Tyson was the more talented all-round fighter. Trinidad was great value for money, but was pretty one-dimensional (great dimension, to be fair) and could be made to look pretty poor or unimaginative when his big left hook and power were negated. In terms of resume it's closer as Tyson's record doesn't match up with his ability, but I still favour him, despite the Douglas loss costing him a good few points. Trinidad is helped by his weight-hopping, and there's no doubt he did go on a very impressive tear from 1999 to 2001 in particular. But taking into account the age and condition of some of his better name opponents, he's really only left with two properly defining wins in De La Hoya and Vargas...And let's be honest, we all know he didn't really win one of them. Tyson's list of victims isn't exactly mind blowing either, but he did at least quickly and dominantly clear out his best division and leave no doubt about who its master was for a good while, which Trinidad never really did at Welter despite his very large number of title fights there. I give it to Tyson in both departments - pretty big on 'better', a bit closer on 'greater'.
Trinidad for me. As a young Welterweight he had it all..his speed in those early years if often forgotten. Tito was the slugger/boxer. 14 successful defenses of the Welterweight Title. Albeit his reign was uneven after a hot start because of problems with King. Tito was just as powerful as Tyson was in his division at 147..then his win over Vargas was just a great performance. Tito had more endurance than Tyson as well as more mental fortitude. Greatness-even Better- Tito Trinidad.
This content is protected When I saw this fight on the undercard of Terry Norris it reminded me of when I first saw Tyson/Berbick. Both Mike and Tito were spectacular performers. Forces of Nature.
