View Full Version : De La Hoya Plans Trip To Mull Retirement

05-18-2006, 09:20 PM
LINK (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/05/18/sports/s163708D24.DTL&type=printable)


05-18-2006, 10:10 PM
Personally I hope he does retire. Oscar has nothing to prove. He's never dodged anybody, always came in in shape & ready to fight.

What more can you ask of a fighter?

As far & Tito & Shane go, I watched all three of those fights before Oscar fought Mayorga. & I came away with exactly the same conclusions I had watching them at the time.

De La Hoya won the Trinidad fight 8 rounds to 4. Of course he shouldn't have run like a thief the last 4 rounds but ALL of them were 10-9 rounds. In fact the whole fight was 10-9 rounds.

Yes he looked terrible in the last 4 rounds but how do those 4 rounds trump the first 8?

Must be new math or something ... It's my understanding that winning or losing the 1st round counts exactly the same as the 12th. Those judges were either blind or seriously compromised.

Shane is a different story. Mosely CLEARLY won the first fight by a UD. Oscar JUST as clearly won the second fight by a UD.

That new math is really something ain't it?

As to Winky, if I was Oscar I'd stay the hell away from him. Besides, Winky is a middleweight now.

Retire Oscar, you have a beautiful wife, a great life, all the money & acclaim you could possibly want & within a few years you are going to be The Man, as boxing's biggest promoter.

Why the hell would you want to fight again?


05-18-2006, 11:32 PM
"If I retire now, I retire on top like no other fighter has done," he said.

I guess in his excitement, he forgot about the Rock who retired on top.

05-19-2006, 09:45 AM
There is just something about his career though that is a little bit, just the slight bit tainted for me.

Yes he won the Olympic gold medal. Yes he fought the best of his peer group. Yes he won titles in multiple divisions. Yes he made a shitball of money.

BUT, many of his biggest fights have question marks for me. The Pernell Whitaker fight could have went either way - no rematch - and I thought he beat Whitaker. The Ike Quartey fight was the same thing and I thought he eked out Ike - no rematch. The Felix Trinidad fight which I thought he won - no rematch. I thought he lost the first Mosley fight rightly so. The second Mosley fight I thought he won - but he got jobbed on the cards.

The question mark for me or the asterisk I guess, is that in many of these close, controversial big fights - Oscar never actively lobbied for rematches to settle things once and for all. That says something about a guy to me. Were it me involved in those fights, whether I got the decision or not, I would have wanted to go right back at them and I would have done what was in my power to do it.

Oscar's biggest and most complete win against an opponent who was most capable was Fernando Vargas. In all of Oscar's other high-profile fights against major name opposition there was controversey or he lost entirely.

Oscar shines against the B-level guys or fighters a little past their best (Dorsey, Paez, Molina, Leija, Chavez, Kamau, Camacho, Rivera, Charpentier, Carr, Coley, Gatti, Castijello, Campas and Mayorga) but against the real top-flight or capable guys he struggled or lost (Whitaker, Quartey, Trinidad, Mosley Sturm and Hopkins).

It's no shame to struggle against the best - but Oscar didn't put the greatness stamp on a long career. He's a little shy of where I think he could have been. With a little more of a fighter mentality I think he could have ended his career being up there with names like Duran, Benitez, Hearns and Leonard. Instead, he's just a little below that.

I'm not knocking De La Hoya, but I call a spade a spade, and in my opinion what I am saying is the truth. I just don't see how you could possibly see his career any other way. He's very, very, very good - but he's not a great - but I think he could've been.

05-19-2006, 10:14 AM
My weird sense of humor keeps laughing at this thread when I see it appear on the Main page, edited at the end of the title.

I look quickly and I keep reading it as:

"De La Hoya Plans Trip To Mall.."


05-19-2006, 10:38 AM
The Rock retired on top, but had fate not intervened, he would have come back against Johansen.

05-19-2006, 10:42 AM
The curse of a great fighter is that he makes EVERYBODY he beats look "a little past their prime"...Beating a tough fighter in a "struggle" should be a sign of greatness, not a disqualification, shouldn't it?

05-19-2006, 02:14 PM
Yeah, I agree, but what other great fighter does De La Hoya have a victory over in the record books while that fighter was at or near the top of his game?

05-19-2006, 02:28 PM
If Oscar could have displayed dominance over ONE of these tough challenges, than I would give him the accolades.

IMO, his most impressive performances were over Ruelas, a Shot Chavez, a well past his prime Camacho (let's remember that Chavez already dominated him, as did Trinidad and let's throw in that he went 1-1 with Haugen to boot), Vargas and now (I guess) Mayorga.

But agianst the top flight comp, he continually came up flat against. Maybe Vargas deserves inclusion among the top tier guys (I say he's a bit behind them). So if I do that, he had ONE impressive performance, but by no means a dominating performance, against the top tier guys he faced (I won'tinclude Hopkins, becuas Oscar was simply not a middleweight. That said, Hopkins was better than him, pound for pound or any other way you slice it.).

That is Goodness In my mind. Not Greatness.


05-19-2006, 03:20 PM
Coincidentally Chavez was exactly the same age when he fought Oscar as Oscar was when he fought Mayorga.

Basically we all seem to agree that Oscar was a very good fighter but by no means an all-time great. However, for his era & the watered down quality of fighters now he probably was great in this weak era.

