Hatton

A conversation at work with a sports mad bloke who thinks that Hatton is one of the greatest of all time, led to this..... sorry to go over old ground.

Ricky won the LWW title, in 2007, from KT, who was weighed down by two years worth of ring rust.

It was KT retirement fight.

Here are the ring ratings from that year. Overall the ratings are dire, no wonder he was unbeaten at the weight at the time..

1 Junior Witter
2 Paul Malignaggi
3 Gavin Rees
4 Vivian Harris
5 Souleymane M'baye
6 Lovemore N'dou
7 Juan Lazcano
8 Demetrius Hopkins
9 Ricardo Torres
10 Kendall Holt

One year later the ratings were as followings:

Champ: Ricky

Timothy Bradley
Junior Witter
Andriy Kotelnik
Paul Malignaggi
Herman Ngoudjo
Kendall Holt
Ricardo Torres
Juan Urango
Marcos Rene Maidana
Juan Lazcano

and 2009.....

Champ: Manny

Timothy Bradley
Amir Khan
Devon Alexander
Paul Malignaggi
Juan Urango
Kendall Holt
Marcos Rene Maidana
Andriy Kotelnik
Mike Alvarado

What did Hatton do, other than provide entertaining fights, for the British public to regard him as the greatest light welterweight at the time? Urango, Lazcano, Malinagi?

He's a household name. That's why Joe public sometime boxing fans hold him high regard. Same with Tyson. Joe Bloggs that rate Tyson as the GOAT would be hard pushed to name another heavyweight outside of Tyson and Ali, but Tyson's reputation elevates him.

Same with Hatton. A good but limited boxer who captured the public's attention. The fact he was also a bit of a "lad" and a northerner helped him transcend. Most Hatton "fans" would struggle to remember Tsyzu's name...

This should probably be merged with Truss's great british fighters thread.

Hatton = ridiculously overrated.

Hatton did well, he overachieved, but wasnt quite at the cream of the crop. No shame in that. One of the best British fighters of modern times, mind you.

They just tapped into the 'pie eating boy next door persona' and a football fanbase.

His management used his pulling power to get the fights they wanted which were essentially risk free. Good business. What bugged me personally was the legacy spiel whilst cynically clearing out the past it or plain rubbish.

The Tszyu fight was a master stroke. On paper he was the toughest champion, and the man, but he was old and inactive. The timing was perfect. If he lost, they could rebuild from it... Great champion, too much too soon etc. As it was, the win made him an instant star. After that, he cherry picked his other fights against the old and the lucky... before cashing in his lottery ticket against floyd.

Clearly a very good fighter, but over-rated by the casual fan and a fair few not-so-casual fans, too.. in my most humble of opinions.

Your weighred down by two years rust doesn't wash Mate....Spin..

Kosta was always a tough brawling type and that was a great victory for Ricky.....He outmanned him..

If Marv had beaten Sugar Ray peole would have said the same thing......Ring rust garbage.

Hatton was a great fighter............Longevity...........achievement and a position as a super-fighter and p4p entree........dictate as much....

Give him a break..

Couldn't agree more with Hatton being overrated by a few. I think someone said it best on another thread that he was the gatekeeper to the division until it heated up. He fought a lot of B/C level fighters (Malignaggi, Urango, Lazcano, Philips, Senchenko and Collazo) and shot fighters (Castillo and Tszyu). We all know what happened when he went and fought the best. By my reckoning Alexander, Bradley, Khan and Matthysse would have beaten him.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote: If Marv had beaten Sugar Ray people would have said the same thing......Ring rust garbage

No clue what you are on about?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote: Hatton was a great fighter............Longevity

What do you mean by longevity? Three year at the 'top'? or retiring @ 31?

I think when a fighter becomes a transcending figure, attracting a lot of casual fans and hence having their abilities and achievements exaggerated and blown out of proportion, there can be a tendency for the more thoroughbred and knowledgeable fans to go too far towards the other side in order to compensate, just as there are shed loads of hoary old historians who'll reliably inform us that Mike Tyson would have been absolutely emasculated by James J Corbett and that, had he boxed in the seventies, he'd have had to settle for gatekeeper status behind the contenders such as Jerry Quarry and Oscar Bonavena, nevermind the likes of Ali, Frazier and Foreman.

