
Re-watched Mayweather vs. De La Hoya (2007) recently—does anyone else think Oscar actually did enough to win?
I recently re-watched Mayweather vs. De La Hoya (2007) with a blank slate, and I actually scored it 7-5 (or 8-4) for Oscar.
While the official split decision went to Floyd and his late-fight surge in the championship rounds was brilliant, the first half belongs to De La Hoya.
Here is why:
Early Dominance: Oscar wasn't just throwing volume; his double-jab was landing cleanly, and he was digging hard hooks to the body while Floyd spent too much time inactive on the ropes.
Floyd's Inactivity: We've seen Floyd give away early rounds before, but his output in the first half here was remarkably low, letting Oscar easily steal rounds through higher work rate and aggression.
Narrative Bias: Commentary at the time heavily favored Mayweather's defense (making Oscar miss flashy shots), which often overshadowed the fact that Oscar was landing cleaner, consistent scoring blows through the guard.
Don't get me wrong—Floyd definitely figured him out down the stretch. But I think Oscar's first-half dominance outweighs Floyd's late finish.
How do you guys score it upon a modern re-watch? Was this closer than people remember?