Both were economical, methodical puncher-boxers with great accuracy and murderous power in both hands. I think Zarate was a more complete boxer. Thing is, I see Tito as having more toughness and general intangibles. What say the forum?
I'm a big fan of both. Trinidad came into the game smoother in style and more fluid in movement. Zarate had a very front foot heavy, left hook dependent style early in his career. Around 75 or 76 somebody fixed his feet and taught him a right hand; the earliest that I remember seeing this change was the fight with James Martinez. I think that the change came about through Nacho because he was doing a lot of training for Cuyo Hernandez fighters at the time. Ricardo Lopez had the same issues when he started with Cuyo and Nacho fixed them.
Id go with tito. Zarate looked like a god against Zamora, but he was a bit of a hype job. Tito proved himself against better fighters imo
Zarate looked unbeatable in every fight until Gomez wiped him out. He wasn't going life and death with guys, he was dominating them and stopping them. I guess what hurts him is that Gomez just ran through him. No one ever ran through Tito. But in Zarate's defense, Oscar wasn't nearly as good as Gomez P4P.
We don't handicap P4P matchups as much as we used to, but if Zarate and Tito were the same natural weight, I'd have to think that if Zarate didn't blast Tito within 4-5, then Tito would drown him in deep waters.
They were both tall for their weights. Zarate beat at least one tall bantam but that guy didn't have the power of Trinidad and didn't box any better. I think that not having the physical advantage would hurt Zarate more than it would Trinidad.
I think Trinidad's power was a little more frightening. The truth about Zarate is, he was more about wearing guys down through accuracy and a vicious body attack. Tito was more capable of ending a fight with one or two shots.
One of the things that I learned studying Zarate years ago...in his early fights in Mexico, they always commented on how few punches he threw, but how well placed and damaging they were.
The pro-Zarate argument is that he's ranked higher at bantam than Tito is at welter. But welter is historically deeper than bantam, and Tito was successful at multiple weights. Yeaa.... I guess overall Tito edges it. The deciding factor for me is I just view Tito as tougher. Similar to what @Sweet Pea recently said about Olivares vs Gomez.... neither had a great chin, but Gomez was a lot tougher than Olivares, harder to take down. Same with Tito and Zarate.
No, Hopkins stopped in the 12th and final round after giving him a sustained beating. And still, Trinidad didn't go out with a whimper like Zarate did against Gomez - he was still trying until the bitter end.
Yeah but he had no answers and was defeated in one-sided fashion. Arguably, it was a bigger indictment of his abilities than if he'd been knocked out earlier.
H2H, I'd say Zarate is way closer to the best bantamweight than Tito is to the best welterweight. Sure, welterweight is way deeper, but is it deeper by enough to where someone who's a lock for top five vs someone who's likely a lock outside the top ten? I think their power is very comparable. I only think Tito's looked more devasting in short bursts because he's bigger. And I'd say Zarate's chin is just as good as Trinidad's. I think Zarate's getting the short end of the stick, but Tito never fought anyone as good or destructive as Gomez. Does anyone else think Hearns would destroy Tito in a similar fashion to how Gomez destroyed Zarate? After all, Zarate wasn't dropped by Reid, Carr, or Campas level fighters. Zarate's skillset is definitely better IMO. He was a truly brilliant ring-general, and his defence is very underrated and in terms of offense, Zarate is as good as almost anyone. If you wanted to rate Tito higher P4P, that's fine by me. Zarate was never lineal, was never ranked number one, and only beat five ranked fighters.
That sorta touches on how I feel about this. I think Zarate was better as a bantam than Tito was at any single weight class he fought in, but Tito was better suited to adjust to moving up in weight. IMO, Zarate's big shortcoming is that he never learned to make full use of his height/reach advantages and often sacrificed them to fight at close quarters. That may not have been an issue down at 118, where he may have simply been too physically powerful for all but perhaps the very best at the weight, but it proved his undoing as he attempted to establish a career above the weight.