That said, when it comes to Hatton, I'm much more in line with Milky than I am with Truss on this one. Like just about everyone else, I supported Hatton and always wanted him to do well, but calling him a 'great' fighter is stretching things a bit, I think.

How many other 'great' fighters, for instance, would have a win over Malignaggi as one of their top three career highlights? How many great fighters, in the days of seventeen divisions with four belts or more on offer in them (so basically in the days where any reasonable world-level fighter will be presented with title shots), have had a world title career spanning just four years and nine fights (including Ring titles, that is)? Hatton's longevity isn't bad, but again it's not great by the conventional standards, either; he was still only thirty when Pacquiao put him on the scrap heap.

He was Ring Magazine champion at 140 and featured in some pound for pound lists, which are meritorious feats that you can never take away from him, but I do believe that false / misleading stats crop up now and again, and I tend to think that both distinctions probably flattered Hatton a little bit. I think Tszyu was a fine win, as it goes. It wasn't a peak Kostya, for sure, but not a decrepit version, either.

But the fact that Mayweather and Cotto opted to seek titles and bigger fights at 147 rather than continue at Light-Welter to test Hatton does, to an extent, devalue the significance of Hatton being the Ring champion at the weight, and the fact that Pacquiao took that title so emphatically again indicates that Hatton being the consensus champion for so long was really down to the weight class being devoid of any real top class fighters, rather than him being an exceptional Light-Welterweight in his own right.

I think we all wished that Ricky could be great, and perhaps a lot of people who found themselves taken with his 'one of the lads' persona were tricked in to thinking he was, but as time passes and we can all take a step back and look at it objectively, I really don't see how Hatton's CV, good one though it is, entitles him to a place amongst the greats.

Bang on 88Chris05.

Incrediblexman wrote:Couldn't agree more with Hatton being overrated by a few. I think someone said it best on another thread that he was the gatekeeper to the division until it heated up. He fought a lot of B/C level fighters (Malignaggi, Urango, Lazcano, Philips, Senchenko and Collazo) and shot fighters (Castillo and Tszyu). We all know what happened when he went and fought the best. By my reckoning Alexander, Bradley, Khan and Matthysse would have beaten him.

Tszyu was NOT shot, past his best perhaps but not shot by any means. A shot fighter couldn't have fought and fought well at the pace Hatton set. Castillo was shot by that point however I'll give you that.

Chris, you are my hero.

AlexHuckerby wrote:

Incrediblexman wrote:Couldn't agree more with Hatton being overrated by a few. I think someone said it best on another thread that he was the gatekeeper to the division until it heated up. He fought a lot of B/C level fighters (Malignaggi, Urango, Lazcano, Philips, Senchenko and Collazo) and shot fighters (Castillo and Tszyu). We all know what happened when he went and fought the best. By my reckoning Alexander, Bradley, Khan and Matthysse would have beaten him.

Tszyu was NOT shot, past his best perhaps but not shot by any means. A shot fighter couldn't have fought and fought well at the pace Hatton set. Castillo was shot by that point however I'll give you that.

We can debate that. Tszyu didn't seem to have a lot of snap on his punches. Do you really see him quitting on his stool in his prime? There is possibly another argument that Tszyu is not quite a good a boxer as people make out. After all he did lose to Vince Philips and his other big wins came over a talented but flawed Zab Judah, a faded Julio Cesar Chavez, a nearly man in Diosbelys Hurtado, the lightweight Miguel Ángel González and Sharmba Mitchell (?). It's up to people to decide. I'd go with a bit of both. I rank Aaron Pryor as the best light welter-weight of all time.

Incrediblexman wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:

Incrediblexman wrote:Couldn't agree more with Hatton being overrated by a few. I think someone said it best on another thread that he was the gatekeeper to the division until it heated up. He fought a lot of B/C level fighters (Malignaggi, Urango, Lazcano, Philips, Senchenko and Collazo) and shot fighters (Castillo and Tszyu). We all know what happened when he went and fought the best. By my reckoning Alexander, Bradley, Khan and Matthysse would have beaten him.

Tszyu was NOT shot, past his best perhaps but not shot by any means. A shot fighter couldn't have fought and fought well at the pace Hatton set. Castillo was shot by that point however I'll give you that.