I also agree that Tito, Shane & Vargas are simply not in the same league as the fighters that Hearns, Leonard, Duran & Benitez were.

BUT ... & I'm willing to bet the farm on this, Oscar will be a first ballot lock for the IBHOF. & compared to some of the jokes they've inducted lately he will deserve it more than a lot of fighters that are already in.

05-19-2006, 03:43 PM
There is ZERO doubt that when Oscar comes up for induction, he is in on the first ballot.

I'm willing to bet that he gest's in before Hearns too.

Becuase Tommy is never going to retire.


05-19-2006, 03:59 PM
I'm willing to bet that he get's in before Hearns too.

Because Tommy is never going to retire.


That was funny Hawk. Unfortunately it's painfully true ...


05-19-2006, 05:12 PM
Look at the quartet that Bucket mentions (and a fine one it is, too).

There can be little doubt that Sugar Ray Leonard is a GREAT fighter, but he certainly didn't dominate anyone on that list. He had a "tough" fight vs. Hearns, "lost" a rematch. He lost to Duran and won the rematch (I'm throwing out the third fight). His fight against Benitez was also tough. He beat Hagler, but some still complain he stole that decision.

Do we denigrate Sugar because he didn't dominate the best of his era?

Hearns lost to Leonard and Hagler, dominating only a "past his prime" Duran.

Duran lost to Leonard, Hearns and Hagler.

Hagler lost to Leonard, went 15 with Duran, got busted up by Hearns, etc.

I think you have to judge Oscar by the standard of his time, and a tough win is a win is a win.

By the standard of "dominating" the best fighters of his time, would Ali even be considered great? He lost to Frazier, lost to Ken Norton, lost to Leon Spinks, went 15 with Earnie Shavers and Jimmy Young, nearly died in the second Frazier rematch, beat a past his prime Floyd Patterson and Archie Moore and an underweight Bob Foster. As champion, Ali had maybe two "dominating" performances: Liston I and Foreman.

Does that make him less than great?

Dominating the best is simply too high a standard for almost anyone to live up to.

05-19-2006, 05:24 PM

Dominating the best is simply too high a standard for almost anyone to live up to.

I completely agree with you on that,'Scribe. Excellent points you made in that post.


05-19-2006, 05:46 PM
this reminds me of that soap opera where they say "these are the days of our lives". sure there were better fighters before oscar came along but without him who would we be talking about? DLH has carried this sport for the past few years. look at the PPV numbers he has posted and while it may be true he did not dominate all the top flight performers of his day neither did he duck them.

the argument here seems to be what is good and what is great.conjecture. i have no problem calling oscar a great fighter. skill, guts, chin and power. great fighter.

05-19-2006, 05:52 PM
Ya know, when you put it that way, I have to say you're right Greg. For this era he IS a great fighter. & there's one more attribute we can add: Oscar also has great footwork, speed & balance in the ring.


Walker Smith
05-19-2006, 07:20 PM
I think I differentiate. Oscar had a great career, which is HOF worthy in its own right--for the positive impact he had on the game. Whether he was a great fighter in the mould of the big 4 of the 80s is another question altogether, as I believe there is enough evidence to show that Mosley was a better fighter in his prime than De La Hoya was in his (in their first fight). And we all know that Mosley's resume is not as stacked as De La Hoya's. I think there is no doubt that De La Hoya is HOF worthy and I believe he was a great fighter. As to whether he merrits a top-ten all-time ranking for welterweights or jr. middleweights... well... maybe that deserves a thread.

05-19-2006, 08:45 PM
In my view (and I've seen the fight several times) in no way did De la Hoya win the first 8 rounds against Tito. After 8, I had it 6-2 for Oscar. He lost the last 4 which made it a draw in my estimation. And no, my card was not the same as Letterman's, who also had it a draw. I thought he lost against Quartey and it bothers me to even think that Oscar didn't need the last round to defeat Ike; that's just ridiculous. He would've still won. I think he clearly beat Whitaker and Mosley the second time around and took an embarrassing dive against the Executioner. Mayorga took a much more devastating shot to the body by Tito (it was damn perfect) and got up to keep on fighting. The Sturm fight I didn't watch.

05-19-2006, 09:37 PM

We'll have to agree to disagree on the Tito fight, Mexal but when you think about the difference in our scoring is really just 2 rounds. I had him up 8-0 you had Oscar up 6-2. We're actually not that far apart on the fight.

I just saw Boom Boom Mancini on ESPN's Friday Night Fights & Brian Kenney asked Mancini what he would do if he was in Oscar's position at this time. Mancini said, " He got the bad taste out of his mouth from the Hopkins fight by beating Mayorga. I'd give a nice wave of the hand to the fans & walk off into the sunset like John Wayne".

Pretty good advice, I'd say ...


05-21-2006, 02:08 AM
I don't think he beat Trinadad, or that he compares to Leonard. As for the retitement part, he is a smart guy, and seems to be very well set financially, so no need to come back or keep fighting due to cash. ut look at Holyfield. Some guys miss the spotlight. I think if he sees a bout that pays a few million, and feels opponent is credable yet safe, he may come back for the spotlight more tan the money. However, too many guys have underestimated opponents when returning, and even more so, not realized how much they have lost in skill. Hope he hits big as a promoter, gets his fame there, and stays retired. If he is going to ever fight again, do it now, not in another 2 years.