Arturo Gatti v Mickey Ward -3rd fight

I don't enjoy watching these two. It hurts me. They go too far, and I have moral objections to their second and third fight, which were not for titles or for rankings but because they drew a crowd so the two men decided to repeat their bludgeoning of each-other like some sort of perverse circus-act.

The closest we'll get to the horrors of the Colloseum in modern day boxing.

 

I hope your joking if not grow a pair of balls. The second and third fights werent as good only because Gatti had worked Ward worked out and boxed him and they were overrated in my opinion. The first fight was epic though, absolutely brilliant to watch, in truth Gatti was robbed there imo but Ward showed such heart in that fight, he had Gatti out on his feet several times. The ninth round was ****ing amazing, I could watch that on a loop, over and over for the rest of my life.

 

It takes balls to enjoy a fight like that, does it?

 

All right smart arse you know what I mean, it might be barbaric but its not like they didnt get legions of fans, a shitload of cash and huge respect from just about every fan of boxing you can think of. Somehow I dont think Gatti and Ward were particularily bothered when they picked up their paychecks, I certainly wouldnt have been. The public got an epic trilogy and the fighters got all the things previously mentioned, everybodies a winner.

 

They were a winner this time -- but it has been well-documented that fights that are particularly brutal, like Golota-Bowe, Jackson-Mclellan, Barrera-Morales, Ali-Frazier to name a few often have long-lasting and far-reaching consequences.

The Ward-Gatti fights, staged not because both fighters were best at their weight, not because the sport demanded it, but because the public wanted more blood from these two comparitively limited fighters, their only virtue that they would take instead of avoid damage. They were consciously offered prime-time money to shave a slice of their health.

I don't like it. May I?

Edit: did Ward ever regain full eyesight?

 

I see your point but danger is always in boxing. Dont get me wrong, I'm not one of these guys who cant admire watching a defensive fighter at work, I can get as much enjoyment watching Mayweather take an opponent apart as an all out brawl. I feel it outweighted the bad with the good though, they stamped themselves on boxing's history and will be linked forever for those fights which will probably never be forgotten. It takes some risk to be remembered and they did that.

Maybe Ward does suffer a little with his eyesight now but I bet he doesnt regret those fights one bit.

 

Boxing history? Don't be so sure. There's a fighter named LoCicero that had one of the best, most cracking middleweight fights that I've ever seen with Caveman Lee. There was a topic on here recently about it -- both fighters were ruined, but they did give that one great effort. Now nobody remembers who they are. They aren't mentioned with the greats, or reminisced about, or featured in fantasy matchups, and grandpas don't tell their sons about 'em.

There is risk in the sport, and I accept that. You risk your health every time you go out there, doubly so if you're a fighter with heart. I even understand that when a title is on the line the referee lets it go a little further before calling it off.

What I object tod, and don't want to understand is that when the MAIN attraction of a bout is the fact that both fighters fight on well above their limits, that it is seen as something praiseworthy.

I wonder how the perception of this fight had been if in the third bout one of the two had become an unfortunate accident -- a Mclellan, a Riddick Bowe, a Meldrick Taylor, or had simply gone blind, what would you say then? If one of these two brave men died or was never the same? The public got what they wanted to see, right? Would they only now protest against the money-grubbing promoters that continued to put these two in there? Would boxing rules be made stricter as some sort of knee-jerk reaction to the media-attention? How stupid would all that be?

Moral of the story -- don't put two fighters together just because they can hurt eachother real good. It is, philosophically and morally, a sickening thing to do.

But hey, it all worked out. They both made some money and one can still see kind of okay, so there's nothing to worry about. Let's wait until someone dies, and then we can take precautions next time.

 

:rofl

atsch

Plz give that story to Dana White. I'd love to see his reaction.

 

Look all I'm gonna say is their grown men, they know the risks. The stories of McClellan and all the rest are very sad but if you start getting into that then you have to question the sport as a whole. Isnt that the point of the sport, to hurt your opponent real good? And we're gonna say its better for the sake of a title belt? If your gonna look at it like that then whats the point of watching at all? Your just gonna wince every time you see someone get nailed with a big shot.

 

You misunderstand me. I'm sorry I can't explain my point any better. My first language is not English.

 

I see where Shake is coming from. There's a chance that the Gatti-Ward trilogy can fade into relative obscurity unless the odd member of future generations here and there heavily promote it as much as those who were fortunate to have it occur in our lifetimes. Time's passage is immutable. At least in a situation like Vazquez-Marquez, where there were belts and (though it isn't something I personally care about) p4p status on the line, people are likelier to take notice of the records and dig up archival footage to appreciate the brutality they inflicted on each other in order to lay claim to a world title. To the uninitiated, just looking at Gatti and Ward's records (in whatever format they exist in the distant future - don't assume it'll be Boxrec with its nifty annotations) and noting that they had a trilogy of manifestly insignificant ten-rounders, they may not be as inspired to do the research.

 

Right.

 

Not only that -- but also the reason the fights were made.

Scenario 1: two fighters, ranked number 1 and number 2 do battle for the world championship, it is brutal and one gets injured for life.

Scenario 2: two fighters, ranked 9 and 18 do battle, their fights are loved because they are brutal and sell exceptionally well. Money-hungry promoters put them up to fight once again and then one more time. Violence loving public laps it up and everyone involved makes money, especially the risk-free promoters. One fighter is injured for life.

The first example is an unfortunate consequence of a competitive sport. To determine who is best, fighters compete for the top spot, and are either directly vying for it, on their way, or trying to climb as high as their potential will take them.

In the second example the fight is pure entertainment. This is why I likened it to a circusact. The public likes violence -- these men provide it, promoters profit from it.

 

I agree.

I'm able to appreciate them for the indulgent (on the part of the boxing community) and exploitative gladiatorial affairs that they were, but at the same time I certainly recognize and concede your point. To not admit this would be hypocritical, I feel.