We can debate that. Tszyu didn't seem to have a lot of snap on his punches. Do you really see him quitting on his stool in his prime? There is possibly another argument that Tszyu is not quite a good a boxer as people make out. After all he did lose to Vince Philips and his other big wins came over a talented but flawed Zab Judah, a faded Julio Cesar Chavez, a nearly man in Diosbelys Hurtado, the lightweight Miguel Ángel González and Sharmba Mitchell (?). It's up to people to decide. I'd go with a bit of both. I rank Aaron Pryor as the best light welter-weight of all time.

Tszyu wouldn't have quit on his stool in his prime, no. However, there's a different between being in your prime, being past your prime, and being shot. Much like Kessler against Froch in the case of Tszyu and Hatton, past it but not shot.

Whether Tszyu was past his prime or shot still doesn't change my assessment of Hatton. A decent gatekeeper with a large fan base.

He beat Tszyu, generally considered the number 1, and then beat opponents of a sufficient standard to retain his place at the top. Looking at the lists, there isnt really anyone else with a better claim to be number 1 until about 2009.

There's a real bad tendency to rubbish Hatton because he lost his 2 biggest fights. But take a look at who he lost to.

Hatton was a very good and exciting fighter who was a bonafide world champ and a damn good fighter. So what if he lost to Floyd and Manny.

I think Hatton was a better fighter than people gave him credit for. Sure he wasnt near Pacquiao in terms of sheer athletic talent (how many are), and he trails Mayweather for Ring IQ (Again how many dont), while he lacks. And he is far behind Martinez for sheer awkwardness. But he is a very good fighter, and for a while, was king of the ring at 140. Plus he was a very likeable guy. Who never seemed to brag about fighting in the trenches (maybe he realised thats a sneaky way of admitting you lack the Power/speed to blast your opponent, as well as the intelligence to keep them off you).

He was overrated in his prime generally, which isnt surprising given the large number of less informed boxing fans he attracted. Its often overcompensated for since then though in my experience. Fair to say he was number 1 lww for a few years although equally its fair to say it was a weak division during those years.

His actual achievements as a light welter might be overblown given the opposition he faced and general strength of the division, but I dont think he was as mediocre a fighter in ability as he is sometimes represented.

manos de piedra wrote:He beat Tszyu, generally considered the number 1, and then beat opponents of a sufficient standard to retain his place at the top. Looking at the lists, there isnt really anyone else with a better claim to be number 1 until about 2009.

Well he arguably only had a couple of years at the top until losing to Mayweather. He did not have a long spell of consecutive defences of any major belt. I don't think he was in any way a great fighter. I never got why he didn't fight Cotto at light welter. That would have been a great fight.

Incrediblexman wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:He beat Tszyu, generally considered the number 1, and then beat opponents of a sufficient standard to retain his place at the top. Looking at the lists, there isnt really anyone else with a better claim to be number 1 until about 2009.

Well he arguably only had a couple of years at the top until losing to Mayweather. He did not have a long spell of consecutive defences of any major belt. I don't think he was in any way a great fighter. I never got why he didn't fight Cotto at light welter. That would have been a great fight.

Cotto v Hatton would have been a cracker. Cant remember it ever being on the cards. Just expected in time but the time never came. Mayweather and Pacquaio aren't bad instead though.

RanjitPatel wrote:

Incrediblexman wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:He beat Tszyu, generally considered the number 1, and then beat opponents of a sufficient standard to retain his place at the top. Looking at the lists, there isnt really anyone else with a better claim to be number 1 until about 2009.

Well he arguably only had a couple of years at the top until losing to Mayweather. He did not have a long spell of consecutive defences of any major belt. I don't think he was in any way a great fighter. I never got why he didn't fight Cotto at light welter. That would have been a great fight.

Cotto v Hatton would have been a cracker. Cant remember it ever being on the cards. Just expected in time but the time never came. Mayweather and Pacquaio aren't bad instead though.

Remember the sky sports team back in the day saying that Hatton should steer well clear of Cotto. I think Hatton would have done ok. He had a good chin and a style that would have given Cotto problems I think.

Incrediblexman wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:He beat Tszyu, generally considered the number 1, and then beat opponents of a sufficient standard to retain his place at the top. Looking at the lists, there isnt really anyone else with a better claim to be number 1 until about 2009.

