2000: Felix Trinidad -vs- Shane Mosley -Welterweight Crown-

[Goodnight, Irene]

How would this match have turned out had Trinidad stuck around for it? I think it might've been his first loss, judging by the performance Mosley put in against De La Hoya first-time around...

Opinions?

[p4p1]

mosley he was just awesome in his prime

[Diamond WEAPON]

Mosley would've won, Oscar should've gotten the nod against Tito and Mosley got a close but clear decision over DLH in their first fight, Mosley was just a superior boxer and would've prevailed with his speedy combinations. It would've been a great slugfest though because I could just imagine Tito unleashing a hellish left hook causing Mosley to go wild with hooks and crosses in return.

[Goodnight, Irene]

How do you guys see Mosley's chin holding up if Trinidad gets on the front foot & makes the left hook work? He was left reeling all night against Forrest, after all.

I tend to think of Mosley as over-rated, though I agree his speed & combination-punching (something he just doesn't do anymore) would give Trinidad major fits.

Sugar Shane UD12, IMO. But it would be interesting to see how he stood up under Tito's left hand.

[dempseyfire]

How do you guys see Mosley's chin holding up if Trinidad gets on the front foot & makes the left hook work? He was left reeling all night against Forrest, after all.

I tend to think of Mosley as over-rated, though I agree his speed & combination-punching (something he just doesn't do anymore) would give Trinidad major fits.

Sugar Shane UD12, IMO. But it would be interesting to see how he stood up under Tito's left hand.

I don't see Trinidad landing many clean lefts on Mosley. Regarding Forrest, Vernon would have whupped Tito too. Vernon Forrest is the most under-rated welterweight of the past 10 years IMO. Whereas, Trinidad one of the most over-rated fighters in boxing.

[Borinken25]

How do you guys see Mosley's chin holding up if Trinidad gets on the front foot & makes the left hook work? He was left reeling all night against Forrest, after all.

I tend to think of Mosley as over-rated, though I agree his speed & combination-punching (something he just doesn't do anymore) would give Trinidad major fits.

Sugar Shane UD12, IMO. But it would be interesting to see how he stood up under Tito's left hand.

I don't see Trinidad landing many clean lefts on Mosley. Regarding Forrest, Vernon would have whupped Tito too. Vernon Forrest is the most under-rated welterweight of the past 10 years IMO. Whereas, Trinidad one of the most over-rated fighters in boxing.

Mosley was just too flat footed and would've lost by KO inside of 11 rounds. Mosley has speed and offense but his defense is no way near Winky or Hopkins. Trinidad was bad but not as bad as people want it to be. In any case Mosley did decline a fight vs Trinidad and it was for a reason. Mosley does not move like DLH, Winky, or Hopkins and his main weapon is his speed and combos but he is static something you can not be against Trinidad. And as for Forrest defeating Trinidad is bull, what did Forrest did at Welter? His only win against Mosley that was tailor made for him, just like he was tailor made for Trinidad. Forrest loses to Mayorga are a testament to his greatness, correct?

[Ezzard]

Moseley liked to trade and this at some point would mena that Tito would be able to get to him. How Moseley deals with those shots would decide the outcome.

[dempseyfire]

How do you guys see Mosley's chin holding up if Trinidad gets on the front foot & makes the left hook work? He was left reeling all night against Forrest, after all.

I tend to think of Mosley as over-rated, though I agree his speed & combination-punching (something he just doesn't do anymore) would give Trinidad major fits.

Sugar Shane UD12, IMO. But it would be interesting to see how he stood up under Tito's left hand.

I don't see Trinidad landing many clean lefts on Mosley. Regarding Forrest, Vernon would have whupped Tito too. Vernon Forrest is the most under-rated welterweight of the past 10 years IMO. Whereas, Trinidad one of the most over-rated fighters in boxing.

Mosley was just too flat footed and would've lost by KO inside of 11 rounds. Mosley has speed and offense but his defense is no way near Winky or Hopkins. Trinidad was bad but not as bad as people want it to be. In any case Mosley did decline a fight vs Trinidad and it was for a reason. Mosley does not move like DLH, Winky, or Hopkins and his main weapon is his speed and combos but he is static something you can not be against Trinidad. And as for Forrest defeating Trinidad is bull, what did Forrest did at Welter? His only win against Mosley that was tailor made for him, just like he was tailor made for Trinidad. Forrest loses to Mayorga are a testament to his greatness, correct?

