Is Matthew Hatton now the number 1 Welterweight in the UK??

I think the winner of Jennings v Brook has to fight Hatton for the European title. Hattons fight on Friday was a lot closer than the judges scored it. Add to that I feel when the pressure comes on he can crumble at times and against the likes of Jennings and Brook he will be found out.

 

1)Jennings
2)Hatton
3)Brook

IMO

 

'The likes of Brook'???

Remind me, who has he beaten? Who has he been in with? Were people raving about him before he stopped McIntyre? What has he done since?

If he beats Jennings, I'll give Brook the benefit of the doubt and say he's a cut above O'Donnell. Until then, he ain't clearly a cut above Hatton IMO.

 

I really cant place him at number 1 regardless of friday. Im not sure if its me blind hating the guy as i feel he has only been given fights due to his brother. I would favour both Brook and Jenks to beat him.

I dont think you can base rankings on wins alone, you always have to look at losses. The guy has lost 4 times, including a god awful performance in the Watson fight and was lucky to get a draw against Lovemore IMO.

Kell Brook hasnt been beaten and hasnt really looked like being beaten so far, and Jenkings has only been stopped by Cotto whereas Hatton has been stopped by David Keir (record is 4-6-1).

So no, i cannot put Hatton as number 1. Brook and Jenkings should both be higher. I suspect that the winner of Brooks/Jenk will meet Hatton for the European title anyway and put this argument to bed.

 

It's Jennings, not Jenkins.

Brook has not looked like losing because of his SHOCKING OPPOSITION. No way can he be rated above Matt, who, like his brother has spectacularly overachieved (unlike his Brother he'll go nofurther than this level)

Watson was damn good in the Hatton fight, whitewashed him.

You do have to look at losses, when evaluating fighters who have beaten a similar level of opposition. If you do have to do so, you don't do your research on Boxrec :deal as you clearly have

Based on their overall worth (which doesn't take into account. 'name value ' which never should crop up when evaluating an opponents worth) and recent form against said opposition, it cannot be disputed that Hatton should be above Brook.

Aesthetically pleasing against **** opposition does not a good fghter make.

 

fair enough he gets fights coz of his brother but as long as he wins them it dont matter.

 

Of course ive looked on Boxrec as a cant remeber who Matty has lost to. Is that a crime?

If you looked you would see he has lost to a guy called David Kirk who has won 11 and lost 75. Brook knocked him out in the first. He was beaten by Alan Bosworth who is 20-16-2. These are the kind of people that Brooks has looked impressive against, yet Hatton has been beaten by them.

 

on performances you have to hand it to hatton, hes legitimately won his fights against better opposition than brook and jennings so i suppose the premise of the thread is fair enough but im serious when i say that unless mathew hatton is matched very very carefully at world/fringe world level he could very well be seriously hurt.

who will jennings/brook winner , hatton face next

 

Want a friendly avy bet over that?

 

:good

This i agree with

 

lost 4 fights pal....im sorry but u aint in a position to change the records:hi:

 

maybe so but it is what it is, end of

 

That was the past, Hatton has beaten far superior fighters to those who he lost to.

By that argument you could argue hopkins is worse than robert fredericks.

 

:huh

Why? Because he lost his first fight?

Since then his only losses were to Joey C, twice to Taylor and to RJJ. Hatton has lost 4 times to basic level fighters, the first coming in his 14th fight which shows he wasnt a complete novice.

I do agree though that Hatton has looked better recently. But it isnt exactly hard considering what he looked like before.