Who do you feel had the better career? Oscar or Shane?

Which fighter do you think had a better career? I think most would pick Oscar just because of his crossover and PPV successes, but Mosley had a pretty damn good career as well, including two wins against Oscar.

I think it's close, but I might give the edge to Mosley, just because virtually every big top shelf fighter that Oscar faced, he lost to.

What say you?

 

Oscar. Better fighter, better career. Pretty clearly.

 

Well, the last TOP guy he beat you have to go back to 2002 with Vargas, and before that 1997 with Pernell Whitaker, and Chavez I before that in 1996.

Since beating Pernell on April 12th of 1997, this is the wins losses.

WINS:

David Kamau
Hector Camacho
Wilfredo Rivero
Patrick Charpentier
Julio Cesar Chavez (II)
Ike Quartey
Oba Carr
Derrell Coley
Arturo Gatti
Javier Castillejo
Fernando Vargas
Felix Sturm (which many feel he lost)
Ricardo Mayorga
Steve Forbes

Losses:

Manny Pacquiao
Floyd Mayweather Jr.
Bernard Hopkins
Shane Mosley (twice)
Felix Trinidad

Both Mosley and Oscar have knocks on their career (Mosley lost twice to Vernon and Winky), but he DOES have two wins against Oscar....I think if he hadn't been benched so much in his career, it might be a bit more clear cut.

 

Shane gets my vote for the same reason.

 

If you want to go by actual wins, Shane.

 

Remember Oscar won Olympic gold....we counting that?

 

Quartey was a top guy.

 

Good point. Also, Oscar was never out-classed in his prime like Shane was.

I wonder how we would look at this if Oscar got the decision against Mosley in the rematch. Also, we know for a fact that Mosley took steroids for that fight. Does that hurt his ranking?

Both guys are cool in my books, rare fighters who would fight anyone.

I always cheered for Shane when they fought.

 

The 2nd Mosley fight and Trinidad were scandalous decisions. I don't even acknowledge incompetent/corrupt judging on that level. They're Ws, end of discussion.

So really you're talking wins versus Chavez, Whitaker, Carr, Quartey, Trinidad, Mosley & Vargas.

& Losses to Mosley, Sturm, Hopkins, Mayweather & Pac.

Two losses are at middleweight where he had no business being. 1 loss is avenged (yes it was, clearly). Two losses are way past prime to the 2 best fighters of his generation. So you're talking 1 clear loss during his prime at prime weight.

Tempering that, two significant wins are contentious (Quartey & Whitaker (Mosley II & Tito aren't even contentious 90-95% of people score those correctly), though a solid majority of people would agree with the picks and overall the Ws are justified).

OTOH - Mosley.

Best wins Oscar x1, Margarito & a much, much more shop worn version of Vargas than Oscar beat.

Losses to Forrest, Wright, Cotto, Oscar & Floyd. Two of his losses are contestable (Cotto & Forrest II) but the majority side with the judges.

Like i said, Oscar's the better fighter with the greater career and the margins pretty clear. Only by validating blatantly incompetent/corrupt judging does this discussion become an interesting one and I see NO reason for us to do so when looking back over the greatness of a fighters career. None.

Oscar > Mosley.

 

DLH
better wins/close-losses

but i think he would have also lost to Wright if that fight was ever made

 

I think he lost that fight to Trinidad due to his decision to run for 3 rounds at the end.

He was winning up to that, and if he had fought the last three rounds he would have won it going away. But he didn't, and he paid the price for it. It wasn't a popular decision, but it was a JUST decision.

That should stand as the ultimate example of fight to the final bell, no matter what.

 

When you clearly win 8 rounds of a fight then the reason you lost is primarily because of terrible judging. The rights and wrongs of him running are irrelevant to the bottom line - he won that fight clearly in almost every truly objective set of eyes.

 

Oscar/Mosley II isn't nearly as clear cut as you paint it, IMO.