Forrest completly WHUPPED Mosley like no-one has done before or since . . even Wright didn't dominate Mosley like Forrest did. He got overconfident with a then unknown entity in Mayorga, and I thought clearly outboxed Ricardo in the rematch only to lose a decision to the Don King promoted, more marketable fighter. He was sidelined with successive shoulder injuries for several years, and then came back and is probably the top 154 lber in the world, at 38 he gave Baldomir a much more convincing beating than Floyd.
Forrest is bigger than Trinidad, faster, had the power to get Trinidad's respect, and would have jabbed the puss out of him.

[BoxBuzz]

I have to say that IMHO opinion Tito was one of the more overhyped fighters in my lifetime. Problem is I always wanted to see him fight because there would always be action and he was unafraid. However I think is actual performance outdistanced his abilities, skill and talent. In other words he was an over achiever. Nothing wrong with that for the most part....Marciano fits in that mold as well....Tito always came to fight.

granberry told me that his gloves were always packed....and that everybody on the east coast knew it.

[Borinken25]

Moseley liked to trade and this at some point would mena that Tito would be able to get to him. How Moseley deals with those shots would decide the outcome.

Thank you that is exactly my point. Mosley was no defensive fighter and neither was Forrest.

[Borinken25]

How do you guys see Mosley's chin holding up if Trinidad gets on the front foot & makes the left hook work? He was left reeling all night against Forrest, after all.

I tend to think of Mosley as over-rated, though I agree his speed & combination-punching (something he just doesn't do anymore) would give Trinidad major fits.

Sugar Shane UD12, IMO. But it would be interesting to see how he stood up under Tito's left hand.

I don't see Trinidad landing many clean lefts on Mosley. Regarding Forrest, Vernon would have whupped Tito too. Vernon Forrest is the most under-rated welterweight of the past 10 years IMO. Whereas, Trinidad one of the most over-rated fighters in boxing.

I agree RE Forrest. Someone should explain his injury situation to the guy posting above me.

Why don’t you tell me about the million and one excuses instead. He was healthy enough for Mosley but not for Mayorga? The fact is that Forrest proved a whole lot less than Trinidad and that is a fact that can not be denied.

[Borinken25]

I don't see Trinidad landing many clean lefts on Mosley. Regarding Forrest, Vernon would have whupped Tito too. Vernon Forrest is the most under-rated welterweight of the past 10 years IMO. Whereas, Trinidad one of the most over-rated fighters in boxing.

Mosley was just too flat footed and would've lost by KO inside of 11 rounds. Mosley has speed and offense but his defense is no way near Winky or Hopkins. Trinidad was bad but not as bad as people want it to be. In any case Mosley did decline a fight vs Trinidad and it was for a reason. Mosley does not move like DLH, Winky, or Hopkins and his main weapon is his speed and combos but he is static something you can not be against Trinidad. And as for Forrest defeating Trinidad is bull, what did Forrest did at Welter? His only win against Mosley that was tailor made for him, just like he was tailor made for Trinidad. Forrest loses to Mayorga are a testament to his greatness, correct?

Forrest completly WHUPPED Mosley like no-one has done before or since . . even Wright didn't dominate Mosley like Forrest did. He got overconfident with a then unknown entity in Mayorga, and I thought clearly outboxed Ricardo in the rematch only to lose a decision to the Don King promoted, more marketable fighter. He was sidelined with successive shoulder injuries for several years, and then came back and is probably the top 154 lber in the world, at 38 he gave Baldomir a much more convincing beating than Floyd.
Forrest is bigger than Trinidad, faster, had the power to get Trinidad's respect, and would have jabbed the puss out of him.

Mosley was tailor made for Forrest who got his number since the amateurs. Why he didn’t whup Mayorga the same way? Oh, oh, of course, Forrest had an injury. Please you are not seriously bringing very limited Baldomir as an example? I think you could do better than that. And I score both fights for Mayorga. And even a rusty retired Trinidad was able to totally destroyed Mayorga. Something that Forrest could only dream about it. Trinidad was not the greatest but he was not as bad as you want to be. Again Mosley declined a fight vs Trinidad and it was for a reason and everybody knows that.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I have to say that IMHO opinion Tito was one of the more overhyped fighters in my lifetime. Problem is I always wanted to see him fight because there would always be action and he was unafraid. However I think is actual performance outdistanced his abilities, skill and talent. In other words he was an over achiever. Nothing wrong with that for the most part....Marciano fits in that mold as well....Tito always came to fight.

granberry told me that his gloves were always packed....and that everybody on the east coast knew it.

