Who do you rank higher at welterweight: De La Hoya or Trinidad?

Oscar beat Trinidad clearly, in my opinion, but of course beating one opponent on one night doesn't do everything for one's ranking. Oscar made Trinidad look pitiful but he didn't exactly destroy him in such a way as to make me believe he'd win 3 out of a series. It takes some really consistent wins over a boxer that one is being compared to, like Ezzard Charles's wins over Archie Moore, to really seal that particular deal.

Trinidad has an obscenely impressive record at welterweight, not only cleaning the division out but dominating it for years on end. He was a rare kind of puncher: one with patience and a strategic mind, with more than a little willingness to find extra-legal ways to win. The fight against Vargas was a particularly good example of Tito's tenacity and relentlessness. Oscar's welterweight record, while still impressive, has nowhere near the depth of Tito's.

As PowerPuncher has noted, Tito was also not a ****. I've never been a fan and I've almost always been supporting his opponent, but I've also found it impossible to dislike Trinidad. The man brought out great fights of anyone; even his fight with a burnt-out Roy Jones was a good little scrap.

So, despite his loss to Oscar, I still favour Tito. The man was number one in his field, just like Josip Broz Tito, except without the terrible human-rights record and the military experience.