I have no problem with guys who score it close either way. It was that kind of fight, depends what you like. It's not like Oscar beat him up.

 

Nah, Oscar still won that fight clearly

 

Well yeah, the word 'scandalous' probably overstated my case but the basic point remains - he should have the W in that fight in probably 70-80% of peoples eyes.

 

I wouldn't argue against changing that fight to a No Contest, however.

It's public knowledge that Shane was dirty that night.

 

'Actual' wins? As in what actually happens in the ring or in shadowy conversations between promoters & judges or inside incompetent judges tiny little minds?

 

Yet Oscar still beat him in a very large majority of objective eyes. Double score for Oscar.

Personally I can't believe this poll is even close, it's not even a close run thing: Oscar is the better and greater fighter by a decent distance.

 

Like Oscar didn't get the benefit of some questionable and/or shady decisions?

Sturm was a bit out there, but we all knew that the De La Hoya/Hopkins fight wasn't going to be sidetracked by Felix freaking Sturm.

There were others, but everyone gets gift decisions at one time or another. My favorite fighter was Chris Byrd, and he got a gift against Fres Oquendo. It happens.

 

It doesn't make it right or make their performance any better. Sturm beat DLH.

 

But if you want to give him decisions he didn't get I'm taking the Pea win back. ::

 

I already addressed that in my post and weighted for it. Even if you count Quartey and Whitaker as draws and rightly change the Sturm W to an L, Oscar's resume is still significantly weightier than Shane's.

It's the wrongful 'L's in definitive prime years, prime weight fights that are skewing this whole discussion. Correct them and the answer becomes obvious. Tito and Shane already have the belts on their mantlepeice which should be on Oscar's, and had the boons to their marketability from them - we shouldn't compound the damage done by blatantly incorrect judging by weighting the retrospective IN RING accomplishments of these mens careers by their error. The alphabet organizations are legally compelled to work on their say so; we aren't and shouldn't.

 

Cool, totally. You do that and weight his career accordingly! That's what everyone should do IMHO - judge a guys career by what they saw in the ring. Not on what 3 fat, sweaty paid off nuggets saw.

 

You're right. I change my vote to DLH. It is more of recent history changing my perception. I went to boxrec and Shane's resume from 98-03 is pretty poor.

 

Aye. I mean I think the way to do this is to stack up the wins and losses based on YOUR score card and make the decision based on that. And if you think Oscar lost to Whitaker, Quartey, Mosely II, Tito, etc then vote for Mosley.

But i think for the majority of people based on their own score cards, the choice is pretty decisive. Oscar got more done.

I'd honestly like to see judging in it's current guise abolished. At worst for big fights it should be some sort of jury like system. You could pick say 25 PPv customers by some sort of digital randomization and have them sign some sort of legal statement online saying they promise to be honest in their scoring blah blah & then have them submit their cards digitally within 15 seconds of the end of each round. Could just put it in their digital tele remotes.

Anythings gotta be more credible than relying on 3 sweaty turds who's future pay days rely on being picked by promoters.

 

I would think there would be even less accountability for what you're suggesting (and yeah i realize you're spitballing but still..) then what we have now.

You're gonna put it in the hands of fans of the fighters to be non-biased? Not that the judges they get are 100% non-biased, but I think the majority of them do a good job. It's just that the outrageous decisions are the ones that overshadow all the good judging.

 

delahoya had a better career because he made about 10 times as much money

 

I'm betting DLH has made more than 10 times more money than Sugar Ray Robinson, was he better than Ray?

you may have been joking, but just in case you weren't... :kick:

 

ray robinson wasnt his peer. irrelevant

 

TBH mate, I was just thinking out loud, its probably a stupid idea. My main point is just that, really & truly, the judges opinions shouldn't be held in any higher regard in defining fighters careers than anybody elses and certainly shouldn't overshadow our own personal judgement.

There has to be official winners if the sports to function. It's necessary paperwork. But it doesn't have any more meaning than that. What happens in the ring is what's real.