Well he arguably only had a couple of years at the top until losing to Mayweather. He did not have a long spell of consecutive defences of any major belt. I don't think he was in any way a great fighter. I never got why he didn't fight Cotto at light welter. That would have been a great fight.

I wouldnt neccessarily disagree. But for those few years I think he was deservedly considered number 1 in the division. As I said, there isnt really anyone else that has a better claim. Cotto maybe, with the benefit of hindsight, was a better fighter and had a comparable record at the weight at the time. But Hatton beat Tszyu who was seen to be the top man and from that point on Cotto wasnt in the division much longer.

I wouldnt call Hatton a great boxer myself either. But I think he was good.

I believe that after Cotto won his WBO belt at Light-Welter in 2004, Hatton was, for a while, actually only one fight away from being his mandatory. However, Hatton's team opted to go down the IBF route against Tszyu (Hatton had been ranked inside the top two contenders for both organizations), which was superb business in the end.

After that big night in Manchester (and in fairness, Ricky's win against Tszyu was bigger than anything on Cotto's ledger in that division) Hatton's people felt that they could name their price, which made the Cotto fight a potentially difficult one to make in any case, and of course at that same time Ricky was beset with legal troubles as he tried to sever all ties with Warren.

By the time Hatton was back in full flow in 2006, a fight with Cotto was looking more realistic at 147 than 140 - Cotto had vacated his WBO belt due to being tight at the weight, and Ricky was in line to face Collazo for the WBA Welterweight title. But alas, Hatton looked very unconvincing in that one, wisely dropped back down to 140, where Cotto never returned to, and their career paths started drifting further and further away from that point onwards.

I do vividly remember Billy Graham saying in 2004 that a fight between Hatton and Cotto at that stage would have been "an insult to both lads" as the money would be so much better if they were to meet a few years down the line, with bigger reputations. Given that Cotto eventually proved himself to be a level above Ricky, it was probably another excellent career choice by Hatton's team, even if that kind of no-risk attitude winds many fans up.

Poor old ricky...........Involved in two superfights which you don't get involved in unless you reach the pinnacle of your sport..........

A p4p fighter and he routinely gets his achievements spewed by his own Countrymen who have seen the like of him about ten times in the last hundred years...

Really detest the way the British demean their heroes...........

Freddie Roach said Hatton wasn't very good.

Its not a case of "demeaning our heroes" Truss, we accept that Hatton was great for British Boxing, and a likeable character, but when a true assessment is made of his career - nothing but "good not great" can come of it. Tszyu was the champion and the favorite, yet Ricky upset him - by far his best win and seemingly the one that everyone looks at in his "ATG" argument. I agree wholeheartedly with Chris, take away the patriotism and you have a boxer who was shown to be poor against the top 2 boxers at the weight, and who's record has a lot of "who's?" and "why's?"

Strongback wrote:Freddie Roach said Hatton wasn't very good.

well that's it then..

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Its not a case of "demeaning our heroes" Truss, we accept that Hatton was great for British Boxing, and a likeable character, but when a true assessment is made of his career - nothing but "good not great" can come of it. Tszyu was the champion and the favorite, yet Ricky upset him - by far his best win and seemingly the one that everyone looks at in his "ATG" argument. I agree wholeheartedly with Chris, take away the patriotism and you have a boxer who was shown to be poor against the top 2 boxers at the weight, and who's record has a lot of "who's?" and "why's?"

Those top 2 boxers are not your run of the mill boxers. One is a nailed on top 10 atg and the other a top 20 ATG. Not just ATG at LWW or whatever but ATG in all weight classes.

Are we not allowed to decide who our heroes are truss. You think he was great. Plenty of us think he was a good fighter, but also a marketing dream, who cleverly but cynically selected his opponents to bolster the cv and fatten the goose, whilst talking up his legacy. Good business and plenty do it. But it doesnt mean we have to buy into the story and it doesn't make him a great. And, I've met and seen enough 'man of the people' personas in my time for it to wear a little thin.

Duran gets rolled like a drunk, by hearns and that doesn't happen to great fighters... Ricky gets starched twice, and gets a pass... It's the fact he was in them that counts, apparently.

