Which was a better win: Cotto or Mayweather?

Poor Hex. You're getting old waiting 4 that.

It'll happen sooner or later, yeah. He's getting old. Guess what? He'll still be better than Tito and Cotto. ::

 

:nono: How can this be when he dcking the best opposition out there? Plus he should have 2 loses on his record. Castillo and Delahoya!::

 

Here's what I think you leave out, despite noting their ages...before the Mayweather fight, DLH had only fought once since 2004. That's the better part of three years where he's been away from the ring.

Mosley had fought six times between Hopkins-DLH and Mayweather-DLH. He was more active and more serious about his career...and I think that means a lot.

How they finished seems irrelevent to me, since Mayweather didn't take real control until after DLH noticeably faded...Mayweather finished stronger because DLH finished weaker (than Mosley did).

Despite the finish, I still think Mayweather-DLH was closer...I had it 7-5 for PBF.

Also, this notion that the weights were a huge advantage to DLH seems a bit off to me, because DLH's never been a fighter who uses his weight. He relies on speed, and was at his best when he weighed less.

It's similar for John Ruiz when he fought Roy Jones. Independently, Ruiz wasn't a better fighter as a heavyweight than he was as cruiserweight. The added weight didn't help areas like timing, coordination or stamina (the same could be said of James Toney or Chris Byrd, fighters who could compete at a higher level because they had the speed and skill levels to do it). They had more weight behind their punches, but it was actually harder for them to land them...(though for the most part the targets became easier because they were usually heavier, slower, less athletic, lesser skilled, etc.).

Once Ruiz could no longer use his size against Jones (in clinches and by holding the way he was able to against other heavyweights), his huge weight advantage actually became detrimental to him because it widened the already noticeable gap in speed and quickness.

It's similar with DLH. He relies on his height and reach, but those don't change with weight...and the weight he carried in the ring didn't help him land any punches against Mayweather, if anything it hurt his ability to land...and that's the biggest challenge any fighter has against Mayweather (and it was the same with Roy Jones).

 

Floyd.

 

Smart man!

 

who gives a shit about this poll.

mayweather's career shits on cotto's anyhow. cotto hasn't even surpassed edwin rosario in terms of career accomplishments.

 

Mayweather winning 8 out 4 rds??!! WOOOOW it was alot closer than that

 

cottos beating mosley was clearly more impressive. though he's clearly been on the decline for years he still is/was and always has been better than delahoya.

mosley beat collazo proving he should be consider a top 5 welterweight. delahoya has no wins since vargas to warrant ranking him in the top 10 at 154.

 

It's "Jean" Williams now. :nono:

 

FACT not fiction!

 

i voted Floyd.....I don't think there is much between DLH and Mosley, but Floyd was giving away so much size.

 

Thank you.

This coming from a Floyd fan speaks volumes.

 

Matter of opinion.

I think De La Hoya's the better fighter, regardless of Shane beating him twice (I thought Oscar won the second fight and the first fight was much closer than people tend to credit).

But even IF Shane won twice...many people think Norton beat Ali three times but no one would be foolish enough to say that Norton is a better fighter than Ali.

Is Mayorga a better fighter than Vernon Forrest?

Is Vernon Forrest a better fighter than Shane Mosley?

Is Jermaine Taylor is better fighter than Bernard Hopkins?

Is Michael Spinks a better Heavyweight than Larry Holmes?


Oscar's beaten guys like Quartey, Whitaker, Chavez, arguably Trinidad. Won titles from 130 to 160, hits harder than Shane, chin as good if not better, better boxer and been in better matchups.

Oscar is a better and greater fighter than Shane. PERIOD!

 

Going into the fight, at least we knew how much mosley had left, De la hadnt beaten anyone beside mayorga in years...I think if de la fought more regularly, we would see that he's nowhere near elite at 147-160

 

You also neglected to say that Oscar arguably beat Quartey and Whitaker.

 

:: I take it you can't refute my post.

Agreed, however that the Quartey and Whitaker fights could have been scored against Oscar.

But my point is that Shane never fought good Welterweights like those except Oscar and been competitive with them (he was blown away by Forrest in their first encounter)....and like I said before I thought Oscar won the rematch and only lost the first fight because he fought the wrong fight.

Bottomline...I can't see a case for Mosley being called a better fighter than Oscar De La Hoya even IF you hate De La Hoya.

 

The problem with your logic is that you're basing Floyd's win on what Oscar was previously, not what he was at the time they fought.

That's why I voted for Cotto's win vs Floyd's.

 

It can be argued the same for Shane though...who's even older than Oscar.

 

De La Hoya is still the larger guy physically than Mayweather, as you have admitted before.

Oscar fought at 130 a grand total of two times, while Floyd made the limit from 1998 when he won the title to the end of 2001, except for one non-title fight. Five years into Oscar's pro career, he was already a welter (who looked bigger than his opponents). At age 25, Oscar weighed in at 161 on fight night for a welterweight fight, while Mayweather was a lightweight weighing in at 138 on fight night. Oscar has either weighed unofficially on fight night (he doesn't allow himself to be weighed nowadays) or the day since the age of 27 to the present day in the mid 150s.

 

Mosley has the edge head-to-head, but De La Hoya has the superior resume/accomplishments overall and will go down higher in history than Shane, IMO.

 

Floyd's win over Oscar was a joke. Hell the crowd was yelling "UFC.....UFC" after that fight.:: :laughing: The Mosley/Cotto fight was a good one and Mosley is far more serious about his career than DLH.

 

Floyd's win was FAR FAR FAR more impressive

 

That's fine, but that's not the question.

Shane's wins over Vargas (which were at 154 vs a shot Vargas, bt Shane handled him like he should handle shot fighters) and more importantly the Collazo win certainly established him as a top fighter at 147.

Oscar got knocked out by Hopkins...sat out a year...knocked out Mayo...sat out a year.

Shane was active and had previously beaten a top ranked fighter. The last time Oscar beat a top rated fighter was the 2004 Sturm fight...which he arguably won.

That takes us back to 2002 when he KO'd Vargas.

That's a five year gap which is a significant period of time between top shelf wins.

 

BULLSHIT! :nono:

 

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

 

The way I see it..Oscar's only been one fighter's bitch (total ownership) and that was the great Middleweight champion, Bernard "the Executioner" Hopkins who moved up to Lightheavyweight and dominated Tarver. No shame in that.

Shane's been Forrest's bitch! (his master even had him screaming for his pleasure in the 10th round of that first fight).

Forrest doesn't compare with Hopkins.

So...what can we conclude from these findings?

Ah yes...

Beating Oscar is more impressive than beating Shane.

 

Not really beating though , you mean just getting the W ...
Floyd clinched , ran , and punch gloves to a cheap Split decision victory.
At least Cotto & Mosely actually fought.
Everytime DLH tried to get the action going , PBF would clinch and hug him - or grab his arms so he couldn't punch ...
If he is so good , why didn't he combo the shit out of DLH and beat his ass ? Why did he have to resort to other tactics besides actually fighting to get out of any particular situation ?
It was a cheap ass "W" on his record at best ....