Comments Thread For: A Rose, By Any Other Name… Still Doesn’t Deserve It

[Ravens Fan]

Originally Posted by TurboFart

What is with the Gatti hate on this website?

Do you ****ing bozos think that Gatti's admittance is going to somehow diminish the accomplishments of the other boxers inducted into the hall? Somehow Sylvester Stallone's contributions to boxing will lose gravitas?

Gatti deserves to be in the Hall. His accomplishment is heart, his skill is courage. Maybe one man in a hundred million could match his heart and his courage and in that way he was exceptional. Besides, the guy wasn't a total ****ing bum, he was a World Champion after all.

He was a decent fighter that won two belts with a lot of heart and I was a huge fan. But that simply isn't enough to be in the HOF. If it was there would be a long list of candidates and you have to draw the line somewhere. As far as Stallone is concerned you would have a valid point if he was somehow inducted as a fighter. But since he obviously wasn't you really have no sound argument against his induction.

[anonymous2.0]

I've already stated my opinion on this case, but didn't Fitzsimmons just write an article on Gatti and the HoF? I mean, we already know his opinion on this, do we really need this to be the 'article of the day' again?

[BabyFaceAssasin]

I don't know why this is even a debate??!! I'm fu**in baffled right now! Hell no Gatti doesn't deserve to be in the HOF! I agree that Stallone doesn't either but let's face it. Rocky was the first sports movie to ever win an Oscar for best picture. His movies transcended the sport to new heights and had a lot to do with the high levels of popularity Boxing had in the 80's and 90's. Having said that the HOF should be reserved for the greatest of Boxers and no one else. Neither Stallone or Gatti fit that description.

[!! Shawn]

Originally Posted by Ravens Fan

He was a decent fighter that won two belts with a lot of heart and I was a huge fan. But that simply isn't enough to be in the HOF. If it was there would be a long list of candidates and you have to draw the line somewhere. As far as Stallone is concerned you would have a valid point if he was somehow inducted as a fighter. But since he obviously wasn't you really have no sound argument against his induction.

There isn't a long list of fighters that encompass the ideas of blood and guts warriors than Gatti.

He was actually more skilled then people give him credit for. Ive never been a big fan of his personally, nor have I ever really been a fan of the kind of fights he gets himself involved in, but to pretend that he doesn't deserve to be immortalized is just insane.

Once again, its the hall of fame, not the hall of incredibly skilled individuals.

Trainers, announcers, and promoters are admitted into the HOF on the basis of contributions to the sport.

The hall of fame is there to perserve the history of the sport, to chronicle remarkable individuals from each era, and Gatti was one of the remarkable individuals of his era. He had fans tuning in and turning up to watch his fights.

His contributions to the sport. I mean for gods sake Carmen Basillio is in there for spliting fights with an ancient Ray Robinson. Gatti was as least as skilled as Basillio, or Lopez.

Tony Zale is in there for his trilogy with Rocky Graziano, who is also in there, for... his fights with Tony Zale.

People make the HOF out to be something it has never been. It is a place to immortalize fighters who stand out and inspire.

Gatti fits in with that mold.

[crold1]

Originally Posted by !! Shawn

There isn't a long list of fighters that encompass the ideas of blood and guts warriors than Gatti.

He was actually more skilled then people give him credit for. Ive never been a big fan of his personally, nor have I ever really been a fan of the kind of fights he gets himself involved in, but to pretend that he doesn't deserve to be immortalized is just insane.

Once again, its the hall of fame, not the hall of incredibly skilled individuals.

Trainers, announcers, and promoters are admitted into the HOF on the basis of contributions to the sport.

The hall of fame is there to perserve the history of the sport, to chronicle remarkable individuals from each era, and Gatti was one of the remarkable individuals of his era. He had fans tuning in and turning up to watch his fights.

His contributions to the sport. I mean for gods sake Carmen Basillio is in there for spliting fights with an ancient Ray Robinson. Gatti was as least as skilled as Basillio, or Lopez.

Tony Zale is in there for his trilogy with Rocky Graziano, who is also in there, for... his fights with Tony Zale.

