Who was better, Arturo Gatti or Vinny Pazienza ?

Sure. I also like quality fighters. Which Gatti was not.

Which is why, except that some consider him a quality fighter, which he was not.

Paz was better than Angel Manfredy, and Ivan Robinson. And Gatti was HARDLY as good as Greg Haugen.

 

Why does it matter

 

No i don't know how he got in?, just like i can't fathom why they let Stallone get in??:huh, really an actor??

Deniro should be in if Stallone is in, after all the raging bull was better than all the Rocky movies, not to mention, Deniro is a waaaaaaayyy better actor:deal

Gatti gets in but a way better fighter in Donald Curry is left out:-(

Tommy Morrison died young and was an exciting fighter, beat Linear champ Foreman, and went to war in the power heavy 90's and died young, if Gatti is in there Morrison should be in there too...

 

You misunderstand. Let me phrase it another way. Scraps is a boy dog, isn't he? X, do you like it when Scraps grabs your leg and rubs up and down?

 

I don't disagree with any of this, really. It's also terribly beside the point. The discussion is whether or not people (and by that I'll just point to all of us at ESB, as there really aren't any other places in the world other than forums where people get together to discuss boxing) write about Gatti's greatness as a fighter, or his great skills and all that. I have literally never seen such a thng at ESB, so I'm just wondering who actually overrates him.

The fact that Stallone is in the HOF is proof enough that they can't even be mentioned when talk of greatness as a fighter is concerned. That has nothing to do with anything.

 

Crap post.

 

Not as much as Airplane.

 

Stallone is in more so because of a screenwriter than an actor.

I don't know why people make a big deal out if it, he's in as a non-participant. Other guys who wrote boxing fiction are in. I think more people would like boxing after watching Rocky than they would after seeing On the Waterfront.

I'd like to see Curry, J. Jackson, Eddie Booker, and others in the IBHOF.

 

Name one thing incorrect about it.

Gatti wasn't as good as Greg Haugen. That's a fact.

And Paz was better than Robinson, and Manfredy. That's also a fact.

Gatti wouldn't be able to outbox Paz. The gap in speed was too big. And Paz was too tough for Gatti to stop.

 

Your generalizing. That's what's wrong about it. "Not a quality fighter." What does that even mean. Define "quality." Does "quality" mean striclty a HOF career, and nobody else? What is your criteria for that word? Because frankly, anyone that calls a fighter that gave that much and accomplished half of what he did must, by definition, have quite a bit of quality.

And no, it is NOT a "fact" that Haugen was better than Gatti. That is an opinion. I shouldn't have to tell you that.

That is why your post was crap. Please let me know if I can help any further.

 

Haugen beat Jimmy Paul handily, and Paul was a much better fighter than Gatti. Haugen also "beat" Camacho by the slimmest of margins in their first fight, and whilst Camacho was past his prime, Camacho was still a light year better than Gatti.

 

Would Greg Haugen in his prime have lost to Ivan Robinson, Angel Manfredy, and Mickey Ward?

If you answer yes, excuse me while I laugh at you.

Whadya you work for HBO or something? Stop tryin to push the myth of Gatti being a quality fighter. He wasn't.