Who is better Hatton or Hamed??

As we all know Hatton and Hamed are two of Britains greatest ever fighters, both were absolute quality. They had very different styles and only lost to the very best. My question is who deserves to ranked higher? I think its very close both are great fighters but my pick is for Hatton because he was around longer and he beat an all time great fighter like Kosta Tsyu.

Hamed, for me. I'll explain why when I get a moment, as this is only a fleeting visit.

Your kidding surely! Hamed was a world champion for 5 years and cleaned out the division and beat all of the major belt holders. Yes Hatton beat Tzyu, but Kosta had 1 fight in three years before that due to injury. After that the inly other notable win for Ricky was against a over weight Castillio who had already been knocked out by Diego Corrales and a dubious points win over Collazo to win a title at 147.

Ricky was the better supported fighter but you have to put it in perspective. He won world titles at two weights (and the second as I said was dubious and it was not even against the best in the division). While Hamed cleaned out the division and beat the WBO, WBC, IBF, WBU and if the WBA had not been so silly he would have clamied that belt as well instead of them stripping Vasquez as soon as he got in the ring. And yet, people still think he underachieved.

Not even a close in my opinion!

Hamed for me, too, and without too much pause for thought. As singular wins go, Hatton's victory over Tszyu is perhaps better than any single entry on the positive side of Hamed's ledger (though I'll never understand why his win over Vasquez doesn't get the credit it deserves).

But in all other aspects, it's a near shut out for Hamed. Far more depth to his record and, unlike Hatton who failed to accommodate Witter (like it or not, he was second / third in line at 140 lb for a considerable while) there was not a single worthy challenger who 'The Prince' didn't take on during his reign. Would also add that Hamed at his best, while definitely losing a fair few would not, in my opinion, be totally humiliated by any other Featherweight great in history the way that Hatton was against Pacquiao, a man whose main body of work doesn't even lie at Light-Welterweight.

Sorry Waingro, can't agree with Hatton being higher. For me, Hamed comfortably outranks him.

Hamed was a more skilled fighter....but hatton had a better career..rising to no 3 in the p4p list...

Have to say it's hard to split them....with Calzaghe the three best fighters I've seen on your shores..

Hamed for all the reasons listed above. Hatton flattered to deceive when he beat Tszyu, who had a poor record for an "all time great"

Hamed for me, is easy to forget just how highly Naz was regarded in his day, whilst I think it is fair to say there was a period Hatton was rightly regarded as the best light welter in the world am not sure he was ever really considered dominant in the way Naz was. Also often forgotten that but for the politics that blight the game Naz cleared the division out and annexed all the belts, again not sure you can say the same for Ricky.

Who is better is misleading...Hatton had the better career..Hamed the higher skill threshold....

Dejesus had a higher skill threshold but Duran had the better career...

Not sure what better means in this instance..

Bob wrote:Hamed for all the reasons listed above. Hatton flattered to deceive when he beat Tszyu, who had a poor record for an "all time great"

Tszyu only lost twice in his career, knocked out or stopped 25 out of 31 including Sharmba Mitchell in 3 rounds 6 month before he fought Hatton, trying to work out why you regard it as a poor record.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Who is better is misleading...Hatton had the better career..Hamed the higher skill threshold....

Dejesus had a higher skill threshold but Duran had the better career...

Not sure what better means in this instance..

Well, I'd take Hamed's resume over Hatton's any day.

Hatton achieved everything he could. Hamed underachieved IMO and shouldn't have retired so quick. I would say Hamed is better.

Nico the gman wrote:

Bob wrote:Hamed for all the reasons listed above. Hatton flattered to deceive when he beat Tszyu, who had a poor record for an "all time great"

Tszyu only lost twice in his career, knocked out or stopped 25 out of 31 including Sharmba Mitchell in 3 rounds 6 month before he fought Hatton, trying to work out why you regard it as a poor record.

A poor record for an ATG is not necessarily poor, but Tszyu, for all his dominance, doesn't have many great names on there.

Easily Hamed, without a shadow of doubt.

Unless you are playing devil's advocate then I have to disagree with you on this one Truss, was Hatton ever really p4p 3 and on whose rankings?

Hamed was far more skilled and beat far better opponents aside from Tszyu, who as said above was hardly active at fight time.

Whilst nobody could say for sure what would have happened, I personally believe a focused Hamed would have given MAB a much better fight. For me, Hamed was a case of a what could have been.

And with a mythical fight, my money would be on Hamed to beat Ricky every time. Probably very quickly too!

p4p world number 3...Involved in two superfights for the no 1 spot...

I'd take Hatton's resume.......just.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:p4p world number 3...Involved in two superfights for the no 1 spot...

I'd take Hatton's resume.......just.

That's like rating Gatti because he was stopped by Oscar and Floyd.

You're twisting it.....Mate I'm saying he was of such a stature that he fought in two SUPERFIGHTS!!!!

Hamed never reached those heights...

Whether it was because he didn't have the opponents I don't know...but he was never no 3 in the World either..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You're twisting it.....Mate I'm saying he was of such a stature that he fought in two SUPERFIGHTS!!!!

Hamed never reached those heights...

Whether it was because he didn't have the opponents I don't know...but he was never no 3 in the World either..

No, he was number four in a more competetive time. Popularity gets a fighter big fights. The Gatti reference was there because he sold tickets like Hatton, and fighters clamoured to fight him based on that. Why else did he get a shot at Oscar?

Was he number 4???? Are you sure..

Already said I rate him highly but think Hatton had more time at the very top...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Was he number 4???? Are you sure..

Already said I rate him highly but think Hatton had more time at the very top...

I think he squeaked into the top five just prior to the Barrera fight.

Hatton #3? He was about 7th at best, I thought.

Barrera did surprise me Bob...Thought he was finished...

Sorry it ended for Naz like it did I enjoyed watching him...Could've had so much more success..

Like Pryor he did everything wrong...right!

Bob wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You're twisting it.....Mate I'm saying he was of such a stature that he fought in two SUPERFIGHTS!!!!

Hamed never reached those heights...

Whether it was because he didn't have the opponents I don't know...but he was never no 3 in the World either..

No, he was number four in a more competetive time. Popularity gets a fighter big fights. The Gatti reference was there because he sold tickets like Hatton, and fighters clamoured to fight him based on that. Why else did he get a shot at Oscar?

Hatton very popular fighter no question, but perhaps being a two weight world champion and having a 43-0 record might have had some bearing on him getting the big fights.

Nico the gman wrote:

Bob wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You're twisting it.....Mate I'm saying he was of such a stature that he fought in two SUPERFIGHTS!!!!

Hamed never reached those heights...

Whether it was because he didn't have the opponents I don't know...but he was never no 3 in the World either..

No, he was number four in a more competetive time. Popularity gets a fighter big fights. The Gatti reference was there because he sold tickets like Hatton, and fighters clamoured to fight him based on that. Why else did he get a shot at Oscar?

Hatton very popular fighter no question, but perhaps being a two weight world champion and having a 43-0 record might have had some bearing on him getting the big fights.

It might, but Calzaghe was a two weight champ and 46-0 and never got the super fights Hatton did. Hatton was both popular and beatable, which is gold.

Calzaghe never chased the big fights, he chose not to travel to the US which is one criticism I have of Calzaghe,good fighter, great chin, so would most definitely have given anyone problems, Joe or his managements fault he didn't get the big fights, and everyone's beatable by the way.

BALTIMORA wrote:Hatton #3? He was about 7th at best, I thought.

Am with you on this one, I personally never had Hatton as high as 3rd.

I remember Hamed being introduced as one of the best p4p fighters, don't remember that for Ricky.

I would have to pick Hamed of the two, although probably not by the huge margin many have it if we are going off just what they acheived as opposed to their actual quality as a fighter. Hamed certainly had the potential to put the question beyond any shadow of a doubt but his exit from the sport left at least some room for doubt in my view.

Hatton didnt clear out his division anything as emphatically as Hamed did with fighters like Cotto and Witter left unchecked but I think he had to build carefully towards his ultimate goal which was against Mayweather. I would also have to consider beating even a partially faded Tszyu as a kind of top quality win that Hamed lacks.

I would say in terms of talent and potential Hamed far outstripped Hatton but when you look at the win colums and acheivements I dont think the gap is as wide as it might me. Although I think Hamed can point to a greater dominance of his weight division than Hatton can.

Nico the gman wrote:and everyone's beatable by the way.

You mean the rumours of the handprint on Pacquiao's ankle when he was dipped in the River Styx are true?

Wow.

Bob wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:and everyone's beatable by the way.

You mean the rumours of the handprint on Pacquiao's ankle when he was dipped in the River Styx are true?

Wow.

That rumour is only true if Floyd Mayweather shoots him from behind with a bow and arrow.

Who is the better boxer, Hamed, easily.

Who had the better career, Hatton, but probably because he had a bit more hunger, which had Hamed possessed, he would have been an ATG

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Dejesus had a higher skill threshold but Duran had the better career...

Classic

JDandfries wrote:Who is the better boxer, Hamed, easily.

Who had the better career, Hatton, but probably because he had a bit more hunger, which had Hamed possessed, he would have been an ATG

I find this view that Hatton had the 'better career' a little puzzling, to be honest. Out of interest, why would you say that, JD?

Hatton's win over Tszyu, as I said earlier, is probably better than any singular win on Hamed's record, but outside of that what notable wins does Hatton have? Castillo was impressive enough, then we're left looking at the likes of Malignaggi, Lazcano, Maussa, Urango and Collazo. If pressed to choose I'd take Hamed's win ledger (Vasquez, McCullough, Ingle, Soto, Kelley, Johnson, Bungu, Medina etc) over Ricky's any day of the week.

My main gripe would be that a lot of this 'Hatton had the better career' notion seems based simply on the fact that Hatton fought Mayweather and Pacquiao. Personally, I'm not at all comfortable with using these fights as a reason to rank Hatton's career above Hamed's given how conclusively he lost in both of them. It's true that none of Hamed's fights caught the public imagination the way Ricky did those two times - particularly against Mayweather - but Hamed was simply never beaten in such a conclusive manner, even if Barrera did establish a clear superiority over him when they fought.

I suppose the term 'better career' is slightly subjective and open to interpretation, but as far as I'm concerned Hatton sure as hell didn't achieve as much as Hamed did, didn't dominante to anything like the extent Hamed did, and didn't beat as good a level of opposition, either. That said, I'd be genuinely interested in hearing why you take the different view, mate.

To add to Chris' point and without wanting to reopen a debate that has been done to death whereever you stand on the particular issue there is no getting away from the fact for a good chunk of Ricky's tenure at light welter Junior Witter was ranked as the second best in the division, pretty much universally and for whatever reason he was not dealt with.

Am not certain there is anyone who can make a similar claim with regard to Naz, the only guy in his class who made any great noise about facing him was Derrick Gainer who was a model of inconsistency. Appreciate Marquez was mandatory for some time but Marquez' stock was nowhere near as high then as it has been subsequently and nobody at the time argued that in facing Barrera instead of JMM Naz was taking the easy way out.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Who is better is misleading...Hatton had the better career..Hamed the higher skill threshold....

Dejesus had a higher skill threshold but Duran had the better career...

Not sure what better means in this instance..

Dejesus was a better boxer then Duran?!

Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote: Dejesus was a better boxer then Duran?!

Glad it's not just me.

In fairness though lads, you shouldn't forget that Duran only beat De Jesus because of the 130 degree heat....

88Chris05 wrote:In fairness though lads, you shouldn't forget that Duran only beat De Jesus because of the 130 degree heat....

Which time?

Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:In fairness though lads, you shouldn't forget that Duran only beat De Jesus because of the 130 degree heat....

Which time?

Not sure, I'll PM Truss and get back to you.

Dejesus was a better boxer than Duran........

Never said fighter......Full of thickheads this place...

Last fight Dejesus was ahead and decked him before succumbing....

end of.