All three were great to watch, but Gatti was clearly the superior fighter of the pair. Watch the fights again and you'll see that Gatti could have fairly been given the nod in all three. I was glad that Mick won the first one (the knockdown sealed it), but Gatti could have taken a close decision in that one as well IMO. The other two were clear Gatti wins.
Its Gatti by a lot. That first fight was somethin else, so most people could care less who won...but truth be told, Gatti probebly deserved the decision in that 1st fight of theirs. which would make Gatti 3-0 against Ward.
and Gatti has a far better career too. its not nearly as 'bad' as people make it out to be sometimes. hes actually pretty accomplished if you look at who he beat, and not just who he lost to.
Well career wise gatti no doubt, but i was actually more impressed with ward in their fight because of his age. I mean damn the man was in his late 30's and still gave gatti three of his toughest fights.
Who was the best out of these two?
They were both fairly evenly matched but i wud sway to gatti.
Gatti by a considerable margin.
They weren't really all that evenly matched in their trilogy. Gatti won about 23-24of their 30 rounds together.
Ward won like 2-3 rounds in the last 2 fights, both fights in which Gatti broke his hand or injured it. the only 2 rounds Ward won in the finale was when gatti injured his hand, and when ward scored a late kd when he had lost the first 2:55 of the round.
No doubt, Gatti had a better set of boxing skills. Never more evident in the 2nd and 3rd match with Ward. He even used them alittle bit in the first half of their first fight. Not to mention Gatti went on to get some bigger wins under his belt. Nothing significant, but still better wins than Ward.
Comment