Tito vs Cotto p4p?

ANYBODY that thinks Cotto was as good as Tito is a newbie to the sport who doesn't remember a prime Tito.

Tito was more talented in every way. And would have clocked Cotto within 5-6.

 

Stuck in the Past????

IT a terrible matchup for cotto period. Just like Hearns would be a terrible match up for PBF and Pac.Name one wepon Cotto has to Nutralize Tito .
when he gets hurt he like to trade that would be his down fall ,that and his short arms:yep

 

No simp, people who actually saw both fight will say Tito murders Cotto.

Miggy has always been easy to hit, he's a midget, and his chin isn't the best. Pray tell, what does he have to offer Tito?

He does NOT have the style to give Tito problems.

 

Yur OPinion means ****. All thoughs fighters boxed Tito. Shane was and has never been a boxer or had a decent jab(jones" tito had no buisness at 170. He's more of a speedy brawler. Who likes to trade. sorry but that spell Goodnight Irene for his ass versus tito. go watch some fights cuz i dont got time to school you on fighters

 

Stuck in the past? This dumbass is acting like Tito fought in the 50's.

His prime was only 12 years ago. That's a LONG time for most on here, since the average poster on the general forum only started following the sport within the last 2 years.

But for people who've followed the sport for awhile, WE remember prime Tito like it was yesterday.

 

Pretty sure the dumbass is the one who thinks "in the past" means 60 years ago.

 

Tito was clearly smaller than Hopkins and Jones and probably a bit smaller than Winky, so right off the bat you show signs that you don't really know what you're talking about here. The vast majority of opponents he faced were his own size, and while some like older versions of Camacho or Whitaker were smaller, there were just as many who were bigger. Hopkins was at his absolute peak against Tito, it remains his single, most perfect performance, and Trinidad fared far, far, far better than someone like Cotto - even if he were a legit Middleweight - would have managed. By the time he fought Winky and Jones he had already been retired for years. Clearly out of his prime for those fights. Cotto's loss to Margarito is obviously shrouded with controversy now, but he lost to Pacquiao simply because he was a much inferior fighter.


As for Mosley, Cotto arguably lost to a clearly faded version. Tito would be, at worst, even money against a prime Mosley (absurd that you think Shane stops him. Though Trinidad was vulnerable to early knockdowns due to balance, he stood up to tremendous punishment from a bigger man in Hopkins). Shane was always more of a puncher than a boxer, and very few Welterweights in history are outpunching Trinidad. Mosley, even at his absolute peak, was not one of those few.


Facts are Trinidad beat a considerably better group of fighters than Cotto has and generally looked more impressive doing so. I wasn't even into boxing when Tito was around, this isn't any 'living in the past' bull****. I have, however, seen all of Tito's fights and all but a few early ones for Cotto. It's clear as day who was better, and it's not Miguel. I can't imagine how anyone who has actually seen a good amount of footage of both would argue otherwise. Take some time to watch Trinidad in his prime and actually learn a bit about his career.

 

I stopped reading after you said power was equal. I knew at that point the rest would be a joke.

 

:rofl

 

Last time I checked, Cotto fought his PRIME at 147.

But even Cotto at 140 was NOT a big puncher.

Tito is easily one of the biggest punchers in the history of 147-154.

So yes, you look like an idiot right now. An idiot w/o much knowledge of the sport.

Speed aint equal either. Tito EASILY had faster hands than Cotto. Cotto is a bit quicker fighting off the backfoot, but Cotto aint exactly fleet footed.

Cotto has ZERO advantages over Tito. ZERO.