Why Felix Trinidad getting so much hate?

:bears: :bears: :bears: :bears:

 

You said it yourself, Tito's 1 dimension was better, but they are certainly comparable stylistically. Both patient, slow footed, stalking punchers with big left hooks. The main difference is Tito is more of a mid range puncher, and Chico was really an infighter.

 

Tito also had a better jab, and dare I say, a better defense. Not that Tito's defense was good, but Chico's defense was HORRIBLE!

Only thing Chico possible has over Tito is better one shot power, and even thats debatable.

 

tito's career reminds me of the first day you play fight night, you start koing all the early guys, let the computer train, never learn defence or how to box and throw combos, then you get to a hard guy and realise ohh shit i should have been training and learning to box this whole time, now i gotta restart and build my character back up, but his life isnt a video game and he cant start over

 

:: I remember that happened to me many times with that game!

 

Tito was what he was. Its not as if he was totally w/o skill like a Tua, or Mickey Ward. He had good skills, and was an EXCELLENT offensive machine, he just ran into better fighters in Hopkins, and Wright. And arguably DLH, though I scored that fight a draw.

 

Very well put. I agree:bears:

 

Not to mention chicken shit Oscar never wanted a rematch until AFTER Tito had retired the first time.::

 

you say this like it's insignificant.

the other thing you fail to mention is that whereas Chico couldn't jab and box to save his life, Tito was a very accomplished boxer, especially at 147. He preferred mid-distance where he could land his combinations, but he was deadly too from long range with his jab and long right hand.

 

yeah i just like to make fun of tito, puts a smile on my face

 

Yeah it is fun. Plus he has a look to him like he rode the short bus on his way to Cupey Alto High.

 

I wish the fight would have been made @154 when Tito was at his best. Too bad it was never made. Tito was always open for a rematch but Delahoya always found a excuse.

 

I know I am going to catch some heat on this thread, but Tito's power never really impressed me. What was his biggest win by ko, Vargas? And that was more of lots of punishment rather than a one punch ko. Tito is a HOF'er, no doubt about it. I always just scratched my head when everyone talked of his great ko power.

 

one day you'll be saying the same thing about floyd mayweather...:flip:

 

Thats right! As soon as he gets flattened!

 

:: ::

 

Are you old enough to have watched his fights live in the 90's?

I'm guessing not, but correct me if I'm wrong.

In the 90's, Tito's power was never questioned. No, he wasn't considered Tysonesque, but he chopped through everyone he faced. They might knock him down, but he'd get back up and repay the favor with interest.

 

I think that's fair. Tito had a better jab, slightly better defense only as you said, it's more or less impossible to have worse defense than Chico did. And Chico has the edge in 1 shot power.

 

Tito was never a great boxer. And you say it as though him being a mid range fighter automatically makes him better :dunno: It just happens to be a difference in style.

Tito "boxed" against people like thiam, but he was always more of a puncher. He has never won a significant fight by outboxing someone, put it that way.

 

Corrales had faster hands, more 1 punch power and was a much better counter puncher than Trinidad. I don't see that huge of a difference in the 2 to be honest.

 

Bingo! Fully agreed (with the Trinidad-DLH score as well).

Peace.

 

How many times Tito has retired?

Mmm, about three or four times now?

...and he said he was never going to come back, .

::

 

Tito didn't have the explosive, 1-punch KO power like an early Freitas or Hamed...

Then again, if you really think about it, people often talk about "1-punch KO power" when in REALITY, it is very, VERY rare.

But Tito did have heavy, thudding, precise power....the kind that could turn around a fight even if he didn't put his opponent down or out.

Once Trinidad began to land with accuracy and timing, almost inevitably the fight went his way or turned around, and the opponent started behaving differently.

And remember - Trinidad was very selective in his punching...so it wasn't like he was swarming you a la Hatton or Mosely before you were out.

Once he landed his very well-placed punches over the course of a few rounds....opponents would wilt.

It wasn't Trinidad's sheer physical force that made him effective (i.e., Foreman) - it was his timing, accuracy, placement and technique.

Peace.

 

:: Exactly. Can't stand it!

 

Would disagree with the "much better counterpuncher" part...rest I agree with.

 

he out-boxed Whitaker. and a lot of what he did against Reid was boxing.

 

Good exmaples. I agree he was boxing Reid and was doing a good job of it.

 

....

He was losing the boxing match with Reid until he landed a big punch that turned the whole fight around. Sorry, but Trinidad was never that good of a boxer. Average, above average or whatever but far below great.

 

I knew you would talk some sense as per usual. People act like the 2 are incomparible due to Tito's legendary and herioc status.

The fact is there is not a big difference between the 2, they are stylistically similar, each has some advantages and disadvantages.

And for Tito's alleged boxing prowess according to Double L, he has never outboxed someone the caliber of Casamayor as Chico did in the rematch.

 

Hmmm....Trinidad was a solid boxer, overall.

Not great, no - and versatility & footwork were not his strengths. Those are what most people really mean when they say Trinidad wasn't a "good boxer" or was too "one-dimensional." That's fair, but that's not all that makes up a good boxer.

Arguello wasn't the most fleet of foot or the most lithe and versatile, either.

BUT Trinidad's accuracy, timing and placement were very good...and he was also very skilled at setting up his selective punches behind good pacing, timing and the solid use of a strong jab (especially at 147 and early at 154 - something he could have used more of throughout his career, though).

Didn't usually integrate offense & defense well, which is the real hallmark of a 'great' boxer....but he could counter effectively often, though.

I do believe he was a better boxer than Corrales on the fundamentals.

Diego basically depended on his quick hands and short, crisp punches to do the job because he had the speed at mid/short distance to get to his opponent....and make it count.

But overall fundamentals? Trinidad was better.

I don't think they're stylistically similar, either.

And I will always dispute that he was getting "outboxed" vs. Reid before he landed that punch....that fight was even going into the 7th; and Trinidad's adjustment on going to the body to slow down Reid (and accumulate points) should be noted.

Trinidad had won rounds and it was a competitive fight.

This is also true of the Carr and Whitaker (of course) fights.

He was not a great boxer; could have done many things better....but he wasn't a face-first brawler either.

Peace.