Who accomplished more? Who ranks higher all time? Who accomplished more then the other in what sense?
We have discussed this one before, itr has been a while though. Anyhow, i have come to the conclusion in the past that Trinidad is the greater welterweight of the two, regardless of their bout, and that is their both natural weight.
Oscar for three reasons: Better resume, won more world titles, won more world titles in more weight divisions. End of debate as far as I can see.
Well, there's really no debate as to who performed better at higher weights. Oscar didn't accomplish more at at 154 and up in my opinion. Destroying a solid middleweight in Joppy was extremely impressive, and Trinidad debtable did much better against Hopkin's then Hoya.
Felix Sturm was a better middleweight than William Joppy IMO, but yes Trinidad was far more impressive in his win, but then again, Tito started out as a welter whereas Oscar started out as a superfeather, Tito was a naturally bigger man more comfortable at higher weights - he did after all have a fight at 170lbs. I don't think Oscar could ever inflate himself up to that size. That Felix was better at higher weights only means he was a a bigger guy, Oscar still achieved far more in his whole career. But was Tito really better at higher weights?? He won against Vargas, Mayorga, Reid, Thiam, Joppy and Cherifi. But he lost against Hopkins, Wright and Jones Jr - ie, the three best fighters he fought at higher weights. Oscar beat Castillejo, Vargas, Campas, Sturm, Mayorga and Forbes. He lost against Mosley, Mayweather and Hopkins - ie, the three best he fought at higher weights. Is there really much separating them at higher weights? I'm not so sure. And even if there is, it certainly isn't anywhere near enough to negate all of Oscar's sub-welter achievements. And I dispute that Tito done better against Hopkins, I don't think he did at all. Sure he lasted a couple of rounds longer, but for me Oscar made the fight with B-Hop closer and more competitive than Tito did. Oscar's 2 best wins at 147 were Quartey and Whitaker. What were Trinidad's? A win over Oscar he did not deserve, and either a win over Whitaker (who was undeniably closer to shot by then), or Oba Carr - neither of which touches a win over Quartey IMO. Add to all this that Oscar won 10 world titles in 6 weight divisions and is a former world p4p#1, whereas Tito won 5 world titles in 3 weight divisions and never made it to world p4p#1, and that Tito's losses were far far more dominant and devastating than any of Oscar's, and I genuinely cannot see the argument for ranking Tito higher at all. And I really like Tito as a fighter, I think he was a great ww.
Trinidad lasted longer than De La Hoya, and thats all he did better. But IMO De La Hoya was more competitive against Hopkins. For as long as the fight lasted, he was right in the fight. Hopkins was perhaps a round or two in front, with most of the rounds being reasonably close.
Oscar is, in my mind, the undeniably greater fighter. I can see the argument that Trinidad was better at 147 because of longevity, title defenses, etc, but I would still rank Oscar higher at 147 by a bit. Also worth noting that DLH is a smaller fighter than Trinidad. Obviously this is debatable to some extent (just because DLH held a title at superfeather doesn't mean he's the same size as Mayweather or Chavez, for example) but he did do a lot of quality work south of welterweight.
DE PUERTOOOO RICOOOOOO!!!!! Trinidad showed Oscar all along who owned who in the Welterweight Division. When Tito got off the plane, and stood in front of an adoring crowd in PR the Monday after the Fight of the Millenium, he had Oscar's WBC belt in one hand, and a Rubber Chicken in the other. The Story of the Fight of the Millenium, in a handbasket. :hi: