Miguel Cotto vs. Arturo Gatti @ 140

Who wins?

 

Cotto annihilates him. Terrible fight.

In before people claim Gatti has a puncher's chance.

 

One sided massacre.

I don't think Gatti could win a round.

 

Agreed with the consensus. Gatti is more competitive than he was against Floyd though...

 

Easy tune up fight for Cotto...KO in 5 or 6 rounds....

 

Let me guess...you're Puerto Rican?

 

Let me guess you are BLACK and a MAYWEATHER NUTHUGGER!!..:goodnews:

 

:giggle:

Was just messing with you anyway...

 

:flip:

 

this fight may as well take place in brasil

 

:laughing::laughing::laughing:

 

No..... it would be every bit as one sided. Only Cotto would do MORE damage.

 

:atu:

More damage? What do you mean...Cotto will kill him and bury him in that very ring?

More damage. :giggle:

It would not be every bit as one-sided. Gatti will actually be able to hit Cotto and he wont get hit quite as much as Floyd hit him.

 

Gatti would be no more competitive against Cotto than Randall Bailey was.

And everybody is laughing at YOU. You somehow find a way to include your baby boo in every thread.

You've gone from a once respectable poster, to the forum joke.

 

"That was uncalled for Senator" - Dan Quayle

 

Cotto would have a harder time with Ward, than he would with Gatti.

Even Judah would've bested Gatti.

 

Judah couldn't beat his meat.

 

Zab would have wiped his ass with Gatti.

 

That's not saying much.

It's like lasting giving Carl Williams credit for lasting longer with Mike Tyson than Marvis Frazier did.

Cotto would've beaten Gatti in ugly fashion. I can only imagine how brutal the body shots would be.

 

Mismatch. Gatti gets pounded.

 

Yep. It is tiresome seeing Stafford try to shoe-horn Mayweather into yet another topic.

 

You're obsessed with me. You need to get a life.

 

It's rather pathetic how you PRETEND i am the only person to call you on this. Like I said before...your reputation proceeds you whenever you post.

So tell us MORE about Floyd...

 

You're irrelevant on this site. I'm not. That's one of the many differences between us.

Don't hate, appreciate.

 

This is only true if "irrelevant" means NOT making things up as you go, blathering on about ANYTHING just to have something to say, and then falling back on cliches and weak catch phrases when that fails. If you mean the real meaning of the word, then you are incorrect yet again.

X is correct. You were once a halfway decent poster, but now you are nothing more than unintentional comedic relief around here.

 

I'm far from that. X is just saying that because I've been busting his balls recently. X knows that D&D knows boxing and predicts fights like a MOFO. :kidcool:

Guys like you just think you're "bad" in Mythical Matchups..because you KNOW that you could never be proven wrong. But this forum is no evidence of understanding the sweet science...this forum is more about bias and knowledge of history. Understanding the game is in 3rd place.

I'm disagreed with here because I tend to favour contemporary fighters, especially Mayweather, Jones, Calzaghe and Hopkins..and those four tend to be looked down upon by the history snobs such as yourself.

Again..no way of proving whether or not I'm in fact correct.

But forum joke? Please. YOU know this isn't true. Everyone, including you (although you would not admit it) can see that there's logic in my boxing opinions and facts to back them up.

 

PLEASE...you and the facts do not get along so well (including this rather lofty image of yourself you are tryting to create here). Any "facts" you choose to include are usually distorted and you routinely stretch the truth as if it were salt water taffy. You will say ANYTHING to make a fighter you like look good. And quite often...it's comedy gold. Other times it's just weak.

AND...let's not forget your other tactic of saying something ridiculous and when you get roundly criticized and called on your bias...backtrack and say "I was only kidding".

 

If believing that makes you feel better about yourself go ahead...

 

Worst comeback ever. Really. ::

And what's even better is you try to come off all arrogant when you are mostly talking out of your ass. It's one thing to have biased and silly opinions on a regular basis, and another to act as if you are reading them from the Ten Commandments tablets.

 

Well you know that's not true, so obviously you're only saying it to attempt to make yourself feel better.