Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Saturday, October 18, 2008

De La Hoya vs. Trinidad

On September 18, 1999, the boxing world was stunned when Felix Trinidad defeated Oscar De La Hoya by a majority decision. To this day, my friends and I still discuss whether or not the fight was fixed, since Don King had much to gain with a victory by Trinidad. While De La Hoya dominated the early rounds, he became too confident that he was up on the judges scorecards and went into defensive mode. Apparently, he did not do enough to win the decision.

After the fight, I compiled the various scorecards from boxing experts around the country. They read as follows:
  • Steve Springer: 115-113 De La Hoya
  • Tim Kawakami: 115-113 De La Hoya
  • Associated Press: 115-113 De La Hoya
  • Las Vegas Review: 116-112 De La Hoya
  • SI: 115-113 De La Hoya
  • ESPN: 115-113 De La Hoya
  • Harold Lederman: 114-114 Draw
Thus, more than 85% of the experts declared Oscar De La Hoya the winner of the bout. However, the judges at ringside disagreed with them.
  • Jerry Roth: 115-113 Trinidad
  • Bob Logist: 115-114 Trinidad
  • Glen Hamada: 114-114 Draw
Since the experts in the media have a consensus that Oscar De La Hoya won the fight and Don King is the exclusive promoter for Tito Trinidad, then there is no way possible that the fight could not have been fixed.

I know this is not a perfect analogy of the Gary Habermas argument that MrFreeThinker has been using, but I feel that this illustrates the example of using an argument from authority to prove a point. For some reason, people try to point to the consensus of the boxing experts to prove that De La Hoya-Trinidad was fixed by Don King, however there is no evidence at all that the judges were not fair in their decision.


  1. I didn't only use the consensus of experts. I used arguments and historical criteria

  2. MFT,

    I picture you as a full sized man with a head the size of a golf ball.
    Not to be mean or nuthin...just sayin.......

  3. MFT,

    Yes, but part of the minimal facts argument is an argument from authority. I also provided the motive behind fixing the De La Hoya/Trinidad fight. One of the big problems I have with Habermas' argument from minimal facts is that he makes an exception for the empty tomb. For example, all facts except the empty tomb have an acceptance of 90-95%. However, the empty tomb only has an acceptance of 70% (source/plug: Gary Habermas on The Infidel Guy Show). Why was this exception made? What happens to the overall argument if this exception is not made?

  4. I know the figure ,i've read a lot of Habermas' work. And it doesn't only rely on appeal to authority. habermas does present some strong arguments for the tomb too.


Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.