Who will go down as the greater fighter Juan Manuel Marquez or Tito Trinidad?

[Mr.Fantastic]

Trinidad got caught cheating so his previous wins should have an * by them.

[Mr.Fantastic]

Oh, now think of how TERRIBLE Marquez looked against Floyd, while Cotto took it to Floyd and til this day Floyd acknowledges Cotto as his toughest fight.

Let's not get caught up in the Memo-Marquez era.


Styles...



They make fights.



Triangles doe.



Again, Marquez is overrated. Chris John doe.

So is Cotto.

[-Kev-]

It should also be noted that JMM never 'retired' or took long lay offs to heal his body. He has been fighting non-stop since 1993. By that I mean he has fought at least once every single year since 1993.

[IST-ra-GLEr2]

tito trinidad and i am a jmm fan. just being real.

[Exciterx30]

To answer this you have to take several factors into consideration. I am not referring to anyone in particular, but I know there are many posters here who are in their early 20's, which means that they did not see Trinidad during his prime. I saw him in his prime and, to be honest, early on I was not his fan even though I'm from Puerto Rico. I became his fan on December 2, 2000, the night he and Vargas gave boxing fans one of the best fights you will ever see. If you witnessed Trinidad in his prime you thought he would never lose. Although his style was different, he had that aura of invincibility that Roy Jones had. To me, Trinidad's resume from 1999-2001 is better than the resumes of fighters who have been around for decades.

With that being said, Márquez is also a great boxer, technically superior to Trinidad, and the fact that he has remained relevant in his 40's is commendable.

Trinidad was the more dominant fighter of the two, so I choose him, but I understand those who pick Márquez because of accomplishments, not nationality.

[lazy]

Just think how awesome Tito would be if had steroids?

[badass316]

I think JMM will be the Barry Bonds case of boxing. He was already a HOF but took it to another level in the latter stages of his career. I don't know if he'll come out and admit it or he gets caught, but I think the era in which he had memo can potentially tarnish his career similar to Bonds.

Having said that, aside from Pacquiao JMM's resume is lacking in terms of quality. He has MAB and Casamayor on his resume but they were both at the twilight of their respective careers. Aside from that there really isn't much that stands out. The fact that some guys (Diaz I, Katsidis, John) gave him hell that you'd expect a great fighter to be able to take care of doesn't help his case either. I think he really missed out by not fighting MAB and Morales @ 126.

I think Tito's resume just has more quality between the two, DLH and Vargas being the most notable (albeit one was controversial). I also think his win over an old Whitaker was better than JMM's win over MAB and Casamayor. It wasn't just the wins, but the manner in which he won them.

Between the two, I'd give the nod to Tito. Personally, it's difficult to give JMM credit for his KO over Pacquiao knowing the circumstances, it would be akin to not having an asterisk over Bonds name in the record books.

[GoldenGloveLove]

Not close. Marquez is far greater than Trinidad.

[MELLY-MEL...]

Jmm, and its not really even close.

[EXPOSEDheroes]

Just think how awesome Tito would be if had steroids?

No doubt. A little Memo-Medicine, some chest acne and he would have been even more heroic later in his career.