You state all fighters are in decline at 35 on the mayweather Alvarez thread. The same day you're arguing with me that Tszyu was still on top of his game, for the hatton fight.

You have some front beefster.. Or so the boys at the blue oyster say.

Never said duran wasn't great.................

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Strongback wrote:Freddie Roach said Hatton wasn't very good.

well that's it then..

You were criticizing Brits for running Hatton down. I just provided an alternative American opinion.

As usual Truss speaking a load of tosh.

Thankfullysome us Brits are capable of thinking and supporting without being clouded by patriotic, jiongoistic nonsense.

Hatton was a technically inept boxer. Face first, dirty, mawling, pushing, no lateral movement and no defence - those were his skills.

The ONLY reason he made it into the two big fights was because of his deluded man city fanbase who promoters knew would follow him around the world. Basically he was risk free and good business for Mayweather and Pac.

For me, in terms of modern British boxers, he was behind Lewis, Calzaghe, Naz, Honeyghan, Eubanks, Benn, Froch, Khan and probably Haye from a skills and technical pov.

Certainly did well for someone so inept..

Hatton was certainly no virtuoso slickster, but to call him 'inept' in that regard is being unreasonable, too.

He showed now and then that he could box a little when it was absolutely necessary, albeit against opponents you'd always expect him to beat under any circumstances. He didn't just rough Malignaggi up, for instance; he outboxed him too, just as he did against the giant Light-Welter Urango in a more disciplined and measured performance.

If Hatton really was as desperately poor as you claim, then I reckon he'd have been ruthlessly outclassed long before Mayweather. And let's remember that, amongst Floyd's victims, fighters as technically sound as Mosley and Marquez have been made to look pretty toothless, too.

From a technical point of view, I think something like 'servicable', 'decent' or 'intermediate' might be a fairer description for Hatton. But toughness, pressure, body hooking etc are also valuable assets in prize fighting, and Hatton made up for being middle of the road in some other areas by being very good in those ones, hence the successful career he had.

I don't agree with Truss when he says that Hatton was a 'great' fighter in the proper sense, but we shouldnt lose sight of the fact that he was still a good one.

Trying to think of superfights that didn't have Alltime fighters in them...

Never really understand the ring rust theory with Tszyu. He beat Sharmba Mitchell 7 months before Hatton.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Trying to think of superfights that didn't have Alltime fighters in them...

Holmes v Cooney. Cooney wasn't great or "all time", whatever that means.

Sounds like truss, is now elevating hatton from merely great, to all time.

Michaels. If you think of it as less than 3 rounds against a chinny guy you've already ko'd once, coming after a reasonably lengthy injury lay off, then maybe you can see why people say it.

Ricky hasn't fought anyone of note before Tszyu. They picked him because it was a great name, and a perfect time. Pedrosa wasn't shot against mcguigan and Tszyu wasn't shot against hatton. Their performances show us that, but they weren't in their prime. Very good matchmaking.

Atila wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Trying to think of superfights that didn't have Alltime fighters in them...

Holmes v Cooney. Cooney wasn't great or "all time", whatever that means.

Cooney was a big exception..............but it is rebuttal.............

Cooney was a huge, charismatic, handsome Irish American from an era dominated by black heavies with a very unpopular one as Champion..

Logistically different than Hatton

You think all Irish American 's are handsome truss.

The fundamental concept is the same, a large fan base and a target audience was enough to make it a superfight, not the merits of the fighter. Hatton had a huge fanbase, a win over Tszyu and an unbeaten record. If you don't look too closely at who he'd fought and when he'd fought them it was an easy sell.

If Martinez, was American, Martinez v Jcc junior could have been a superfight.

Hatton was five in the p4p list..

I believe he was truss. Goes to show how careful management can engineer a ranking on such meaningful lists.

While meaningless...........They show he was rated by respected people in the game very highly..

True enough truss, the same kind of people who don't have mayweather in their top 30 ATG lists.

When a fighter is unbeaten, ratings vary dramatically. I trust my eyes, and consider the opponent and the timing.

I thought the Tszyu fight was 50:50 and every other hatton fight I had the result as a nailed on certainty, including mayweather and pac.

Between Tszyu and mayweather, he fought guys who had lucked out and a shot Castillo. If people can't or refuse to see it, fair enough.