Arturo Gatti v Mickey Ward -3rd fight

Interesting point

 

Exploitative gladiatorial affairs is exactly right. Thanks for explaining in three words which I couldn't with like fifty. =P

I respect Micky Ward and the late Arturo Gatti a ton, amazing courage and heart, just didn't like the way they were lured with money to risk their mind and health.

Anyway, good night, gotta drop a friend off to the airport soon.

 

You just couldnt let it go.

I see no difference between scenario 1 and 2. Both are essentially fights for money, an injured fighter is gonna feel just as bad (or dead) after losing. Im just an all or nothing guy, either I watch boxing for what it is, gory non-title fights and all or I despise the sickening gore of it all. I prefer the former. We arent gonna agree on this obviously though however I do respect your opinion and I'm sure you do have a set of dangly things between your legs.

 

I cant see how that would be hypocritical. If I watched a world title fight and one of the fighters was killed and I say, 'Well it was in a good cause.' Then I watch a non-title fight and say, 'This is bad because its only for money.' That would be hypocritical, in my eyes anyway.

 

Boxing requires a balance between loving it for the violence (and let's be honest: most boxing fans do) and loving it for the skill of the practitioners. At its best, the violence that fighters display in the ring is the kind of manly contest that is becoming rarer in industrialized times, which is why Sullivan first captured the attention of the public in the 1880's-90's. A model of competitiveness for us to admire.

BUT...

It has also always been true, in the 1890's and today, that boxing MUST be more than just brutal slugging. Its fighters must display skill. Boxing isn't designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. That's what toughman competitions are for. Boxing exists on a spectrum with ridiculously "refined" combat sports (no-contact, heavily padded karate) on one end and those DVD/tapes of brawls between homeless people on the other (which are vile, incidentally).

Gatti-Ward still falls well within the "civilized" section, but here's the point: while it was a great matchup between two adults who understood the consequences of their actions, it should still give us pause. The uncomfortable feeling that Shake refers to is a reasonable one. It's feelings like this that have succeeded in keeping boxing firmly within the "civilized" end of the spectrum whenever it's started to drift. And there have been times--in the mid-19th century, for example--when it drifted so far that it almost died out.

 

Gatti-Ward 3 was pretty good.

Well behind the first fight though, and a poor choice for Fight of the Year for 2003 (Gomez-Arthur and Toney-Jirov were better fights).

Among Gatti and Ward fights though, I wouldn't rank Gatti-Ward 3 on either guy's top 5 list.

 

That's the thing; 2 and 3 aren't terrible fights - in fact they're quite good (and three has some truly remarkable moments) - but the last twenty rounds they produced weren't more special than the first ten. They could have just left it at that. I respect them fighting for nothing but pride and adulation, but posterity won't reward them for it. Recorded factual data without the human element is a cold thing...it will show that they fought three times for no real reason. Gatti didn't have to avenge the MD loss to move on and take care of business in attaining and defending a title. Had Ward retired on top after his win, Gatti would have been just fine with his ranking intact and the very same opportunities would have come his way.

 

Caveman is a trainer at the Kronk. Great guy. Ironically, it was my Dad who told me about him and the LoCicero fight. I'll be telling my kids about that fight.

 

Yep, rd 9 in that 1st fight was 1 of the greatest rds ever.

Ive only seen the 1st fight, I heard the 1st was the best by far so I never bothered watching the others because I dont rate that 1st fight in my top 10-15 fights as a lot of posters do.... but rd 9 ? ****in WOW ! :admin

 

Nobody's questioning the first fight. It's the necessity of their subsequent wars, which did not in a direct sense advance the careers (despite capturing countless hearts and minds) - that is under review.

 

I don't think it can be explained any more clearly than it has been in this thread. You either feel one way or another I suppose. :conf

 

I'd say atleast the second fight was warranted. Gatti adjusted and outpointed Ward fairly easily in the rematch, avenging a decision loss. It was basically a case of the name fighter being upset by what was essentially viewed as a journeyman and getting an immediate rematch.

The third fight wasn't "necessary" but Ward was able to make a tough fight out of it.

 

That first statement I agree with.

About the rubbermatch - Ward was so thoroughly outboxed in the second outing that one wouldn't have expected any drama in the third. That there ultimately was some drama is great for entertainment value and for both guys' egos, but it didn't really do either of them any favors to take that much more punishment. Gatti had already avenged his loss and arighted his career momentum. Ward had nothing to be ashamed of having split 1-1 with the fresher Gatti (many feel Gatti actually deserved the first nod on points but had no problem with Ward getting a slight push as a feel-good old underdog story). He, after all, had one foot out the door before the trilogy even started and had the scoring differed by a single point he'd have retired after the first fight.