Agreed. He just wasn't that great, but he had a rabid fanbase, hence the coining of the term, "Titosite." He was one of those fighters who was fiercely determined, & he had talent --- but it wasn't the type of ability you would ever be especially impressed by. Still, you have to respect a fighter who goes further than they really should.

I never liked him for always claiming he beat De La Hoya. That was denial, if you ask me. Pride. Call it what you will. I re-visited his fight with Hopkins recently, & I remember interest at the time of that fight was absolutely fever-pitched, with opinions pretty even across the board, really. Looking at it again, it really was a shellacking, & Hopkins' finest hour. At the time I was glad to hear the end of the Trinidad fans, & all their bullshit.

But, watching it years later, is less satisfying. He really did give it his all, & insisted he could continue even after the knockdown at the end.

No quit in Felix Trinidad.

[Marlin]

Mosely wins this pretty comfortably IMO, probably a wiiiiide decision.

[Diamond WEAPON]

Mosely wins this pretty comfortably IMO, probably a wiiiiide decision.

I agree, the only times Mosley's ever been hurt was from Forrest's uppercuts (Forrest has a deadly uppercut, even Quartey could attest to that) and in his last fight from Cotto's variety of left hands which stunned Mosley but never really sent him reeling. Mosley has always had pretty good head movement in his free-swinging style and it helps him absorb punches, it certainly did against De La Hoya's left hooks which I'd easily put on close to an equal level with Tito's.

[Borinken25]

I agree RE Forrest. Someone should explain his injury situation to the guy posting above me.

Why don’t you tell me about the million and one excuses instead. He was healthy enough for Mosley but not for Mayorga? The fact is that Forrest proved a whole lot less than Trinidad and that is a fact that can not be denied.

Why don't you use childish "fighter A beat fighter B who defeated fighter C so fighter A can beat fighter C" logic? Oh, you did, I apologise. His shoulder packed-up.

Do you seriously think that lay-off and shoulder scar were from a 2-year lay-off spending time amongst tribesmen?

No I’m well aware of his injury and his surgery. However, the injury is part of who he is and that can not be used as an excuse. If it is like that then I could say if Trinidad was not a one dimensional fighter then he would’ve been unbeatable. See my point? No excuses. As for fighter A beat fighter B who defeated fighter C so fighter A can beat fighter C" logic is not that different from Forrest beat Mosley and because Forrest beat Mosley he is going to whup Trinidad. I’m a big believer in style makes fights and that is the base for my argument. Tito lost to two way above average defensive fighters and Forrest and Mosley are not known for that. I see both of them trying to trade with Trinidad and that would have been their demise.

[Borinken25]

I think Forrest could box to a gameplan and his box-clinching would negate Tito in a similar way to Hopkins. Keeping putting that jab out, tie Tito up and hook to the body. I really see Vernon frustrating Tito's power then taking him apart later in the fight.

Forrest could always feint well and disguise his shots and how often did we see Tito get popped with a right hand and his back straight in the Hopkins fight.

A fully-fit and concentrated Vernon beats Tito in my opinion.

Fair enough and I do respect your opinion. Perhaps they could still fight after Tito beats Roy.

Just kidding.

[elmersalsa]

I pick Tito on this one....Too much power.

[Ambling Alp]

I just wanted to add something about the idea of "If fighter A beats fighter B, and B beats C, then A will beat C".

Actually, the truth is that A usually does beat C in that scenario. Of course styles are important and you can come up with many examples of when A loses to C. However it usually does play out this way. It's much more likely with 3 fighters that one guys goes 2-0, another 1-1 and the third 0-2, than it is for all 3 to go 1-1. This has to be true. If it wasn't then almost everyone would be around .500 record.

Why? Because usually the better fighter wins the fight. So if A beat B, he probably was better. If B beats C, then he was probably better than C. A is usually better than C by a wider margin.

Of course if the 3 fighters are very close in ability than styles could quite possibly make the difference. However, if one fighter is far superior to another, the superior fighter will probably win even it seems that he is at a "style" disadvantage.

[Minotauro]

I think Trinidad would win via late stoppage.

