Just wandering whether peoples opinions of this rumoured contest has changed now in light of Gatti's win last week. From the sounds of it, it was a pretty decent performance considering he damaged his hands again.
All reports have said it was exiting and Daamgaard also did himself proud, but still alot of experts should I think look at Gatti again.... I'm not saying here so much, but on other forums and websites alot of people who hadn't even seen Dammgaard were giving him a chance because it is Gatti who is not just an "overated" fight, but a shot overated fighter.
Now, people might think that Dammgaard was the same, yes his ranking might have been a little inflated - but I think he has beaten enough decent fighters to warrant a geniune top ten 147 rating, and Gatti beat him comfortably - shut out on one of the cards.
Is Hatton vs Gatti, at 147 such a mismatch, such a forgone conclusion and what does this win do for Mayweather's standing. It certainly shows that Gatti isn't as shot as people have suggested he is.
Wouldn't it be ironic, that while Mayweather fights Judah - Gatti could fight the #1 in the devision first.
Gatti and Hatton now?
-
Phenomenal-Nutrition
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5185
- Joined: 10 Feb 2005, 14:53
Was it Roger Mayweather who said throw your hand out in front of you with your eyes closed and your certain to land on Gatti. Hattons just too fast and methodical for Gatti - what does Gatti bring to the table the Zoo didnt in a better version?
Part of me would still like to see this and I'd be routing for Gatti. Maybe he can make Ricky uncomfortable
Part of me would still like to see this and I'd be routing for Gatti. Maybe he can make Ricky uncomfortable
-
scottyboy_1978
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 469
- Joined: 27 Jan 2006, 16:02
hatton vs gatti
That would be a hell of a fight.........wanted to see that for a long time.
Think hattons body punches would prove to much for gatti later on though but it would be a tough one
Think hattons body punches would prove to much for gatti later on though but it would be a tough one
-
Max Molyneux
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 7084
- Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 16:53
-
JimmyJamJerusalem
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 501
- Joined: 14 Apr 2002, 20:00
Daamgaard was a bum, full stop. After seeing him for the first time on Saturday night i can confidently state that he is not even top 30. He spent most of the fight covering up, when he did attack he looked like a rotten sack of smelly old spuds!
Hatton would destroy Gatti, i really hope they do not meet. For Hatton, this would be a pointless match-up in every sense, its a loose loose situation all over.
Hatton would destroy Gatti, i really hope they do not meet. For Hatton, this would be a pointless match-up in every sense, its a loose loose situation all over.
Since you "confidently state" that Damgaard is not even top 30, can you easily name 29 fighters ranked at welterweight better than Damgaard?ALI wrote:Daamgaard was a bum, full stop. After seeing him for the first time on Saturday night i can confidently state that he is not even top 30. He spent most of the fight covering up, when he did attack he looked like a rotten sack of smelly old spuds!
Hatton would destroy Gatti, i really hope they do not meet. For Hatton, this would be a pointless match-up in every sense, its a loose loose situation all over.
Just curious.
Not that Damgaard wasnt way behind on points, but he didnt just cover up. According to CompuBox he landed 320 shots, while Gatti landed 328.ALI wrote:Daamgaard was a bum, full stop. After seeing him for the first time on Saturday night i can confidently state that he is not even top 30. He spent most of the fight covering up, when he did attack he looked like a rotten sack of smelly old spuds!
Hatton would destroy Gatti, i really hope they do not meet. For Hatton, this would be a pointless match-up in every sense, its a loose loose situation all over.
No, i could'nt, but i confidently "assume" there are 30 other fighters in the division that would dispose of Daamgaard, i'd go as far as to make that figure 50. The guy was a monkey, anyone who claims him to be in the top echelon needs there head read. He could not throw a punch to save himself, end of! I dont care what his homely record is, it just goes to show how bad the rest of the boxers over there are!MaxPow wrote:Since you "confidently state" that Damgaard is not even top 30, can you easily name 29 fighters ranked at welterweight better than Damgaard? Just curious.
He was a 'pick-em' oponent for Gatti to look good, and Gatti struggled to do that. Daamgaard's a bum, Gatti's finished at the top level, but hey, i've never seen Baldomir fight so what the fcuk do i know, right? In just a few months Gatti could be welterweight champion of the world for all i know.
You are way off. There is no way you could pick 30 guys at Welter who would beat Damgaard let alone 50. As for Damgaard he was a decent enough fighter but has been past his best for 3 or 4 years.ALI wrote:No, i could'nt, but i confidently "assume" there are 30 other fighters in the division that would dispose of Daamgaard, i'd go as far as to make that figure 50. The guy was a monkey, anyone who claims him to be in the top echelon needs there head read. He could not throw a punch to save himself, end of! I dont care what his homely record is, it just goes to show how bad the rest of the boxers over there are!MaxPow wrote:Since you "confidently state" that Damgaard is not even top 30, can you easily name 29 fighters ranked at welterweight better than Damgaard? Just curious.
He was a 'pick-em' oponent for Gatti to look good, and Gatti struggled to do that. Daamgaard's a bum, Gatti's finished at the top level, but hey, i've never seen Baldomir fight so what the fcuk do i know, right? In just a few months Gatti could be welterweight champion of the world for all i know.
Each to their own opinion, and its mine that 'you are way off' claiming Daamgaard to be a good fighter.nickd wrote:You are way off. There is no way you could pick 30 guys at Welter who would beat Damgaard let alone 50. As for Damgaard he was a decent enough fighter but has been past his best for 3 or 4 years.
Only in his own back-yard can he be called good!
I agree that Damgaard looked horrible. Gatti looked slow himself, easy pickings for a top-flite contender. Baldomir looked a lot better than Gatti did.ALI wrote:No, i could'nt, but i confidently "assume" there are 30 other fighters in the division that would dispose of Daamgaard, i'd go as far as to make that figure 50. The guy was a monkey, anyone who claims him to be in the top echelon needs there head read. He could not throw a punch to save himself, end of! I dont care what his homely record is, it just goes to show how bad the rest of the boxers over there are!MaxPow wrote:Since you "confidently state" that Damgaard is not even top 30, can you easily name 29 fighters ranked at welterweight better than Damgaard? Just curious.
He was a 'pick-em' oponent for Gatti to look good, and Gatti struggled to do that. Daamgaard's a bum, Gatti's finished at the top level, but hey, i've never seen Baldomir fight so what the fcuk do i know, right? In just a few months Gatti could be welterweight champion of the world for all i know.
That said, I'd say you assumed wrong.
Gatti looked fairly healthy as a welter, he didn't seem to bad vs Damgaard. I've not watched it all yet but he's filled out well & seemed a bit revitalized. not that it makes him an elite guy at 140, but the fight with Hatton would seem less 'abysmal' now
isn't Freitas fighting Nate Campbell now, btw?
isn't Freitas fighting Nate Campbell now, btw?