Surprising boxing numbers

Agreed, i think that was a calculated choice by Oscar.

However the Vargas that showed up looked as good as he ever did against De La Hoya and i think surprised him.

Regardless of pre-talk shit it was still a solid win and more importantly a great fight.

 

No question it was a great fight. The rounds went back and forth until DLH dropped him.

And DLH does get credit for beating two fighters on roids, Vargas and Mosley...though they were also at low points in their careers, which is perhaps why they resorted to looking for some extra.

 

Can't honestly say I feel Vargas looked anything but strong, powerful & capable in his fight with De La Hoya. It was a very solid win.

 

And we found out why afterwards. ::

 

:hammert:

 

At 147 Oscar fought Whitaker, Chavez, Mosley, Trinidad, Camacho, and Quartey, among others. Who the hell would you have had him fight that he didn't? Name two fighters.

 

I don't know that I'd bring Chavez and Camacho into this discussion, those fights were part of why he was criticized at the time.

His competition post-Whitaker (Kamau) to pre-Quartey (Chavez II) opposition was why he was criticized so heavily...given the other champions in the division.

 

Ramone, please. No matter how you scored Oscar/Mosley II (80% or so of the media at ringside had it for Shane) no one was on the receiving end of a "working over".

 

80% for Shane, really?

Very strange.

At best I thought Shane earned a draw. Was a close fight but I had Oscar winning 7 rounds. Only round in question was round 1, IMO which I scored for Oscar.

 

And the thing is, the reason given by most of the ringsiders for scoring it for Shane was they said his had more power/greater impact than DLH's (again, perhaps we found out part of the reason why afterwards)...something which doesn't lend itself to the suggestion that it was Mosley who got more of a "working over".

 

The Ring ran a piece after the fight where they published a bunch of writers that were ringside. Most had it for Shane, don't remember exact numbers though.

The fight had so many tight rounds that I can honestly see anything from 8-4 Oscar to 7-5 Shane.

 

Yep, exactly.

On a side note, I think that should be in the books as an NC. Crap that it isn't.

 

For me, I thought it was virtually the exact same fight as Morales-Barrera 2. And in that fight I scored it for the busier fighter as well (Morales), the one who also seemed to be controlling the ring.

Both fights were close and competitive, but I thought Oscar and Morales, respectively, were the clear winners...and were somewhat robbed as a result.

 

Never really had a problem with anyone on either side of either decision. I don't like the word 'robbed' in either case, though.

 

Fair enough. Neither fight was "daylight robbery" in the sense of Jones in the Olympic final or Eubank-Sherry or Schultz-Foreman, but I thougth that in each case the better fighter, who seemed to win the majority of rounds, lost.

 

Jim Lampley also conducted an unofficial poll after the fight. That was the only memorable part of the fight for me, to be honest - that he and Merchant spent the entire post-fight broadcast ranting how Oscar was robbed, yet couldn't find one person from press row who agreed with him.

 

What was your opinion, pressboy?

 

of Mosley-DLH II? I think I had Oscar winning 115-113 or something like that. To be fair, I didn't see it live. I had just moved down here at the time and was staying at an Extended Stay. Not one place near me was showing the fight, and I'm pretty sure I remember TWIN giving me updates every three rounds or so.

So with that disclaimer... I don't remember it being the robbery that most made it out to be, but also never saw the scenario where Shane deserved the win. Not unlike Trinidad-DLH - although I had that fight scored a draw at the time it happened.

 

Yeah, Lampley's call really polluted the discussion of both fights.

"Outclassed is too big a word for what's going on here...but it's bordering on that" (or whatever the quote was) became sorta the HBO headline for Trinidad-DLH, so much so that I remember it a decade after the fact...and the truth is, HBO's announcers just about eliminated any real discussion of even a draw as a possible score for that fight.

It was interesting flipping the radio stations the day after Mosley-DLH II and hearing Lamlpey hosting the Jim Rome show...he took quite a different, and conciliatory tone, when he interviewed Shane. ::

 

Yeah Lamps, bless his heart, tends to get over excited when calling a fight.

ONe thing I will say regarding Tito-DLH though...

Oscar won his rounds BIGGER than Tito won his rounds, and that's what gave the perception at times that Oscar was winning easily.

 

What a coincidence. I had just moved to a new city shortly before Mosley/DLH II, too. Had no cable, luckily I found somewhere to watch it.

 

Yeah, Lampley was all geared up for DLH to continue his middle round performance into the later rounds or at worst, sit on his lead and coast to a decision...but when he tired, and Trinidad started winning rounds, he left himself little in the way of going back and saying, hey, some of those early rounds, when there wasn't much going on, weren't decided by much and how they were scored could make this decision interesting.

 

Fair enough, I'll concede. I was just meaning to convey De La Hoya clearly won the fight --- I still feel he did. It didn't seem that difficult to score, from where I sat.

 

Show some patience, please. The investigation is on-going.

 

::

 

I figure the conclusion to the investigation will come around the same time as OJ finding the real killers.

 

to me, Hoya/Trinidad was an easy score... Hoya won that fight clealry

I never listen to Lampley, despite the fact that everyone's favorite bit of "evidence" if you happen to think the same guy won that Lampley thought won is "you need to turn off the sound on your TV" as if somehow you've been brainwashed if you don't agree with them

I had Hoya winning the second Mosley fight by a point if memory serves, but I could see that one either way

 

Yeah, but you had Whitaker-De La Hoya 11-1

 

:atu:

in all seriousness, I think I had that one 7-5 for Pete

Lampley made it sound like Hoya was killing Sweet Pea

I think my hatred of Lampley is well established, a fact I am quick to point out any time some faggot tries to say "you only scored "fighter A" as the winner because Lampley was sucking "Fighter A"'s dick

 

I didn't say that everybody who scores a fight in line with Lampley's was seduced by the ramblings of that sycophant.

I said I think it polluted the discussion of the fights, and I think that point stands...regardless of how you scored the fights.