Gatti - Ward Trilogy

I prefer Gatti's first fight with Robinson over the first fight with Ward. That's my choice as 2nd best fight of the 90s behind Carbajal-Gonzalez I. Gatti-Robinson I was really good, I would even have it higher than Carbajal-Gonzalez I, but I'm weird, and for some reason don't really enjoy when two boxers and shoulder to shoulder. I didn't enjoy Castillo-Corrales I nearly as much as everyone else. I think the best of the 90s was either Gatti-Robinson I or Bowe-Holyfield I.

Gatti-Ward were also all 10 rounders, that kind of sucks too. No titles at stake, and it really was quite one-sided, except for the first fight. The first fight is the best fight I have ever seen, but the second and third just don't do it for me. I prefer Gatti's first fight with Robinson over the first fight with Ward. That's my choice as 2nd best fight of the 90s behind Carbajal-Gonzalez I.

In my opinion, the Barrera/Morales trilogy - which happened during the same era - is a much better series. Better fighters. More at stake. Fighting for the pride of Mexico. Controversial decisions. Press conference slapdown. etc Definately the best trilogy of the 2000s was Barrera-Morales, followed by Pacquiao-Morales, Gatti-Ward and then Tarver-Jones. Gatti-Ward were also all 10 rounders, that kind of sucks too. No titles at stake, and it really was quite one-sided, except for the first fight. The first fight is the best fight I have ever seen, but the second and third just don't do it for me.

Agreed. Actually I didn't like the controversial decisions, especially the first fight. But the first and third fights were excellent, and you can't really match 2 guys up closer. Of the 36 rounds, barring even rounds, I'd say MAB won 19-17 or 20-16. Almost as close as you can get. Another interesting thing is how the two fighters were perceived before each matchup, and how the underdog fought. This scrap never ever ceases to draw a good argument/discussion, does it? Should we start on Corrales - Castillo?!!!!

In my opinion, the Barrera/Morales trilogy - which happened during the same era - is a much better series. Better fighters. More at stake. Fighting for the pride of Mexico. Controversial decisions. Press conference slapdown. etc Agreed. Actually I didn't like the controversial decisions, especially the first fight. But the first and third fights were excellent, and you can't really match 2 guys up closer. Of the 36 rounds, barring even rounds, I'd say MAB won 19-17 or 20-16. Almost as close as you can get. Another interesting thing is how the two fighters were perceived before each matchup, and how the underdog fought.

I think two out of three were close. Actually, despite me saying Gatti won all three, all three were close!! Ian The first fight should have either been a draw or close Gatti victory. Ward winning it was kind of a hometown thing, but not to the extent of the wide margins Ward won over Burton/Augustus. Gatti won rounds 1-3 quite clearly. The round was reasonably close, but Gatti won it. Round 4 is the round where it hinges on being either a draw or Gatti win. It was a very close round, and Gatti got a point deducted for hitting low. Either that's a 10-8 for Ward or 9-9, or 10-9 Ward if you thought it was originally an even round. Ward rallied late in round 5 with that late combo to steal the round. Gatti won rounds 6 and 7 quite handily. Ward again won round 8 with a late rally that hurt Gatti. Round 9 was a 10-8 for Ward IMO. The judges had it 10-7 for Ward. While Gatti was in serious trouble, he pretty much did all the good work for the middle portion of the round, which makes it 10-8 for me instead of 10-7. Gatti won the 10th. As for the rubber match, the only rounds I thought Ward won were the one (3rd or 4th) when Gatti broke his hand, and late in round 6 when he scored a late KD after being outboxed the first 2:55 or so of the round. The rematch was basically Gatti schooling Ward. It was a 9-1, 10-0 type fight.

Hydro, Chico, Dwiens, I respect your opinions. Thank you. I think that Gatti won all three for me, but that's just my two cents. You can never tire of those fights. Ian The first one is the only watch I really watch repeatedly. The rematch had one great round but Gatti schooled him for the duration of the fight and won 9-10 rounds. The third fight had a great atmosphere and was pretty good overall, with an excellent 7th round, but both Gatti and Ward had numerous other fights that I'll watch anyday over it.

Shouldn't the best trilogy ever at least have TWO fights out of the 3 that are competitive and reasonably close? Gatti was a level or 2 higher than Ward, at least at that stage in their careers, hence the one-sidedness of the last 2 fights even when Gatti broke his hand both times. I think two out of three were close. Actually, despite me saying Gatti won all three, all three were close!! Ian

It was two pretty good fighters, one a contender and the other a fringe contender, fighting one classic fight, one good fight, and one OK fight. People call them "clubfighters", but they are at least contenders or fringe contenders at the time, and both rated in Ring's top 10 at 140. It was also pretty one-sided, as Gatti won about 80% of the rounds, despite broken hands in the last 2 fights (which he actually won a lot easier than the first fight which should have been either a draw or a close Gatti win). Hydro, Chico, Dwiens, I respect your opinions. Thank you. I think that Gatti won all three for me, but that's just my two cents. You can never tire of those fights. Ian

who cares that they wernt the 2 best fighters in the world, there two warriors that gave EVERYTHING they had in the ring 3 times and they deserve respect from everyone for that! In my opinon that was the best trilogy of all time Shouldn't the best trilogy ever at least have TWO fights out of the 3 that are competitive and reasonably close? Gatti was a level or 2 higher than Ward, at least at that stage in their careers, hence the one-sidedness of the last 2 fights even when Gatti broke his hand both times.

Hey folks On here a couple of days ago, talking Arturo Gatti, I brought up the Trilogy (that one better than the Star Wars one) and someone said Gatti - Ward was 'two unexceptional fighters fighting an exceptional three fights' or words to that effect. Any thoughts on this? I've chewed on this for a day or so and come to no concrete conclusion, just wanted to get a few other thoughts on this. Ian It was two pretty good fighters, one a contender and the other a fringe contender, fighting one classic fight, one good fight, and one OK fight. People call them "clubfighters", but they are at least contenders or fringe contenders at the time, and both rated in Ring's top 10 at 140. It was also pretty one-sided, as Gatti won about 80% of the rounds, despite broken hands in the last 2 fights (which he actually won a lot easier than the first fight which should have been either a draw or a close Gatti win).

who cares that they wernt the 2 best fighters in the world, there two warriors that gave EVERYTHING they had in the ring 3 times and they deserve respect from everyone for that! In my opinon that was the best trilogy of all time

Hey folks On here a couple of days ago, talking Arturo Gatti, I brought up the Trilogy (that one better than the Star Wars one) and someone said Gatti - Ward was 'two unexceptional fighters fighting an exceptional three fights' or words to that effect. Any thoughts on this? I've chewed on this for a day or so and come to no concrete conclusion, just wanted to get a few other thoughts on this. Ian No, it was two sub-standard fighters, who fought one great fight, because they don't know how to play defense. Then the rematch and rubber match were not really that good because Gatti outboxed him (which is proof to how sub-standard Ward is). That's my take on the trilogy.