Over the last 10-12 years which fighter......

robmogul is the biggest joke of a hater........ True, I can't stand your cross dressing, fake fighter, hero at all, but I also tell it like I see it. I hate him because he's a coward and a fraud. What, you want me to get on here and say he didn't lose to a jr. welter whose best wins in the last 5 years were against Judah and another jr. welter? What, will you feel better if I say; " if Oscar had just used his jab and his treacherous left hook he would have torn into Floyd with a temper"? Save your temper for this September slugger, he'll pull off that incredable feat again and gets his ass kicked even worse. You have a lot of points, let's me and you put whatever you want on it. Of course, now you'll just tuck you tool up. Sound like some one you know?

Sven Ottke. Thread Closed. Is that the best name you can muster? I clearly said "great" fighter. And for my knowledge and the sake of entertainment which fight and fighter are you referring to?

Man, who gives a rats about Oscar? Compared to Ottke Oscar has had a harsh career full of terrible losses and rip-offs! Ottke is one of the biggest jokes of boxing I can ever remember. He had so many ridiculous decisions for him that I just don't even know what to say... The Reid fight was definitely one of the worst. I mean, he was penalised for hitting Ottke at one point! For hitting him! He threw a punch, it landed and he got a warning for it! You can not get any worse than that. He also had about another five minimum, ridiculous, foul, terrible wins that were either caused by the payed off judges or referees. After that he had more but they were nothing compared to some of the really bad ones. Unfortunately he is considered a boxing genius in Germany and they idolise him over there. It's an absolute joke, I just wish he could understand what a joke he is considered across the rest of the world. Piece of trash shit! Edit: actually I thought I should probably point out that this wasn't even the worst of Ottke wins. One of them but not the worst. The worst would have to be against Lardsen. The guy was like 40-1 and took Ottke apart but of course it was given against him. It was really sad because Lardsen would of made a better fighter than Ottke ever could have but after this he was so bummed by boxing he gave it up. He also got a nice job against Brewer. Anyway, he should have ended up around 30-6 or so instead of 36-0 and retiring with the WBF and IBO belts. The really funny thing was though, just after the Reid fight his next defense was going to have to be outside of Germany for the first time and guess what? He very promptly retired!!!

robmogul is the biggest joke of a hater........

Sven Ottke. Thread Closed.

calling him the mexican version of gatti just makes you look like an all out DLH hater. I think DLH can be quite a tool sometimes and is now more completely hellbent on money but he's certainly better than Gatti. Also a lot of the reason his decisions are so called into question is b/c close decisions between high ranked fighters are always looked at under a microscope. He took on a lot of diffcicult fights. When one fighter is relatively unknown or credited people are quicker to forget them being robbed. DLH's decisions are so scrutinized b/c he has so many eyes on him, he took on big fights and they ended in a photo finish. Sure, let's just wait and see if we are lucky to see another jr . middle or middle that loses to floyd, twice, and then we'll see what you think. Or better yet, name me another "great" jr. middle / middle weight that has lost to a jr. welter when the jr. welter moved up in weight. I'll be right here....

Taylor had 4 gift decisions not quite as many as ODLH but he is still up there. That's a good point. I can't quite recall 4 but think he lost the 1st with BH, had a draw in the 2nd with BH and I thought that Spinks won 7-5. What others wre you refering to?

i have told everyone on this post since i got here in december that; "Oscar is the mexican version of Arturo Gatti with a lot less heart. Proven by his intention to fight Steve Forbes (a blown up, past his prime lightweight) as a tune up for his rematch with a jr welter (which he lost) at jr middle. the guy is a fucking joke and a clown. what a chump." and i used the thread to start a debate and i used his gifts to support my opinion. that is why it is called a "debate" like the high school course, remember? of course i want to bag on oscar, he's a coward. but that don't change the fact that he has the most gift decisions (so what if Ottke has one too) did you think i started the post because i like oscar? pull your head out, soak it for a while and then use it to think for yourself calling him the mexican version of gatti just makes you look like an all out DLH hater. I think DLH can be quite a tool sometimes and is now more completely hellbent on money but he's certainly better than Gatti. Also a lot of the reason his decisions are so called into question is b/c close decisions between high ranked fighters are always looked at under a microscope. He took on a lot of diffcicult fights. When one fighter is relatively unknown or credited people are quicker to forget them being robbed. DLH's decisions are so scrutinized b/c he has so many eyes on him, he took on big fights and they ended in a photo finish.

