Oscar and Tito: Were they that good?

[elmersalsa]

Were these guys were that good as some people in this forum believe?

What are your thoughts?

In my view, they were not as good as some people think. They don't make the cut of the 100 greatest fighters pound per pound.

[Goodnight, Irene]

They were among the best (& biggest, not to mention most-accomplished) fighters in their time, their generation, & at the time they met. They were each showing flashes of all-time brilliance (De La Hoya's all-round blend of speed, ring generalship, & power, & Trinidad, though more limited, a Marciano-esque aura of doing far more with his gifts than anyone anticipated) set against a backdrop of genuinely standing as two of the best pound-for-pounders at the time they crossed paths. That's all most people were saying through most of their careers.

Two great (not elite, in an all-time context) fighters who pursue the best & gain large followings --- Trinidad, Puerto Rico's favourite son, & De La Hoya, immensely beloved & observed --- are always going to garner big & lasting attention, especially as they continue to challenge the best adversaries of their day.

Were they that good? Well, perhaps you should define how good you think people once perceived them to be. I think they were both top-twenty all-time Welterweight titleists, & each could be top ten, all-time, in another division (De La Hoya at Jr. Welter, & Trinidad at Jr. Middle). Add to that titles (some linear, some not) in multiple divisions --- especially in De La Hoya's case --- & sterling overall career records &, yeah, I'm inclined to believe both men could -- not necessarily would, mind --- reach the top one-hundred all-timers list.

I prefer to judge fighters within their best (or perhaps, best two) weightclasses, though. It's simpler than a straight-out all-timers' pound-for-pound ranking, which has the confusion & complexity of ranking every fighter to ever pull on a pair of gloves.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Were these guys were that good as some people in this forum believe?

What are your thoughts?

In my view, they were not as good as some people think. They don't make the cut of the 100 greatest fighters pound per pound.

Do they make the top 1,000, Elmer?

[Flump]

They were both talented fighters who I enjoyed watching, whether they (particularly Trinidad) were top 100 material is another matter.

[kikibalt]

They were good, BUT, not that good..... :P

[gregor]

Were these guys were that good as some people in this forum believe?
In my view, they were not as good as some people think.

This is really unprecise. This forum is quite big, so (even without checking archives) it is safe to assume there is a couple of posters who are seriously overestimating Oscar or Tito.

On the other hand, you may be the one underestimating them. I agree they did not look that good at the end of their careers, fighting in divisions they did not belong to (like Tito against RJJ at 170), but they achieved a lot more in their primes

[elmersalsa]

We live in an era when anybody could be world champion or multi titlist. Tito nor Oscar would have never had a better career in other times. To me, both of them OVERRATED. NOW THAT IS OVERRATED.

[NazNaci1]

I liked Oscar's style more than Tito's - he seemed to have more strings to his bow (plus he should have got the decision in their match).

I think, longevity-wise, Oscar should be touted higher than Tito, coupled with the fact Oscar has faced some of the finest fighters of his generation (ok, he didn't beat all of them and was a little lucky in some and unlucky in others) so he gets more kudo's from me.

[Goodnight, Irene]

We live in an era when anybody could be world champion or multi titlist. Tito nor Oscar would have never had a better career in other times. To me, both of them OVERRATED. NOW THAT IS OVERRATED.

What relevance is the first sentence, when each of these men were champions in multiple divisions in the legitimate context?

[m1kee50]

Were these guys were that good as some people in this forum believe?

What are your thoughts?

In my view, they were not as good as some people think. They don't make the cut of the 100 greatest fighters pound per pound.

They were largely fun to watch. Sometimes this 'how good were/are they' stuff is tedious. I like watching grown men beat each other up, and I prefer it if they are about as good as eachother when they fight, so it's not unfair. But all this endless evaluation gets so bitter I'm not convinced it's worth the effort.

[elmersalsa]

We live in an era when anybody could be world champion or multi titlist. Tito nor Oscar would have never had a better career in other times. To me, both of them OVERRATED. NOW THAT IS OVERRATED.

What relevance is the first sentence, when each of these men were champions in multiple divisions in the legitimate context?

Big Deal...Bernard Hopkins was champion in only one division. So was Eusebio Pedroza. Does that mean they were INFERIOR to Oscar and Tito?

[Idisagree]

We live in an era when anybody could be world champion or multi titlist. Tito nor Oscar would have never had a better career in other times. To me, both of them OVERRATED. NOW THAT IS OVERRATED.

What relevance is the first sentence, when each of these men were champions in multiple divisions in the legitimate context?

