Replies

[bMaK]

I had this fight with a friend of mine last Saturday. This dude is very active in the boxing industry and normally goes along with the general consensus and all that crap so we fight all the time. Also fought about Sly Stallone being in the Hall. I'll hold my opinion for now, just want to see what y'all think.

Cotto or Gatti, who's more Canastota worthy?

This post has been edited by bMaK: May 1 2012, 12:48 AM

[Zaryu]

I say Cotto, he's a three division world champion and should have been recognized as an unified champ when he beat Clottey. He has some great names on his resume with some wins. He beat a game Mosley, put the first defeat on a couple of undefeated fighter who later became champs themselves (Maliggnaggi and Quintana), avenged his first defeat, and despite losing clearly to Pacquiao he was very competitive throughout the first rounds. He also defended his 140lbs title 6 times, defended his first welterweight title 4 times before losing it in a great fight, and should have been crowned unified champ after beating Clottey in a close fight. He has already defended his 154lbs title twice and is going up against one of the best fighters of his time. I don't think he'll get dominated like Gatti (RIP) did.

I don't really mind that most of his titles were vacant because technicalities can overshadow the real meaning of fights. Miguel Cotto has had great competition all thorughout his career, even when fighting for vacant titles. It's not like he was avoiding anyone. He always fought the best opposition available and that's what counts. Gatti was a great warrior and very good fighter, especially at 130lbs, but if we have to chose only one for the Hall of Fame I think the better fighter should get the nod. Although I do agree both belong there because of what they gave to the sport of boxing.