crillz~ what did you mean by "I still have to respect his fighting ability it's just against who that I have a problem with" the fact that it was either past prime, nothing like before names or guys who were very good, had great current standings but just weren't what they were thought of, guys who probably lost 1st or 2nd to Oscar but went on to lose more and more against elite level fighters, no doubt Oscar was up there but I feel his level of opposition didn't warrant such a high demand, yea he took on the best and lost to the bestter half, which is my problem with him BTW, but rewind to back then, to back when 2008 was like the end of the world in our minds, we all saw Oscar De la Hoya just beat Jorge Paez, Genaro Hernandez, Gabriel Ruelas but what we saw more than anything was girls mobbing him everywhere, fans sucking his cock everywhere he went and basically even him in the news for beating on a chick, all of these things contributed to him being the big name he is today, his looks and his celebrity status in Latino America helped shape him into the man he is and not so much who he BEAT. see he beat Whitaker but we all know the truth there, he beat Molina but we all know the truth there, he beat Quartey but again we all know the truth there.. everyone else was either not on his level or better than him career wise but just didn't have it anymore, like a non die hard Boxing fan would be like "De La Hoya beat Chavez, he's great" and not know that Chavez was WAYYY past his prime in those 2 fights, still a threat but Chavez IMO is like a one of a kind despite some gift decisions, he was a warrior and I feel that enough of that false hype and bullshit claims on Oscar helped build this bullshit level of celebrity that always held him above better fighters who have beaten him but his star status pulled him out of danger, it wasn't until he faced an equally prized star opponent that he lost even with losing 3 times prior, his name and rep saved him a lot of times and since back then until now he uses that name and rep to get him places where his hands haven't earned like against Floyd, it's no mystery his money not his ability buys him a shot at these guys, you can scream split decision all you want but that shit was unanimous yo Floyd won clearly, people who like Oscar will always push for him but never admit it, they blame it on aggression or whatever but truth be told it's fanatical bullshit because from a non biased view Floyd won the fight. what did he have to do? kill him? Floyd won but people will always support this dude, it's what they have been accustomed to doing since back then, they hear the name and like a clock on timer they reach for the phone and order his fights not because he's the best or he's better than such and such but because he is who he is, his name and face saves him a lot and I don't like it, he faced the best but he lost to the better of his opposition and even the guys he did beat that were any good and not past their prime he really actually lost. thats my problem with him, how he can lose 3 of his last 5 fights and not even be pound for pound ranked but because he got a million dollars for you he can just jump the line, I don't like that shit.. I wrote it wrote it ain't who he fought, he fought everybody he just lost to the better of his opposition and his name and rep saved him, thats shit I don't like.

I feel u fam, respect to you for showing Trinidad love at a time where most would take to show the hate that his past success just didn't allow them to, thats very commendable.. some people feel he lost to Oscar and some feel he won, honestly I need to re-score the fight to form an opinion with fresh eyes, I haven't seen that fight in it's entirety in years so truth be told I can't say.. all I know is you entitled to your opinion and me to mines. whether Trinidad really lost to Oscar isn't the issue, the issue is who has more gift decisions, I agree though i don't think it's right for the thread starter to start a thread for the sole purpose of discrediting De La Hoya, I don't like him either but thats not right, do that without the get up of a thread made to seem like it's looking for gift decisions and not a flawed fighter. I don't like De La Hoya neither like that but in Boxing it's the hands that do the talking and I call it neutral, while he has more gift decisions than supposedly Trinidad and Mosley I still have to respect his fighting ability it's just against who that I have a problem with. crillz~ what did you mean by "I still have to respect his fighting ability it's just against who that I have a problem with"