IMO, Zarate was one of those fighters who was ideally suited to dominate a single weight class, but couldn't carry the same success up to a higher weight - similar to Bob Foster. Personally, I rank Zarate as the #3 all-time bantam behind only Olivares and Jofre, and I'd make Carlos about 50/50 H2H against either of them.
Unless you give insane amounts of credence to undefeated streaks and give Zarate full credit for the Pintor fight as if it were a win, I see no-way of arguing this. And even then, I think that'd be a massive stretch. Or do you rank primarily based on head to head?
What's such a "stretch" about that? Didn't you say earlier that you consider Zarate "a lock for top five"?
Yeah, head-to-head. I don't think he's top ten in terms of accomplishments. He only beat five ranked fighters.
His resume isn't the deepest, but Martinez and Davila are still quality wins, and Zamora is one of the single biggest wins ever scored in the division's history.
Maybe so, but it's only three fighters. And how is it? There are tons of fighters better than Zamora at bantam, and they all lost to someone. Manuel Ortiz and Ruben Olivares IMO have multiple wins better than beating Zamora.
I disagree, I don't think there are many bantams throughout history that could reliably be expected to withstand a pre-Zarate Zamora's firepower outside of the very best. What wins of Ortiz do you rank as better?
Which wins in bantam history would you put above Zarate-Zamora, and/or directly below? I'd rate Ortiz's wins over Chavez, Olivera, Salica, Castillo, Dade and Young above Zarate's win over Zamora for various reasons.
I don't see much of a basis for rating any of these wins over Zamora, with the possible exception of Chavez (due to his achievements up at 126). Salica was considered badly faded and ready to be taken when Ortiz beat him, Castillo was a decent but unspectacular contender, and Dade's significance stems mainly from the fact that Ortiz lost to him in the first place. Overall, I'd say Ortiz beat a solid level of competition, but lacks a singularly spectacular, defining win of the kind Zarate had over Zamora.
I think your wildly overrating Zamora. I'd take a win over a fading all-time great to win the title over a non-title win over just a good fighter. Kui-Kong Young is a brilliant and incredibly underrated contender. Castillo's record of losses is embarrassing, but the fighters he beat are wayyyyyy better than the ones Zamora beat. Dade's win over Ortiz is far more than anything Zamora did, and he also beat Olivera. Regaining the title back like that is a big feet, he didn't just sulk and retire. I wouldn't even rate Zamora as Zarate's best win. Davilla was better IMO. Even if all of these wins in their own are worse than Zarate's win over Zamora, they clearly stack up to be better as a group. Ortiz is like 21-2 in lineal title fights, Zarate is 0-0. Like I say, unless you're really rating Zarate's long undefeated streak, I don't see how you can rate him top five, or above Ortiz.
If we compare the resumes of Ortiz's victims to that of Zamora, then we have to consider that Zamora blasted out a fighter who was just 2 years away from beginning a record-setting reign up at FW.
I wouldn't rate that win highly. Pedroza has no wins of note at bantam and clearly looks worse on film. He was blown out by Perez and Arnal, and went life and death with Amores. I don't think that win is worth much.
Love both fighters and consider them one of the best at their respectable weight classes in their era. I think Zarate was much more dominant and perhaps a slightly better technician. Tito was a more deadly puncher with more flaws but he's fought far better opponents IMO. I think Trinidad rates as the greater fighter for me.
At the very least, that underlined part isn't true - he had beaten Benicio Sosa the year before, who was rated #1 by The Ring at the time. Pedroza himself was rated #3 by The Ring heading into the Zamora fight, so he wasn't just some undeserving sanctioning body lackey, either. As far as how he looked, I certainly wouldn't expect that he'd have been at his peak yet, but at the same time, I don't think his style looked all that radically different from his title-winning effort vs. Lastra, either.
