized because the matches were close...he gets criticized because he didn't win clearly or controversy-free - often to the point of matches being disputed to this day by the large majority. And when he DID have it in hand...he then let it go.

It's a fine line, but there is a difference.

Close but clear is fine. Those happen all the time between top fighters, and they SHOULD.

Having most or all of your "big wins" be utterly disputable is a bigger asterisk to bear career-wise.

Peace.

 

the closest thing Cotto has at 147 to what ODH had at 147 (Whitaker, Quartey, Trinidad and Mosley), is Cintron, Margarito and Williams. And maybe that's the problem. Cotto, in his own right, just isn't the huge draw that ODH was, such that if he's going to take big risks, he needs a dance partner with at least equal recognition. None of those guys I mentioned fit the bill.

 

i think if Cotto were celebrated and as good looking and on top of the world as much as ODH were at that point in his career, Cotto's win over Mosley would be every bit as controversial.

and clear or not, it wasn't dominant. though i see your point. you're saying, there's dominant wins, clear wins, and then there's controversial ones. and that most of all of ODH's were controversial. my point is, some of that controversey is due to the extreme hate that so many have for him. and you know many of the hardest core fight fans thought he'd lose to Chavez and Whitaker, were sure he'd lose to Quartey, and couldn't fathom his not getting knocked out by Trinidad. That's a heck of a point of view to watch a fight from and expect any benefit of the doubt whatsoever.

and when ODH "did" have dominant wins, even over perceived threats like ruelas, hernandez, MAGO, Chavez and Mayorga, they get glossed over and minimized.

also, the case could be made that ODH's second fight with Mosley was every bit as successful as Cotto's was. he didn't get the decision, but if he did, it would've been classified as "clear" in a lot of people's minds.

also, has anyone dominated Chavez the way ODH did? even late in his career when he was shot to shit, about the only fight you could point to is the Tszyu fight. and come on. Chavez could barely get off in that fight.

not even Tito could get rid of Mayorga as easily as ODH did. and although ODH had some scary spots against Vargas, his win over him was certainly not the life and death struggle that Trinidad had.

also, with regards to Hatton/Tszyu, i don't approve of Hatton's tactics, but the guy made him quit on his stool. and left him feeling he had no chance for victory. to me that's pretty dominant.

 

I think Oscar's fights with Whitaker, Quartey, and Sturm were controversial.

You could however argue that he beat both Whitaker and Quartey in close fights.

With Sturm however, I don't see an argument. He lost CLEARLY. However, he didn't appear to be in the best of shape. But that doesn't excuse him getting a decision he didn't deserve IMO.


He should have gotten no worse than a draw against Trinidad. But I think his overly defensive nature cost him the fight and the cowardice he showed in the championship rounds was enough to convince the judges that he didn't deserve to win.

The 2nd fight with Mosley could have gone either way. It was that close. Very tit for tat. Oscar THREW more punches, but the clean, effective punches were landed by Mosley throughout the fight, especially the bodywork that Shane put in that got overlooked by alot people.

He clearly lost to Mayweather and Mosley the first time but they were both competitive fights where neither guy dominated, but Oscar certainly didn't deserve the decisions in those fights.


Cotto admittedly has not beaten any fighter that is the quality that Oscar has fought but part of that is due to todays' crop not being as deep or as talented as the yesteryear's crop of welterweights and juniormiddles.

If Cotto accomplishes all or either of...

A- Beat Floyd Mayweather.
B- Move up to 154 and beat Vernon Forrest.
C- Win against either Paul Williams or Antonio Margarito

If he could do that, then and only then could he be compared to those that went before him. But right now, while his resume is solid, he doesn't quite deserve to mentioned with De La Hoya or Trinidad.

 

Wait!!!!!!

Sane is elite now?

 

that's a whole other debate. for the sake of this thread, i'm giving Cotto the benefit of the doubt and calling shane elite based on his win over Collazo and his ko of vargas.

but i agree with the spirit of your statement which is that Mosley isn't even necessarily the best 147 pounder out there, probably just the best known one.

 

A win over Floyd would undoubtedly put him at that level. But as far as B and C - he'd need both if he doesn't accomplish A (or isn't given the chance), as "only" doing one or the other wouldn't be enough on its own. A win over Margarito is almost more of the same. I'm not sure it's a step up from beating Shane; if so, then not much. And 154 is a wasteland these days.

He's going to have to gun for Floyd (or Hatton, should Ricky win).

 

1. Disagree. DLH was favored to beat Mosley in the first fight. He didn't. It was a CLOSE fight...but Mosley clearly won, and most everyone admitted that. Dominant fights, close fights, and controversial ones are recognizable no matter the star power of the participants.

The point you're making is that a fighter with the level of "anointedness" that DLH had has more pressure to deliver a clear win than one who has come up and proven folks wrong over and over again (like Cotto).

And that is true. BUT - the scoring and the results don't lie.

And for the record, I had DLH beating Whitaker, drawing with Trinidad and losing to Quartey by 1 pt. or so.

2. I don't gloss over DLH's big wins against guys like MAGO, Ruelas, Molina and Chavez....though the JLC one does need to be taken into perspective.

3. I disagree. But I'm not going into that one again.

4. Sure, but Chavez was old, period. And in the 2nd fight he was giving DLH quite a good go of it before he decided to quit.

5. Trinidad was coming off a 2-year layoff. DLH did well vs. Mayorga, but he had quite a few less-than-stellar moments in those early rounds from my recollection. As to the Vargas fights....I kinda disagree; Trinidad fought a much fresher Vargas and was almost always in control despite the firefight. DLH, on the other hand, was basically tit-for-tat until the 10th - a round Vargas was doing well in, incidentally.

Peace.

 

At 147 he most certainly is.

Guess it depends on the definition and connotation of elite....but I still consider Mosley one of the better fighters in the sport, if you will.

Peace.

 

funniest thread in a while::