you people can't be serious. People answered the question. The UNANIMOUS answer was Sven Ottke. But like D Weins pointed out, dudes intention was basically to bag on Oscar. As far as Crillz, wen I said that, I ain't say that thing about Trinidad to make it look like u was a hater, I said that to showcase how I was not a hater. His name was bought up and I said he lost to De La Hoya, if I was a hater I woulda just said that he got killed by Hopkins and Wright, but I didn't cuz I got respect for dude and I said that while he lost to Oscar, I still thot he was a solid fighter, and beat many champs. The reason many people got rubbed the wrong way by the threadstarter is cuz he was simply hating. Theres no problem with him not liking Oscar, because I don't even like him myself. But theres argueing your point, like me, you, d weins and others have done and then theres str8 hating and bashing everything like rebmogul has done I feel u fam, respect to you for showing Trinidad love at a time where most would take to show the hate that his past success just didn't allow them to, thats very commendable.. some people feel he lost to Oscar and some feel he won, honestly I need to re-score the fight to form an opinion with fresh eyes, I haven't seen that fight in it's entirety in years so truth be told I can't say.. all I know is you entitled to your opinion and me to mines. whether Trinidad really lost to Oscar isn't the issue, the issue is who has more gift decisions, I agree though i don't think it's right for the thread starter to start a thread for the sole purpose of discrediting De La Hoya, I don't like him either but thats not right, do that without the get up of a thread made to seem like it's looking for gift decisions and not a flawed fighter. I don't like De La Hoya neither like that but in Boxing it's the hands that do the talking and I call it neutral, while he has more gift decisions than supposedly Trinidad and Mosley I still have to respect his fighting ability it's just against who that I have a problem with.

that means in your opinion that Oscar has the most gifts. You said why and its cool. But the thread asks which fighter has the most gifts. When I sed Otkke you said so wat, Oscar has the most gifts. So where you going wit it? Why ask the question, why not just name the thread "Oscar has the most gift decisions and heres why". Pull YOUR head out, stop, think, then come back with something intellegent to say, or you can crack another crappy joke and get shut down again

you people can't be serious. People answered the question. The UNANIMOUS answer was Sven Ottke. But like D Weins pointed out, dudes intention was basically to bag on Oscar. As far as Crillz, wen I said that, I ain't say that thing about Trinidad to make it look like u was a hater, I said that to showcase how I was not a hater. His name was bought up and I said he lost to De La Hoya, if I was a hater I woulda just said that he got killed by Hopkins and Wright, but I didn't cuz I got respect for dude and I said that while he lost to Oscar, I still thot he was a solid fighter, and beat many champs. The reason many people got rubbed the wrong way by the threadstarter is cuz he was simply hating. Theres no problem with him not liking Oscar, because I don't even like him myself. But theres argueing your point, like me, you, d weins and others have done and then theres str8 hating and bashing everything like rebmogul has done i have told everyone on this post since i got here in december that; "Oscar is the mexican version of Arturo Gatti with a lot less heart. Proven by his intention to fight Steve Forbes (a blown up, past his prime lightweight) as a tune up for his rematch with a jr welter (which he lost) at jr middle. the guy is a fucking joke and a clown. what a chump." and i used the thread to start a debate and i used his gifts to support my opinion. that is why it is called a "debate" like the high school course, remember? of course i want to bag on oscar, he's a coward. but that don't change the fact that he has the most gift decisions (so what if Ottke has one too) did you think i started the post because i like oscar? pull your head out, soak it for a while and then use it to think for yourself