People make the HOF out to be something it has never been. It is a place to immortalize fighters who stand out and inspire.

Gatti fits in with that mold.

Good post but worth pointing out Basilio and Zale would be HOFers without Robinson and Graziano. That was just the icing on the cake.

[Ravens Fan]

Originally Posted by !! Shawn

There isn't a long list of fighters that encompass the ideas of blood and guts warriors than Gatti.

He was actually more skilled then people give him credit for. Ive never been a big fan of his personally, nor have I ever really been a fan of the kind of fights he gets himself involved in, but to pretend that he doesn't deserve to be immortalized is just insane.

Once again, its the hall of fame, not the hall of incredibly skilled individuals.

Trainers, announcers, and promoters are admitted into the HOF on the basis of contributions to the sport.

The hall of fame is there to perserve the history of the sport, to chronicle remarkable individuals from each era, and Gatti was one of the remarkable individuals of his era. He had fans tuning in and turning up to watch his fights.

His contributions to the sport. I mean for gods sake Carmen Basillio is in there for spliting fights with an ancient Ray Robinson. Gatti was as least as skilled as Basillio, or Lopez.

Tony Zale is in there for his trilogy with Rocky Graziano, who is also in there, for... his fights with Tony Zale.

People make the HOF out to be something it has never been. It is a place to immortalize fighters who stand out and inspire.

Gatti fits in with that mold.

Sorry double post!

[Ravens Fan]

Originally Posted by !! Shawn

There isn't a long list of fighters that encompass the ideas of blood and guts warriors than Gatti.

He was actually more skilled then people give him credit for. Ive never been a big fan of his personally, nor have I ever really been a fan of the kind of fights he gets himself involved in, but to pretend that he doesn't deserve to be immortalized is just insane.

Once again, its the hall of fame, not the hall of incredibly skilled individuals.

Trainers, announcers, and promoters are admitted into the HOF on the basis of contributions to the sport.

The hall of fame is there to perserve the history of the sport, to chronicle remarkable individuals from each era, and Gatti was one of the remarkable individuals of his era. He had fans tuning in and turning up to watch his fights.

His contributions to the sport. I mean for gods sake Carmen Basillio is in there for spliting fights with an ancient Ray Robinson. Gatti was as least as skilled as Basillio, or Lopez.

Tony Zale is in there for his trilogy with Rocky Graziano, who is also in there, for... his fights with Tony Zale.

People make the HOF out to be something it has never been. It is a place to immortalize fighters who stand out and inspire.

Gatti fits in with that mold.

As far as comparing Gatti to the likes of Graziano and Basilio all three of them happened to be Italian and I compare little else. And the reason is simple.

When both Graziano and Basilio retired there were eight weight divisions and I believe two belts, the NYSAC and NBA. When Gatti retired there were eighteen weight divisions and you would have to give me a minute to count all the belts. Because I truly don't know the number right off the top of my head.

I also believe that Basilio's record speaks for itself and no more needs to be said about him. But it is understandable that Graziano's induction into the Hall of Fame can be debated simply because of his 1-3 record in title fights. But what I don't know are the intangibles.

Such as how many top contenders did he beat in his era? Honestly I don't know but I would think that all of that was taken into consideration at the time as it should have been. Simply because Rocky didn't have the opportunity to fight for six or seven different alphabet belts as Gatti did. Rocky also didn't have the opportunity to move up and down within three divisions that are only separated by what 12 pounds. In other words it was a different era so in my opinion it should be held to a different standard.

As far as the Graziano-Zale trilogy is concerned. The only thing I can say about that is Gatti's trilogy was three wars with a B level fighter and he lost one of them. With all of that said in my opinion Gatti most definitely had a Hall of Fame heart he just doesn't have a Hall of Fame record to go along with it. And unlike you I was a fan of his.

[!! Shawn]

Originally Posted by crold1

Good post but worth pointing out Basilio and Zale would be HOFers without Robinson and Graziano. That was just the icing on the cake.

For what? Losing to Gene Fullmer, Kid Gavilan, and basically every other big fight he ever had?

