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

Wow. Hut-Hut has nailed every point, & every issue, I could have. I have to agree with just about his every word in ths thread! How anyone could look at De La Hoya-Mosley II & add it as weight to Mosley's claim is totally beyond me. Even if you thought Mosley won the fight (he didn't), we know he wasn't clean. Just as Hut-Hut puts it, it's a double-score here for De La Hoya --- he won, & he won clean. Double-up against a better version of Vargas than Mosley bested, too. He lost to Sturm, but beat Trinidad. The fights with Quartey & Whitaker were only, "robberies" if you hate De La Hoya. They were far too close for that claim.

Don't under-estimate the lead De La Hoya took over Mosley between 1992-1999. It's a huge gulf --- Huge. One which Mosley never closed, in light of De La Hoya's later work.

I have to give the nod to De La Hoya. 65-35 on career, & 55-45 as fighters.

 

I agree Hut Hut is making his case pretty damn well.

 

Cheers Ramonza! Agreed.

--------

BTW, re:judging and my spleen against it - it isn't that wrong decisions happen, or even that 3 judges arent best way to ensure correct decisions that pisses me off. It's the veneer of definitiveness or finality. Ultimately if there's no stoppage, the winner is totally subjective, there's no way around that. Our opinions are as valid as anyones. Experienced journalists opinions are as valid as anyones. Honest former fighters and pundits opinions are as valid as anyones. And we should be able to gauge all these opinions and how they weight against our own as we log the fight and what it means for the two guys careers going forward and historically. As i said, what happened in the ring is what's real everything else is greys.

That's why 'newspaper decisions' were really a more credible system - because there was no pretense of definitive credibility. Granted there has to be some procedural mechanism of deciding which guy proceeds up the ranking, keeps the belts etc, but beyond that we should just reclaim the right to own opinions.

 

Good point. I pick Oscar.

 

When Mosley was out-classed in his pomp, it was also to a good --- but not truly great --- fighter, hurting his standing further. I thought he got closer to Forrest in the rematch, points-wise, than the judges seemed to view, but none from two against a fighter of Forrest's calibre at the height of your powers is damaging.

 

In the biggest fights of their respective careers, they both lost, but Oscar made it closer,never mind the difference in weight. So Oscar was better.

 

I assume you're speaking to the fights with Trinidad & Mayweather, respectively?

 

I thought Mosley won the biggest fight of his career, Oscar I.

 

How the hell would you know?You were 5 years old when DLH/Tito happened (Oscar's biggest fight BTW). Oscar was schooling Tito before he bitched out. I'm glad he lost.

 

The tape is out there. :dunno:

 

Clearly he thinks Mosley vs DLH was the biggest fight for each, when it wasn't for DLH.

 

Why would he suggest they both lost the same fight?

 

because he didn't watch it:laughing:

 

Think, Joe. Think!!

 

Each fight with Mosley was drastically inferior to the battle with Trinidad, in terms of significance, interest, & build-up.

 

I'm too sleepy right now.

 

It wasn't close, either.

 

ODH. He nearly beat PBF in the second to last fight of his career. Plus, he didn't grapple the way Mosley does. They're both rare fighters, though, in this day and age in that they fought the very best opposition they could and never ducked anyone.

Fuck Floyd Mayweather.

 

The parts in bold are false.

 

I can see you have majored in journalism You fact checking bastard.:laughing:

 

I doubt that fight was 12 years ago.

 

It was 11...

 

Oscar Clearly.

Chavez, Whitaker, Quartey alone...is better than what Shane achieved (plus he was in the eyes of many the first man to defeat Trinidad).

Shane's career is based primarily upon his first fight with De La Hoya.

 

His best years, IMO, were at Lightweight, but you are right in that his career was defined by that great fight ten years ago. Like I say, I can't see how Mosley's exploits between then & now eclipse what De La Hoya has done in the same time, when you factor what a huge lead De La Hoya took, career-wise, on Mosley between 1992-99.

 

Shane's problem is a huge portion of his prime was utterly destroyed by Vernon Forrest. So huge was that defeat and beating that it took Shane several years to not only get his confidence back but also some semblance of who he used to be as a fighter which he never fully recovered.

In essence Shane's career is nearly a complete and total mismanagement and waste and Jack Mosley is the main reason why. From day one he mismanged Shane costing them thousands and maybe even millions. He was also a poor cornerman and a non entity as a stratigizer often expecting Shane's strength to make the difference in each matchup.

It's almost as if Shane would have been better off NOT being the guy who would fight anyone.

 

the guys career was defined by defeating a dude who had already fought 100 times, and two bullshit decisions? fabulous