[IKSRTFO]

I just wanted to add something about the idea of "If fighter A beats fighter B, and B beats C, then A will beat C".

Actually, the truth is that A usually does beat C in that scenario. Of course styles are important and you can come up with many examples of when A loses to C. However it usually does play out this way. It's much more likely with 3 fighters that one guys goes 2-0, another 1-1 and the third 0-2, than it is for all 3 to go 1-1. This has to be true. If it wasn't then almost everyone would be around .500 record.

Why? Because usually the better fighter wins the fight. So if A beat B, he probably was better. If B beats C, then he was probably better than C. A is usually better than C by a wider margin.

Of course if the 3 fighters are very close in ability than styles could quite possibly make the difference. However, if one fighter is far superior to another, the superior fighter will probably win even it seems that he is at a "style" disadvantage.

Then how do you explain that Barrera was never able to defeat Pac but Morales could? Or the Ali, Fraizer, Foreman debacle? Hopkins couldn't get a win against Taylor but he could outpoint Winky? Or that he could beat Tarver but Tarver always had Roy's number? Or that Forest couldn't beat Mayorga but beat Shane twice who beat the guy who beat Mayorga?

[IKSRTFO]

I think you crippled your own argument by bringing styles in.

Fighter A: A boxer with neat skills and the ability to jab and hold.

Fighter B: A 1-D stand-up puncher who is not wild and throws controlled shots at a steady pace.

Fighter C: Out-and-out brawler who throws slugging shots, moves forward constantly and has a very strong chin.

Fighter A beats Fighter B by giving him a little bit of space, clinching and using the jab to off-set him.

Fighter B then beats Fighter C by standing within the arc of his blows and landing the sharper shots in a firefight.

Fighter C then beats Fighter A by not giving him time to commit to his boxing game, closing the range and bustling Fighter A out of his rhythm. Fighter A goes on the back foot to try and get range and loses the fight.

Forrest and Tito are far superior to Mayorga, who is a peasant, yet they went 1-2 (1) with him over three fights because of the styles.

Again Fighter A (Forrest) beats Fighter B (Shane) who beats Fighter C (Oscar) who then beats Fighter D (Ricardo) who in turn beats Fighter A against the odds. According to your logic both Forrest (in particular who is the top of the chain) and Shane should be skilfully in excess of Oscar but Vernon lost to Mayorga who was beaten by Oscar who in turn lost twice, underlining his inferiority, to Shane. In this chain Fighter A (Forrest) should have destroyed Fighter D (Mayorga).

There is slightly more to boxing than .500 and algebraic fight formulations.

Vernon would beat Tito using jabbing and holding early then taking him out late into the bout. Both Tito's losses have the definitive pattern of him losing to the guy with the better jab and ability to defend and hold.

Pefect Analogy

[Ambling Alp]

I don't think you guys read my post closely enough. I said tha usually if A beats B,and B beats C, that A will beat C. Usually being the operative word.

Of course you can situations when this doesn't work out, as I had mentioned previously. However, usually it does. This isn't rock/paper/scissors, where everyone wins 50% of the time.


Of course boxing isn't just an algebra formula. However if you take two fighters at random, and they have a common opponent that one lost to and the other defeated, the majority of the time the fighter that won defeated that opponent lost to the common opponent. That is a fact, not just my opinion.

Go through the Boxrec database or a record book that lists all of a fighters fights. Find the fighters that beat fighter A. Then see how these fighters did against guys that fighter A beat, if they fought. You will see that the vast majority of the time the fighters that fighter A lost to, beat the fighters that fighter A defeated.

As I mentioned before, styles do matter. However how close the fighters are in ability also matters. In the scenario that was listed (Moseley-,De La Hoya, Moseley-Forrest, Forrest-Mayorga, and Mayorga-De La hoya) etc. you also have to look at the ability of the 4 fighters.
De La Hoya and Mosely are pretty even, Forrest is behind them and Mayorga is behind Forrest.

Mayorga's style advantage was good enough to beat Forrest, but he would be in major trouble if he had to beat someone better than Forrest, even if they had Forrest's style.

As for Foreman/Ali/Frazier, yes style was critical here. However, so was ability. Ali defeated other fighters with Frazier's basic style. (Chuvalo,Quarry, Bonavena) much easier than he defeated Frazier. However, Frazier was much better than those 3 and gave Ali a lot more trouble. If it was only about style, Ali would have lost all 3 times against Frazier instead of beating him 2 out of 3.