you people can't be serious. People answered the question. The UNANIMOUS answer was Sven Ottke. But like D Weins pointed out, dudes intention was basically to bag on Oscar. As far as Crillz, wen I said that, I ain't say that thing about Trinidad to make it look like u was a hater, I said that to showcase how I was not a hater. His name was bought up and I said he lost to De La Hoya, if I was a hater I woulda just said that he got killed by Hopkins and Wright, but I didn't cuz I got respect for dude and I said that while he lost to Oscar, I still thot he was a solid fighter, and beat many champs. The reason many people got rubbed the wrong way by the threadstarter is cuz he was simply hating. Theres no problem with him not liking Oscar, because I don't even like him myself. But theres argueing your point, like me, you, d weins and others have done and then theres str8 hating and bashing everything like rebmogul has done

Like I said... just because it's his thread doesn't mean he gets a free pass to say whatever he wants in the original post with a free pass not to get called out on any of it, regardless of how stupid it is. I just said that if he is going to count the close wins that are considered gifts as losses on Oscar's record, he really should go back and count the close losses that are considered gifts for his opponent as wins. I'm not okay with someone saying that Oscar has 10 losses on his record, because that is ridiculous. i have no problem at someone "looking at the other side of the coin" but usually they only try to look at the other side becuase they want to avoid the original point, which was: what other fighter in the last 10-12 years has gotten more gift decisions? and since NO ONE has been able to provide (MOST DIDN'T EVEN TRY AND THE REASON IS OBVIOUS) a better example than the one used in my example, we can only conclude that; ODH has UNANIMOUSLY received the the most gift decisions. which was the point is was trying to make. the reasoning that he also had some not go his way and that other fighters also had some gifts don't change shit. Oscar is the mexican version of Arturo Gatti with a lot less heart. Proven by his intention to fight Steve Forbes ( a blown up past his prime lightweight) as a tune up for his rematch with a jr welter at jr middle. the guy is a fucking joke and a clown. what a champ....

Like I said... just because it's his thread doesn't mean he gets a free pass to say whatever he wants in the original post with a free pass not to get called out on any of it, regardless of how stupid it is. I just said that if he is going to count the close wins that are considered gifts as losses on Oscar's record, he really should go back and count the close losses that are considered gifts for his opponent as wins. I'm not okay with someone saying that Oscar has 10 losses on his record, because that is ridiculous. count it and make whatever equations you want dog the truth of the matter is is that Oscar got MORE gift decisions than Trinidad or Mosley, you can't reverse a loss just because he is reversing a win in a thread was built only to point out gift wins. if he was talking about robberies then I understand but adding De La Hoya's losses to his gift wins is only to show and give you an idea of how his record would look, and fine take away 2 losses from his SUPPOSED 9 losses that is bothering you so much and add a loss to each Trinidad and Shane's record yo Oscar will STILL have more gift wins in his record due to Sturm, Whitaker, Molina and Quartey no matter what you say, fuck it say he got 7 true losses, the point in this thread was to point out the GIFT DECISIONS not to talk about anything else and when you DO pull out gift decisions for Oscar's record you have MORE than what you do in both Tito's and Shane's records so your point holds no weight..

