Comments Thread For: De La Hoya Compares Lara's Loss To Trinidad's Win

[PR ESQ.]

Shiet comparison.
Canelo attempted to engage but doesn't have a high boxing IQ.
Tito attempted to engage but Oscar was a pussey to fight.
so each won accordingly but for very different reasons!!!
*** this revisionist BS!

[churchmouse]

A strategy that Lara could not execute properly cost him the win, and Canelo did his part to secure the win by landing enough EFFECTIVE punches along with being the aggressor, to win the fight. It's professional boxing, not the olymipics.

[royjonesjrKTFO]

A better comparison is Oscar De La Hoya Vs. Pernell Whitaker

Oscar on the attack, while Pernell is on the defensive, making him miss, but not making him pay enough. And Oscar, the aggressor edges the defensive fighter.

[KnickTillDeaTh]

Well you recall incorrectly. De La Hoya walked away from negotiations for a Trinidad rematch on no less than 7 different occasions. The first few were somewhat justifiable from a business perspective, as Trinidad financial demands were somewhat laughable because, having beaten De La Hoya the first time out, he erroneously thought that that made him a bigger draw than Oscar.

However, the collapse of the final 4 negotiations for De La Hoya/Trinidad II were all Oscar's fault. Having become disillusioned with Tito's initial demands, Oscar made a series of disparaging remarks in the media about Tito and his camp and ultimately ended up offering Trinidad a paltry 30% of the purse split and said that Tito should "be grateful" to have gotten that much.

Tito was off his rocker during the initial negotiations, but eventually he and his camp offered De La Hoya numerous reasonable offers which a bitter De La Hoya scoffed at and walked away from.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing/columns/story?id=2607266

Please don't "recall" things if you're not 100% certain of their veracity. That's how this place got as ****** as it currently is, because users here are so ignorant of the sport's history that they just take whatever somebody says as fact and regurgitate it ad nausem.

So you say I recalled incorrectly then proceeded to reiterate what I initially said. So my recalling was not incorrect? Correct?