With time past, does Hatton's loss to Pac still look as bad as it initially did?

It wasn't the loss that looked bad, it was the manner.

 

If Margarito fought like he did against Cotto against Pacquaio would have been a helluva fight.

 

I think he fought Pac at his prime weight at 140

 

It still looks as funny as it always did to me - a hype job, backed by largered up football fans who don't know **** all about the game, getting found out, again, when he faced a genuinely world level operator.

That moment was wonderfully redeeming for me. It showed that class will out in the end.

It's no shame for Hatton at all. It wasn't then and is no more or less now. His pathetic reaction (being ahead on the cards, ahem) was a bit of a let-down but that will be forgotten about and, in future years, the record will just show that he had two defeats against two of the best fighters who ever entered the ring. At least he stood up there unlike some British fighters currently in the public eye.

 

It still looks bad in the sense he got badly sparked and nobody else has been sparked. Beaten up and broken down, yes.

Also anyone that watches the fight again in 50 years time will be amazed at how ******ed Hatton's thinking was...how reckless he was.

 

At least Clottey respected his opponents ability and took prudent steps to ensure he wasn't decimated. He showed a bit of nous even if it made it dull. I wasn't too critical because being in the ring it will have been apparent to him he couldn't win and when he opened up he got hit with combinations. Thats his ring persona, to be fairly cautious and stout defensively, it was just exaggerated because of Pacquiao's ability and output.

Ricky obviously went in with the mindset that he was bigger and stronger and would run over Pacquiao which was poor logic and disrespectful really. Ricky was doing things he wouldn't even do against lesser fighters so that is very poor.

Anyway comparing him to Clottey doesn't mean much, Ricky is supposed to be much more accomplished. Clottey hasn't really won a big, big fight as yet.

 

They were all embarressed, I guess, but in a very different way. Three went the distance, the other was so far past his best that going eight was a success. None were sparked out like they'd just walked into a bullet train.

The other big difference is that de la Hoya had been there, done it and was at the bottom of the slide, Cotto had been near enough but was also on the way down, Clotty never was and Margarito has a tenuous record to say the least.

None of them claimed to be competing for the P4P title at the time! And none of them suffered only two defeats, the two times they stepped up to the very, very highest level - which is the point I made (in Hatton's favour).

 

JonOli, what is your opinion, would you swap Hatton's loss to Pacquiao for

A) Cotto's
B) Margarito's
C) Clottey's

 

It was the stupity of him that night that makes it worse. Plus fact is it actually says a lot when other guys hung in there with Pac for a lot longer and took a beating he just got KO'd with ease. I think if he tried to use his brain he could of brought himself into middle rounds and lost with some respectability but because he just went out silly he made it a lot worse then it should of been.