They do when the thread starter mentions that De La Hoya should have 10 losses on his record I think... If he is going to count the close wins as certain losses, then he needs to count the close losses as certain wins. It's fine to point out gift decisions, but saying a fighter has 10 losses when his record only shows 5 in a factual manner is not right when both sides of a gift decision are not examined for him. Just keeping it 100. :D lolz I like that reference to how I usually end my posts, clever.. well back to the point, see if he spoke about how many losses Oscar should have then you tell him to stick to his shit because you can think of a few fights that Oscar won that didn't go his way neither, if that don't work THEN you flip the script because then he would be doubting what you saying and regardless of topic you have a right to defend any point you make of just begin to make. but see you have to realize that what he was saying goes in conjunction with his thread because he was just adding the gift decisions to his loss count, IF he would have lost those fights he would have had 9 losses which were Molina, Whitaker, Quartey, Sturm, Trinidad, Mosley 2x's, Hopkins and Mayweather.. 9 losses.. I understand his point perfectly and I think he's right.. when you bring up Trinidad all you doing is coming to the defense of Oscar, you are trying to say it ain't right to say this and that about Oscar when he beat Tito and Mosley but guess what? take away Mosley and Trinidad from his list of losses and you still have 2 gift decisions which is STILL 1 more than Trinidad and Mosley supposedly had, regardless what you say the fact you trying to say Mosley of Trinidad were wins for oscar you still can't deny his actual losses, you trying to point that out and that point holds no weight because when you count all of the named fighters supposed losses you have 4 for Oscar and 1 for Trinidad and Mosley each, call it what you want fam but your point holds no weight, just a while ago n1ggaz was making the same selective criticism that you feel you need to step in and say your piece here in a Trinidad VS De La Hoya rematch thread, if you in here at De La Hoya's aid then maybe you should have been there in Trinidad's aid going in accordance to your "Lehman's" terms..

yea but when crillz brought up Trinidad he was enforcing a point that went in conjunction to the whole point of this thread which somehow got lost amongst the posts and views expressed.. I GIVE credit to where it's due but I also respect threads and if I am going to post in homies thread the least I can do is follow along the lines of his intended argument. you can name Trinidad and Mosley or whoever the fuck you want but truth be told they HAVEN'T had more gift decisions than Oscar De La Hoya, plain and simple, and in case you didn't know the whole point to this thread is WHO IN THE HISTORY OF BOXING HAS GOTTEN THE MOST GIFT DECISIONS, it wasn't Trinidad nor was it Mosley so stop looking on the other side of the coin when the discussion doesn't warrant it. Like I said... just because it's his thread doesn't mean he gets a free pass to say whatever he wants in the original post with a free pass not to get called out on any of it, regardless of how stupid it is. I just said that if he is going to count the close wins that are considered gifts as losses on Oscar's record, he really should go back and count the close losses that are considered gifts for his opponent as wins. I'm not okay with someone saying that Oscar has 10 losses on his record, because that is ridiculous.

Those real killers had damn near perfect records when they got whupped by oscar. As for D Weins, I like how you exposed dude, but its not even that we oscar lovers, its just whether u like someone or not you gotta give credit where its due. When crillz bought up Trinidad, I coulda sed Oscar won the fight, and that Trinidad got killed by Wright and Hopkins and Jones, but i'm not a hater, I don't just look at the negatives, I look at the positives as well yea but when crillz brought up Trinidad he was enforcing a point that went in conjunction to the whole point of this thread which somehow got lost amongst the posts and views expressed.. I GIVE credit to where it's due but I also respect threads and if I am going to post in homies thread the least I can do is follow along the lines of his intended argument. you can name Trinidad and Mosley or whoever the fuck you want but truth be told they HAVEN'T had more gift decisions than Oscar De La Hoya, plain and simple, and in case you didn't know the whole point to this thread is WHO IN THE HISTORY OF BOXING HAS GOTTEN THE MOST GIFT DECISIONS, it wasn't Trinidad nor was it Mosley so stop looking on the other side of the coin when the discussion doesn't warrant it.

you can go on all you want about those fights but you will in fact go against the point of the thread in the first place, the reason for this thread is to point out WHO IN THE HISTORY OF BOXING HAS GOTTEN THE MOST GIFT DECISIONS, Trinidad with 1 and Mosley with 1 STILL doesn't compare to Oscar with 4 so they DON'T need to be mentioned in your "Lehman's" terms because those terms don't apply to the point of this thread homie.. They do when the thread starter mentions that De La Hoya should have 10 losses on his record I think... If he is going to count the close wins as certain losses, then he needs to count the close losses as certain wins. It's fine to point out gift decisions, but saying a fighter has 10 losses when his record only shows 5 in a factual manner is not right when both sides of a gift decision are not examined for him. Just keeping it 100. :D