who won Dela Hoya v Whitaker

[niceguy45]

The bold is why people give De la Hoya credit for **** he doesn't deserve. De la Hoya always did that flurry **** and always missed most of those punches but you have the crowd going wild and commentators riding his **** when all he is doing is missing those punches. Its not like those De la Hoya flurries partially land he misses with most of that and gets credit for it from the judges which is complete bull****. Whitaker won this fight to me.

Also to Darkstar the PBF vs De la Hoya fight was not close for real. Fighters are not supposed to get credit for INEFFECTIVE AGGRESSION but that **** seems like the norm these days and that is why scores in fights be all ****ed up. Being aggressive don't mean **** if the aggressor is not accomplishing anything.

goo poit....i agree

[tredh]

In no way shape or form was Hatton-Mayweather anything like DLH- Whitaker.

Mayweather was posing a threat and causing damage. Would also land solid clean blows. I did give Hatton a few rounds, many less than some of his fans here.

Why are you adding **** that I didn't say my question was based soley on your opinion that fighters should get credit just for being aggresive regardless of it being effective.

You do know that posing a so called threat is not a scoring criteria. So using that is about as effective as a De la Hoya flurry at the end of a round.

Why did you give Hatton the rounds that you did? I only saw one round you could really Hatton with no doubt can't remember which one off the top of my head though.

[Dynamite Kid]

lets have it right though Whiyaker hardly landed anything hurtfull in the whole fight some of the later rounds he won he just threw the jab the whole round while Dela Hoya stood there looking at him

i repeat niether of them deserved to win that fight Oscar didnt deserve to take Whitaker's title & Whitaker never fought like a champion who was protecting his title IMO Whitaker intenion was to frustrate Oscar like he did to Nelson

Whitaker beat Nelson soundy though he did not beat Oscar soundly if at all ,niether deserved the victory

[The Noose]

In the past i have had Oscar winning based on his attacks.
Yet of course his flurries didnt land, so Whitaker deserves credit for great defence.

I have to watch it again, but my copy is so ****, its difficult to see what is landing.

[Darkstar]

Why are you adding **** that I didn't say my question was based soley on your opinion that fighters should get credit just for being aggresive regardless of it being effective.

You do know that posing a so called threat is not a scoring criteria. So using that is about as effective as a De la Hoya flurry at the end of a round.

Why did you give Hatton the rounds that you did? I only saw one round you could really Hatton with no doubt can't remember which one off the top of my head though.

I said before it goes beyond just whos the aggresser(many factors). Check my other posts. I "added ****" b/c it had to do with the situation of the fight. It was the reason they won/lost the round. I did give Hatton 3 rounds I think. Even Mayweathers most biased agreed he won a few. You say maybe one?

[Darkstar]

lets have it right though Whiyaker hardly landed anything hurtfull in the whole fight some of the later rounds he won he just threw the jab the whole round while Dela Hoya stood there looking at him

i repeat niether of them deserved to win that fight Oscar didnt deserve to take Whitaker's title & Whitaker never fought like a champion who was protecting his title IMO Whitaker intenion was to frustrate Oscar like he did to Nelson

Whitaker beat Nelson soundy though he did not beat Oscar soundly if at all ,niether deserved the victory

I agree with some of that. You understand most of what I say unlike your friend here.

[Darkstar]

You notice the poll right now is exactly even. 11-DLH 11-Whitaker 4- Draw

[TheGreatA]

Whatever the poll says, it's still true that Whitaker had to knock DLH out to get a win. The judges scorecards were ridiculous and the point taken from the 'headbutt' was unwarranted.

[Dynamite Kid]

Whatever the poll says, it's still true that Whitaker had to knock DLH out to get a win. The judges scorecards were ridiculous and the point taken from the 'headbutt' was unwarranted.

the knockdown & the point taken off for the foul was ridiculous , i dont care if Dela Hoya glove hit the canvas ,a Knockdown to me is when a fighter is unable to stay on his feet because he is hurt or if he voluntery take's a knee

[tredh]

I said before it goes beyond just whos the aggresser(many factors). Check my other posts. I "added ****" b/c it had to do with the situation of the fight. It was the reason they won/lost the round. I did give Hatton 3 rounds I think. Even Mayweathers most biased agreed he won a few. You say maybe one?

What you said before was that if the round was close it should go to the aggressor. That is exactly what you said which is complete bull****. Like I said my question had nothing to do with the De la Hoya vs Whitaker. It was totally based on PBF vs. Hatton. I wanted to know your opinion on that fight and that fight only. I already know how you felt about Whitaker vs. De la Hoya.

Again what are the reasons you scored those rounds for Hatton. If you don't want to answer or can't remember just say so. **** ain't going make or break anything.

I didn't say I maybe gave one round to Hatton. I was basically saying that I gave Hatton 1 round for sure with the possibility of him maybe winning some others.