Big Deal...Bernard Hopkins was champion in only one division. So was Eusebio Pedroza. Does that mean they were INFERIOR to Oscar and Tito?

Hopkins NO, Pedroza yes

[Goodnight, Irene]

You have completely missed the point once more, Elmer.

[elmersalsa]

[

Hopkins NO, Pedroza yes

No sir, at least Pedroza is an all-time great fighter in my book...He makes the top 100 pound per pound...I can't see that in Oscar nor Tito. The were just OVERRATED boxers in an era of superstardom...That is all.

[actjac]

I LOVE IT!!!

We have progressed to the point that Oscar and Tito are only distant memories and are in the Boxers of the Past.
Soon the question will be asked..."How good were Pacquiao and Mayweather?
( I am going back to the retirement home for warm milk and a nap.)

[BigJuicyHog]

We live in an era when anybody could be world champion or multi titlist. Tito nor Oscar would have never had a better career in other times. To me, both of them OVERRATED. NOW THAT IS OVERRATED.

What relevance is the first sentence, when each of these men were champions in multiple divisions in the legitimate context?

Big Deal...Bernard Hopkins was champion in only one division. So was Eusebio Pedroza. Does that mean they were INFERIOR to Oscar and Tito?

So, Hopkins was never considered the Light Heavy Champ?

[enrique]

Tito and Oscar were the best of their era.

That being said, could they have licked Ray Robinson, Emile Griffith, Carmen Basilio, Luis Rodriguez, Johnny Bratton or Jose Napoles?

No way.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Tito and Oscar were the best of their era.

That being said, could they have licked Ray Robinson, Emile Griffith, Carmen Basilio, Luis Rodriguez, Johnny Bratton or Jose Napoles?

No way.

Did anyone, anywhere, at any point in time, say they could? Don't think so.

They weren't the best of their time, either. To name but two, Ricardo Lopez & Roy Jones were consistently ranked higher, pound-for-pound, at the same point in time.

[Idisagree]

[

Hopkins NO, Pedroza yes

No sir, at least Pedroza is an all-time great fighter in my book...He makes the top 100 pound per pound...I can't see that in Oscar nor Tito. The were just OVERRATED boxers in an era of superstardom...That is all.

HAHAHA

Pedroza's career equals Samuel Serrano's career. And we all know that Serrano belong in the IBHOF.

[elmersalsa]

[

Hopkins NO, Pedroza yes

No sir, at least Pedroza is an all-time great fighter in my book...He makes the top 100 pound per pound...I can't see that in Oscar nor Tito. The were just OVERRATED boxers in an era of superstardom...That is all.

HAHAHA

Pedroza's career equals Samuel Serrano's career. And we all know that Serrano belong in the IBHOF.

No way, Eusebio Pedroza was a great tactician and excellent conditioned technician that could give problems to any featherweight in history. He was so good. I mean great. The only champion in history that has the record of most title defenses in opponent's backyards and come out victorious. That is hard to do. He did it 10 times!!! If that ain't greatness, well I don't know what is.

Pedroza is 2 levels, maybe 3 levels above Samuel Serrano.

[Idisagree]

The same could be said for Serrano just look at their resume; Serrano defended his WBA title around 8 times in his opponents’ backyards. Ecuador, Venezuela (2x), Japan (3x), South Africa, and Chile. Big deal, like I said Serrano’s career is very similar to Pedroza. Both lost to mediocre fighters, something that Tito and Oscar never did. Tito and Oscar are 2 levels, maybe 3 above Pedroza and Serrano.

[Titan]

Very good. Not sure they could compare to all time greats like Walker Smith and Ray Leonard.

[allworld80]

Oscar was better than Tito, despite the loss to him. Both take a backseat to Mosley though.

[Titan]

Oscar was better than Tito, despite the loss to him. Both take a backseat to Mosley though.

I agree. I like to think of them as the fab 4 of this generation.

Mosley,Duran

Trinidad,Hearns

De La Hoya, Leonard

Hagler, Hopkins

Not saying that they were as good but there are some similarities between them.

[Idisagree]

Oscar was better than Tito, despite the loss to him. Both take a backseat to Mosley though.

I don’t see why DLH has to take a back seat to Mosley. Prime for Prime the first fight between them was as close as it gets and the second it was a clear win by DLH. He was robbed on that fight. DLH has some solid wins on his resume (Paez, Molina, Whitaker, Chavez, Quartey, Carr, and Vargas) and his fight vs Mayweather was a very close one, I truly believe that a prime DLH would’ve defeated Mayweather.

Mosley has solid wins against (Molina, De La Hoya, Vargas, and maybe Margarito)

I think DLH resume is better with more accomplishments.