Can someone explain to me why the Hell Gatti is in the hall of Fame?

I notice that you still ignore my point about First Ballot and have kept pretty clear of Momus's superb post because it blows your whole argument out of the water.
Two fights of the year against not much more than a journeyman.Two against B-C level guys,and I almost forgot he lost two of them.Not one win over a semi-elite fighter.
You don't even know what the criteria for a first ballot entrant is,otherwise you'd have already conceded your inevitable defeat here.
I can't remember the exact wording but it goes along the lines of long term excellence and consistency during their peak era.
There are far better fighters than Gatti who still haven't got in,and as Momus put it so well,the IBHOF can't even stick to their own criteria.
If Hamed and Vasquez Snr don't get in,then no way is Gatti a first ballot inductee.I don't remember being 2-2 in FOTY or "fame" being a requirement.

 

If you're going just by the record, you can argue Tapia never lost a fight in his prime. He was the wrong side of 30 and above his peak weight when he lost to Ayala. His style in the ring and lifestyle outside it were never condusive to a lengthy prime, and he never seemed as sharp once he moved up to 118 and beyond.

Gatti on the other hand has losses to Manfredy and Ivan Robinson slap bang in the middle of what should have been his physical prime.

Their best wins are pretty similar, as is their quality of opposition once you take out losses to HOF fighters. The key difference is that Tapia was more dominant in his prime.

If you want to bring in the peripheral stuff like impact, Gatti is obviously leagues above Tapia.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't have Tapia in the HOF.

 

I only mentioned Tapia because he died early like Gatti,and I brought him up because my point is that if Gatti is a first ballot,then Tapia should be.
If both were alive,neither should be a first ballot inductee.

You call me a whiny ***** and a ****** because I didn't have to own you.You did it all by yourself.

And your talk of "your criteria" shows that you can't even comprehend the argument,far less reading the posts.
Now jog on before you embarrass yourself even more with your ignorance.

 

I actually brought up Tapia first.I didn't compare Rourke to Gatti but I know you have reading problems,so I'll have to explain that it was in response to fame being a criteria,nothing to do with Gatti.
I haven't looked stupid at any time here.I said that if Gatti is a first ballot then Tapia should be,but we've already covered your illiteracy.
I said Gatti should get in eventually,but not as a first ballot.You obviously have no concept of the significance of what being a first ballot means compared to say,McGuigan.
At no point did I say Gatti was ****,but what I've actually said is of no use to your pathetic attempt to squirm out of this one,so my re-emphasis of what was actually said will most likely be futile.

What you really mean is that it's hard to argue with someone who is intellectually light years ahead of you,and you try to come up with pathetic excuses to hide the fact that you've made a rip roaring idiot of yourself here.

Keep picking at the bits you can pretend I actually said.You're no match for someone who can actually read,debate sensibly and has more intelligence in the dump I took this morning than you will ever possess if you live to 150.

Continually calling me "******"= The Hail Mary for illiterate posters who have been brutally dismantled.

 

I'm sure any poster with reasonable intellect will see that I made valid points,whilst you ignore any point that puts a spanner in your **** and twist my words completely.
How did my comment about Tapia go nowhere? Where was it supposed to go.
Keep on ignoring the facts.Why let the truth get in the way of total bull****.
And if you feel my comments are "dumb" why the **** do you keep ignoring them or taking them completely out of context?
Like the fact my comment about Rourke had nothing whatsoever to do with Gatti?

Because you can't handle the fact that they are valid points.
There are plenty of people who agree with me,and plenty who agree with you,but you can't have a reasonable debate without getting completely out of your depth.
Why are you the only one arguing with me?

Here,try to have a read at this;

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...Mkc7MIjXlC52DVz3kHNH8kQ&bvm=bv.45960087,d.d2k

I'm sorry,I don't think they do audio description,but take your time and I'm sure you'll get the gist of it without feeling the need to say "******" when you don't agree with someone.

 

I decided to bump this because with the anniversary of Johnny Tapia's death coming up I was reminded of what a dreadul comment this was.

The fact that Johnny came through everything he did as a child and managed to become a three weight world champion stands alongside anything Gatti did in terms of personal lifetime achievement.

Silly me! I forgot all he managed to do was drugs and backflips.atsch

And before we hear Johnny's troubles do not come into HOF criteria,I'm well aware of that.It doesn't take away from the fact that this bull**** in the quoted post is one of the most ridiculous assertions I've seen on this forum.

 

Race runs this guys entire life and experience as a boxing fan. He likes slugger type fighters predominantly and has several times cracked about how popular fighter A or B would be if they wore a sombrero to the ring. That's the long and short of it.

 

But I like white sluggers as well as my more genetic affinity for slicksters.:blood

 

By all means, live vicariously through the achievements of other grown men. :rofl

It wasn't you though, Pity. It wasn't you. :|