The general forum has morales ranked higher by more than 80% of the votes. I remember every ATG list posted in the classic form had trinidad higher than morales. Once and for all, should trinidad be ranked higher than morales?
Both ATGs but id put Morales about 15 to 20 slots higher. Morales between 50-60 Trinidad 70 ish no lower than 80.
I always thought Tito was the better fighter of the two in a h2h ability sense, and was more dominant in his prime, but Morales probably accomplished more, i.e. beat a better array of fighters overall. In saying that, I am of course not crediting Tito with the DLH win, and giving Morales credit for pretty much going even with Barrera over their trilogy.
Trinidad was a bad ass at his peak... he rates higher than Morales. What is odd is that the rumor was his first retirement was caused by a brain injury' Camacho, Carr, Pendleton, Whitaker, Campas, Vargas, and Joppy are some pretty good wins.
It's a pity Tito wasted his peak years (95-99) fighting trash. But I suppose Don King had something to do with that. Could have really enhanced his legacy if he beat an Ike Quartey, Jose Luis Lopez or Vernon Forrest during that time (I think he beats all three). He could have beaten Pete too if Whitaker was in Hurtado/Rivera form, but he probably would have been outboxed if Whitaker trained hard for the fight. In any case, a close loss to Whitaker still would have been a legacy builder, and perhaps he could have beaten a well trained Whitaker regardless after about 96. Of course he could have stepped up around 96 and ended Norris' career too. Just a wasted period for Tito.
I agree with most of your post,but not sure about the HTH matchup:think Think Morales was more versatile but Trinidad was more explosive. I see where your coming from by giving him credit for almost going even with Barrera who i think is definitely higher than Tito and you cant rate Morales too much lower than Barrera.
SOrry Ricardo have to disagree with you here Tito has a pretty damn good resume with all his defenses at Welter,being the Man at JM, etc but Morales resume is deeper look at this list of top notch guys. Hector Acero Sanchez- forgotten former JF champ was very good Daniel Zarragoa- HoF and close to a great fighter Junior Jones- on the downside but still dangerous won a title after this Wayne Mccullough- beat him convincingly Marco A Barrera- went 1-2 and was almost his equal Kevin Kelly- Faded but still a dangerous foe. Guty Espadas- 1st one very close, beat him easy in the rematch In Chin Chi- Tought good fight over a top feather and future champ Paulie Ayala- Ayala moving up but, still an impressive and dominant win for El Terrible Jesus Chavez- Chavez was very good at JL and kind of underrated he would beat everyone at JL today Famoso Hernandez-Another tough good win over a solid champion Pacquiao- The first fight was his biggest win despite being on the downslide this win pumps his credentials up even more so.
Morales was more versatile for sure, but not more effective for being so imo. Tito was a one trick pony but it got the job done well nevertheless. Over 15 rounds, I think he would have been a killer too, and I think he would solve a lot of the problems he had with his stylistic vulnerability - boxer types. He might well have stopped DLH over 15 rounds.
I think its very close, both have plenty of wins over B class type opposition. Both are 3 division champs, both got gifts to become Ring Champs in there first division, both came up short against the very best. Tito was dominated by Hopkins 2 divisions up, but if Morales chased Mayweather at 130 in the same way Tito did with Hopkins he'd similarly get dominated. Both fought an A- opponent DLH/MAB, Morales clearly did better despite losing all 3 (no way he wont the first and MAB edged the second for me), although Tito may have been drained at the weight. Titos dominant wins over Vargas and Reid were spectacular at the time. Morales win over Pacquaio probably gives him the edge between them as its the best win by a margin
That's because due to their association with Pac, Morales, barrera and Marquez are at this moment being enormously overrated by many.Not knocking the fighters themselves, but it's hard to deny right now. Of couse this is quite close.I'm not a big fan of either man's comp, up until he beat Pac, Morales record was just ok outside of barrera...full of washed up former very goods and decent second-tier types...the pac win elevated it nicely.Tito on the other hand had a Welterweight reign full of hapless challengers, and a lot of his bigger more impressive wins were against guys i've never rated like Reid and Joppy.He was an effective destroyer though, that's undeniable. I could go back and forth on this one really, and have done in the past.Both have their very good and bad points...today i feel like Morales might have a slight edge overall, but i feel Tito would beat him more often than not in a P4P hypothetical.
