Hatton and Calzaghe

Calzaghe was better than Hatton. I have no doubts about that at all.

 

lack of opposition?

 

I think the main difference is Hatton's ambition. Take out the 2 losses, i think they're resume's are comparable.

 

Calzaghe is no doubt the more talented boxer, He was more than capable of beating any opposition you could have put in front of him. Hatton on the other hand was always going to lose to the likes of Mayweather.

 

Joe was and is better than Ricky

 

Check out the Hatton hype before the Mayweather fight. Then imagine that fight didnt happen.

 

:huh why?

 

Hatton had the balls to go after the best fights. Thats why he had far more fans than Calzaghe. It's hard to say who had the best career. Both are good fighters in different ways.

 

Calzaghe has twice the talent of Hatton, and twice the work ethic, look at a recent picture of fatton! Ricky Hatton= overated hype, he should be ranked all time right behind Collazo in the 100,216th spot!

 

Both Great fighters

Hatton fought the two best fighters of his generation and lost. There is no disgrace in that

Calzaghe fought the two best fighters of his weight division of his generation and scraped through. The only hame is that he didnt beat Hopkin and RJJ when they were in there prime.

Both products of being over protected by Frank Warren, at least Ricky got out of it early enough in order to have a crack at the two biggest names in boxing. Joe Bottled it until very late in his carrear.

The fight that made Ricky was when he beat Kostya Tyuzu way earlier in his carrear than when Joe had his defining fight against Lacy

If Joe wanted to be a British legend he should have pushed for better opponents earlier in his carrear, maybe then people in America would have warmed to him.

Ricky set out to try and cement himself as a world great and he failed, but if he had not fought Mayweather, perhaps beat Magenalli and won the IBF, beat Witter for the WBC and then beaten Holt for the WBA (3 fights I have no doubt he would habe won) he would have an even better resume than Calzaghe does now. Surely then he would be listed higher than Calzaghe as a legend.

the fights at 140 bored ricky, and he stepped up. Joe was in his comfort zome for years fighting Woodall, Omar Shieka and Charles Brewer. No one of any real class.

Whn it all stacks up, Ricky could have remained undefeated easily. Just because he has 2 losses doesn't make him a worse fighter than Calzaghe. Ricky will go down at the best 140lb fighter ever and I hink Joe might get the best supermiddleweight ever.

Based on level of opponents and the prospective levels of the fighters, Ricky is the better fighter. Kostya Tyuzu, Collazo, Mallegnaggi, Castillo far outweight Lacy, Bika, Kessler, an over the hill Bernard and an over the hill RJJ

IN MY OPINION!

 

Calzaghe by far has more skill and talent, looks after himself between camps...he just lacked the personality to get the american public and british somewhat to warm to him which would of given him a bigger following which then in turn could of landed him with some better fights....but i don't rate hatton as a good fighter, straight forward pressure (although i must admit i did like to see his fights in his early career, up to the tyszu fight)

i remember hearing frank warren saying that calzaghe use to complain he wasn't gettin the big fights and hatton was and warren said this was because hatton was puttin the effort in to getting a following like doing after dinner speeches etc and joe wasn't

 

That is not why he had more fans. He had more fans because he's from manchester and had a strong following of soccer houligans, plus he scored more KO's

 

If Calzaghe fought a Super Middleweight Version of Floyd and Pac in their primes he would've defeated as well. Hatton gets WAY too much criticism for losing to the the 2 BEST fighters of the past 10 years.