Who Had a Better Resume, Hatton or Prince Naseem?

[Longcount]

For me it is emphatically Naseem Hamed. I can't see how anyone could possibly think it was the other way around, unless of course you were too young to have watched Naz during his career and are piecing together an argument based upon googling.

[Flea Man]

Originally Posted by Longcount

For me it is emphatically Naseem Hamed. I can't see how anyone could possibly think it was the other way around, unless of course you were too young to have watched Naz during his career and are piecing together an argument based upon googling.

I'm presuming you're mistaking excitement/aesthetic quality for accomplishments?

Obviously you're not, it just looks like that's what you're saying

[Flea Man]

Originally Posted by Scotty321

Ahhh.. After being away for a few weeks, nothing like insults to make a man feel welcome!

Get in the Choi and we can talk

[Longcount]

Originally Posted by Flea Man

I'm presuming you're mistaking excitement/aesthetic quality for accomplishments?

Obviously you're not, it just looks like that's what you're saying

Not at all. I was merely saying that it's harder to evaluate the quality of opposition on paper without the historical context and insight that comes with watching their respective careers/reigns as they were fighting.

[Flea Man]

That's true in some cases, less so with the modern era as everything is readily available (pretty much) and, if anything, a quick scan of google would still lead (some cretins) you to think Naz was 'greater'.

As I say, I agree. Just deliberately misconstrued your words to be a twat

[HeavyT]

Naseem was fighting world level contenders for a lot longer than Hatton, I think its a shame for Hatton because if he stepped up say 5 fights earlier, he would have fought more quality opposition and probably won.

Naseem for depth, Hatton for one win.

[trotter]

Originally Posted by TFFP

Doesn't mean he wasn't past it. The logic seems to be just because he knocked out Sharmba Mitchell he was still at his peak. Just not the case. I don't doubt he had power but the rest didn't look good.

There's a huge zone between past it and peak. Hatton did a similar job on tszyu as Phillips, tszyu could be outhustled.

I thought tszyu looked fit and well against Hatton and timed him numerous occassions but Hatton peaked that night and was ready to walk through walls.

Hatton had looked fantastic for a few bouts beforehand and was in the zone.

I think he lost a fair bit of himself in that fight and never really impressed again except the castillo fight I suppose.

[Nipple]

Originally Posted by atberry

Naz beat some very good fighters like Kevin Kelley, Tom Johnson, Manuel Medina, Vasquez. He dominated and knocked out Bungu in a clean, clinical performance.

Hatton, Tszyu aside, never fought on that level. The likes of Collazo and Malignaggi were classes below Kevin Kelley, come on. Castillo was drained to death and the short, squat guy (forget his name) on his Vegas debut was very very limited.

Naz gave peak Barrera a much, much closer contest than Hatton gave Pacquaio.

Very well put, sir!

Naz > Hatton.

[GazOC]

Originally Posted by Nipple

Very well put, sir!

Naz > Hatton.

ATs post i probably the iffiest post in the entire thread IMHO. He overrates some fighters and underrates others.

[Spearmint Rhino]

Hatton might already have been on the way down by the time he fought Tszyu actually.

Obviously the opponent wasn't as good but I think the showing over Michael Stewart was his best.

It's a bit of revisionist history to suggest he fought nearly 40 bums and got lucky against Tszyu. He did beat a fair number of decent contenders and never really got anywhere, though I think the reason for that will always be up for debate.

I don't think we saw as much of him at world level as we ought to have done. Though aside from Lewis and Froch, I think that statement applies to nearly all British fighters.

[Flea Man]

Originally Posted by Spearmint Rhino

Hatton might already have been on the way down by the time he fought Tszyu actually.

Obviously the opponent wasn't as good but I think the showing over Michael Stewart was his best.

It's a bit of revisionist history to suggest he fought nearly 40 bums and got lucky against Tszyu. He did beat a fair number of decent contenders and never really got anywhere, though I think the reason for that will always be up for debate.

I don't think we saw as much of him at world level as we ought to have done. Though aside from Lewis and Froch, I think that statement applies to nearly all British fighters.

This is fair, and rings true. Whilst all were past their best, the World-level guys he faced had been in with very good company.

Hatton was very good against Tackie as well.

[trotter]

Originally Posted by Flea Man

This is fair, and rings true. Whilst all were past their best, the World-level guys he faced had been in with very good company.

Hatton was very good against Tackie as well.

Oliviera too. These guys were not top notch at this point but he wasn't squeaking past them, he was dominating every second.

Iirc he had gone a tad flat by the vilches fight, then frank lined up a shot at a world title in the near future and he rediscovered his zest against Stewart and oliviera - then beat tszyu when frank delivered the big fight to him.

Then promptly left frank, to much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[SkillspayBills]

What Frank did well with Hatton was get Tszyu and Mitchell's after's such as Tackie and Stewart. Timed it really well and Hatton delivered in the ring.

[Farmboxer]

Prince Naseem Hamed................