Was Oscar De La Hoya robbed by the judges Saturday night in Las Vegas when he lost a unanimous decision to 'Sugar' Shane Mosely? The AP's Tim Dahlberg says that doesn't matter:
Just what good is De La Hoya doing for the sport of boxing by insinuating that the judges who scored Saturday night's fight for Shane Mosley were corrupt, blind or merely incompetent?No good at all, of course. And by the time De La Hoya sits down in his office to call his high-priced lawyers and make a further mockery of the whole idea, maybe he'll have calmed down enough to realize he should keep his mouth shut.
Which is sort of like saying you shouldn't report your home being robbed for fear of making the police look bad. In the New York Post, George Willis feels much the same way:
De La Hoya's concern for the integrity of boxing is noble, but his investigation into Saturday's decision could hurt the sport more than help it. If every fighter with "the financial resources" launches an investigation when a decision goes against him or her, it will only enhance the perception that boxing is corrupt.
I watched the fight with my brother-in-law, and we were both open-mouthed when the decision was announced. On our own score cards, we had De La Hoya up either 5 rounds to 1, maybe 4-2, after the first six rounds. And yet, the judges all scored the bout 115-113, and seven rounds to five for Mosely.
That meant Moely had to win either five or six of the fight's remaining rounds. And that's not the fight I saw.
In my mind, the bout most closely resembled the heavyweight title fight between Roy Jones, Jr. and John Ruiz. De La Hoya took on the Jones role, keeping the more powerful Mosely at bay -- in part with a surprisingly powerful right hand. De La Hoya consistently landed far more punches.
Meanwhile, Mosely seemed chary to close with his opponent, lest he be stung by a De La Hoya combination. Perhaps most tellingly, during the fight, Mosely's corner man (his own father), constantly berated him for failing to follow up any of his powerful punches.
The post fight coverage was split, as HBO's on-air team of Jim Lampley, Larry Merchant and George Foreman all thought De La Hoya had won, perhaps not convincingly, but had won nonetheless. The MC of the evening for HBO, Bob Costas, as well as fight analyst Emanuel Steward, pretty much agreed. Over at ESPN, Brian Kenny and Max Kellerman (who makes Boxing more fun everyday) scored it unanimously for Mosely.
At the New York Times, Clifton Brown takes the middle of the road, simply noting that Mosely seemed to land the only significant blow of the night in the ninth round. At ESPN.com, Tim Struby seems convinced that Mosely earned the title. MaxBoxing's Jason Probst scored it 117-111 for De La Hoya. As you might imagine, MaxBoxing is all over the story.
As for me, I know what I saw. De La Hoya kept Mosely at bay all night long, and landed far more punches. He won the fight. But you don't have to believe me, just catch the rebroadcast on HBO on Saturday, September 20.
POSTSCRIPT: Significant edits and additions were made to this post after an editing error in the original post.
UPDATE: More from John Saraceno of USA Today:
Did it look like De La Hoya ever wanted to engage Mosley? Did he stand there in the trenches and fight for his belts? Did he dig down deep like Leonard or Hearns or Hagler?He may have fought a cagey fight, he didn't necessarily fight a winning fight. He may have landed more punches, but they weren't the most effective, telling blows.
I can see the point that others are making about this fight concerning the way De La Hoya boxed. But if De La Hoya didn't "dig down deep," Leonard or Hearns or Hagler, then neither did Mosely. In fact, all fight long I was screaming at the television for Mosely to wade in and bust up De La Hoya -- but he never did.
Of course, the real reason everyone is so pissed about the outcome is that almost everyone at the fight — and a lot of people watching at home — had money riding on the outcome.
I’ve learned my lesson. I bet on Moseley at +230 — in Monopoly money, of course — because even if the favorite appears to be the better man, that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s going to win the fight. Such is the excitement (and frustration) of wagering on a subjective sport.