What I am saying is that the lesser fighter does have a good chance of winning if he has a style advantage and difference in ability is relatively close. However, the fighter with lesser ability will probably lose to a far better fighter even if he has a style advantage.

[IKSRTFO]

I don't think you guys read my post closely enough. I said tha usually if A beats B,and B beats C, that A will beat C. Usually being the operative word.

Of course you can situations when this doesn't work out, as I had mentioned previously. However, usually it does. This isn't rock/paper/scissors, where everyone wins 50% of the time.


Of course boxing isn't just an algebra formula. However if you take two fighters at random, and they have a common opponent that one lost to and the other defeated, the majority of the time the fighter that won defeated that opponent lost to the common opponent. That is a fact, not just my opinion.

Go through the Boxrec database or a record book that lists all of a fighters fights. Find the fighters that beat fighter A. Then see how these fighters did against guys that fighter A beat, if they fought. You will see that the vast majority of the time the fighters that fighter A lost to, beat the fighters that fighter A defeated.

As I mentioned before, styles do matter. However how close the fighters are in ability also matters. In the scenario that was listed (Moseley-,De La Hoya, Moseley-Forrest, Forrest-Mayorga, and Mayorga-De La hoya) etc. you also have to look at the ability of the 4 fighters.
De La Hoya and Mosely are pretty even, Forrest is behind them and Mayorga is behind Forrest.

Mayorga's style advantage was good enough to beat Forrest, but he would be in major trouble if he had to beat someone better than Forrest, even if they had Forrest's style.

As for Foreman/Ali/Frazier, yes style was critical here. However, so was ability. Ali defeated other fighters with Frazier's basic style. (Chuvalo,Quarry, Bonavena) much easier than he defeated Frazier. However, Frazier was much better than those 3 and gave Ali a lot more trouble. If it was only about style, Ali would have lost all 3 times against Frazier instead of beating him 2 out of 3.

What I am saying is that the lesser fighter does have a good chance of winning if he has a style advantage and difference in ability is relatively close. However, the fighter with lesser ability will probably lose to a far better fighter even if he has a style advantage.

Alright, well stated

[Borinken25]

I don't think you guys read my post closely enough. I said tha usually if A beats B,and B beats C, that A will beat C. Usually being the operative word.

Of course you can situations when this doesn't work out, as I had mentioned previously. However, usually it does. This isn't rock/paper/scissors, where everyone wins 50% of the time.


Of course boxing isn't just an algebra formula. However if you take two fighters at random, and they have a common opponent that one lost to and the other defeated, the majority of the time the fighter that won defeated that opponent lost to the common opponent. That is a fact, not just my opinion.

Go through the Boxrec database or a record book that lists all of a fighters fights. Find the fighters that beat fighter A. Then see how these fighters did against guys that fighter A beat, if they fought. You will see that the vast majority of the time the fighters that fighter A lost to, beat the fighters that fighter A defeated.

As I mentioned before, styles do matter. However how close the fighters are in ability also matters. In the scenario that was listed (Moseley-,De La Hoya, Moseley-Forrest, Forrest-Mayorga, and Mayorga-De La hoya) etc. you also have to look at the ability of the 4 fighters.
De La Hoya and Mosely are pretty even, Forrest is behind them and Mayorga is behind Forrest.
Mayorga's style advantage was good enough to beat Forrest, but he would be in major trouble if he had to beat someone better than Forrest, even if they had Forrest's style.

As for Foreman/Ali/Frazier, yes style was critical here. However, so was ability. Ali defeated other fighters with Frazier's basic style. (Chuvalo,Quarry, Bonavena) much easier than he defeated Frazier. However, Frazier was much better than those 3 and gave Ali a lot more trouble. If it was only about style, Ali would have lost all 3 times against Frazier instead of beating him 2 out of 3.

What I am saying is that the lesser fighter does have a good chance of winning if he has a style advantage and difference in ability is relatively close. However, the fighter with lesser ability will probably lose to a far better fighter even if he has a style advantage.

I agree with that statement; however I think DLH has better movement than Mosley. I think Trinidad would find Mosley easier to hit than DLH and that will be the end of the fight. As for Forrest I'm not that big on him and I don't he is in Hopkins league and therefore another Trinidad victim if they would've fought.