The man was like Gatti. A crude fighter with a limited skill set, a good chin, and balls of steel.

Same with Tony Zale. I mean in the meat of his prime he has losses to Journey men with record of 10-5-1, 15-8, 3-0-1, 1-0...

Some of them by Knockout...

They are both guys who made a name for themselves on mixing it up, not skilling it up.

I'm not saying it invalid. On the contrary, I am arguing that they deserve to be there because they embodied their era, and the great fights of that era, the same way that Gatti did.

[!! Shawn]

Originally Posted by Ravens Fan

As far as comparing Gatti to the likes of Graziano and Basilio all three of them happened to be Italian and I compare little else. And the reason is simple.

When both Graziano and Basilio retired there were eight weight divisions and I believe two belts, the NYSAC and NBA. When Gatti retired there were eighteen weight divisions and you would have to give me a minute to count all the belts. Because I truly don't know the number right off the top of my head.

I also believe that Basilio's record speaks for itself and no more needs to be said about him. But it is understandable that Graziano's induction into the Hall of Fame can be debated simply because of his 1-3 record in title fights. But what I don't know are the intangibles.

Such as how many top contenders did he beat in his era? Honestly I don't know but I would think that all of that was taken into consideration at the time as it should have been. Simply because Rocky didn't have the opportunity to fight for six or seven different alphabet belts as Gatti did. Rocky also didn't have the opportunity to move up and down within three divisions that are only separated by what 12 pounds. In other words it was a different era so in my opinion it should be held to a different standard.

As far as the Graziano-Zale trilogy is concerned. The only thing I can say about that is Gatti's trilogy was three wars with a B level fighter and he lost one of them. With all of that said in my opinion Gatti most definitely had a Hall of Fame heart he just doesn't have a Hall of Fame record to go along with it. And unlike you I was a fan of his.

Thats not acceptable. Fighters from past eras shouldn't be judged by different criteria, they should be judged by the same.

They all won their titles in fights vs other tough as nails opponents, none of them every bested a prime skilled fighter, such as Floyd or Oscar, who both beat the breaks of Gatti, just like Sugar Ray beat the breaks off of Jake LaMotta... 5 times, the guy who lifted his title from Marcel Cerdan in the last fight of his career, and defended it once before once again having the brakes beaten off of him by an old faded Ray Robinson.

That doesn't disqualify any of them from the hall of fame. They contributed significantly to the culture of boxing during their time.

[Ravens Fan]

Originally Posted by !! Shawn

Thats not acceptable. Fighters from past eras shouldn't be judged by different criteria, they should be judged by the same.

They all won their titles in fights vs other tough as nails opponents, none of them every bested a prime skilled fighter, such as Floyd or Oscar, who both beat the breaks of Gatti, just like Sugar Ray beat the breaks off of Jake LaMotta... 5 times, the guy who lifted his title from Marcel Cerdan in the last fight of his career, and defended it once before once again having the brakes beaten off of him by an old faded Ray Robinson.

That doesn't disqualify any of them from the hall of fame. They contributed significantly to the culture of boxing during their time.

You keep picking more fighters out, why don't just say no one is qualified if Gatti isn't? Trying to compare Gatti to Basilio is in my opinion absolutely ridiculous. Basilio beat three times as many fellow in their prime Hall of Fame fighters as Gatti lost to.

And you can keep picking aprt their careers but one thing all those fighters were that Gatti wasn't they were all true world champions. And I bet all of them had Ring magazine belts to go along with it while Gatti had a couple of alphabet belts.

And if you don't see the drastic difference when trying to compare the different time periods I don't know what else to say to you? Hell, if Henry Armstrong had a chance to fight for so many different belts in so many weight divisions he probably would have been a 20 time world champion.

You also mentioned that Sugar Ray was old and faded in his last fight with LaMotta. However, the numbers say other wise. Because they were both 29 years old when they last fought each other, Ray was two months older. And Ray fought another seventy seven fights after his last fight with Jake to include fifteen title fights. That hardly sounds like an old and faded fighter.