Hamed or Hatton ? who was better?

are those to guys in the hof yet ?

 

As if Hatton wasn't hugely flawed? Hamed at least had the equalizer with his power, which would aid him in springing a possible upset against certain top level fighters. Hatton didn't. I'm not so sure Hatton had the better resume, either, though he may've had the best single win.

 

I'd add Hamed would spark Hatton even at 140, seriously Hatton was running from Hamed-light in Witter. And I know Hamed was harder hitting on the pads than Witter so yes his powers carrying up and noway Hatton would handle those angles

 

For me, Hatton was reasonably solid and effective within his style, he was a good fighter at light-welter. He beat some legitimate top 10 guys as well as Tszyu (Urango, Malignaggi, Collazo), and only ever lost to the p4p#1's.

I always viewed Hamed as a circus act waiting to be exposed. His power was insane, but his overall game was weak, he had no fundamentals and was always going to be easily outboxed by the first fighter he faced who was smart enough to recognize that.

A microcosm of this debate is: Hatton stopped his HOF opponent, Hamed was soundly outfought by his. When the chips were down, Hatton delivered and Hamed did not.

 

Hatton has the better wins resume....

 

There is going to be an obvious retort to that though.

But Hatton's will, conditioning and popularity and likeability outside the ring took him right to the edge of his talents. And gave him opportunities most British fighters could never have dreamed of.

He made the most of what he had, in the short time he had it. He is going to be looked upon favourably by British boxing historians in the coming years because of this.

 

Imagine if it had been a 140 sibson in there with Kostya.The brutality inflicted on the Russian would have been horrific to behold.

to be serious for a second though, i do tend to think Hamed would have given a better performance had he been fighting earlier in his career, or in his first title shot like hatton.By the time he fought Barrera, in his own deluded mind he had been "the man" and champion for a while by then, with poor tranings habits and general lethargy setting in for a few years prior to losing.NOt that i agree with those who say he was shot or anything, but i do agree he was in decline9partly because of the feasting on mediocre fighters really).

Now he was always notably flawed, and i'd make Barrera a favourite over him much more often than not as long as he sticks to controlled, minimalist boxing rather than his earlier more open style, but the two fights aren't THAT comparable imo.

Both are among the most overestimated British fighters ever for me.Hatton is kind of Britain's Gianfranco Rosi to, an ugly overachieving hard working spoiler who often enjoyed beneficial home country reffing, only Rosi was cuter and better imo.At his peak a decent workmanlike 140lber, who became very ordinary after his forays up to Welter and with all the ballooning up and down in weight no doubt shortening his prime.

Hamed i put a notch below Danny Lopez.As effective pure punchers go, he was a good, highly dangerous fighter who can't be treated with disdain for 95% of Feathers.Though i think he would be soundly defeated by many of the better featherweights throughout history, almost all would need to be disciplined and respectful.

As the supposed huge talent that could have been great thing goes, i think he was a bust.Never saw that kind of ability in him in the first place though.Sad thing is it's not as if he needed to be MUCH more fundamentally sound or superbly skilled to be really formidable with that equalizer.A Herol Graham level of technical skill would have been enough to see off the likes of Marco, but Hamed never seemed like he wanted to put the work in to round out his footwork and textbok offensive knowledge even to that level.Instead he steadily regressed as a fighter

 

Hamed was much better I think.

 

Nicely said

Hatton did well with his career, Hamed messed his up.

Also Hatton fought Kosta Tzyu at the right time, Hamed fought MAB while he was on his way down and MAB was on his way up.

At least Hamed wasnt KTFO...twice

On a serious note i like both guys, much more than Calzaghe

 

The 21 yr old Naz was outstanding, brilliant reflexes, speed & power.... he relied too much on power in his later yrs & lost his best attribute - reflexes.

Hamed could have become 1 of the greatest fighters of all time IMO, Hatton couldnt have judging him even on his best night.

 

:?

Are you forgetting something? Or two things?

 

A peak Barrera > any version of Tszyu tho (especially the past prime version)

 

Very good post.

 

Hatton in his prime was a lot morefamous than Calzaghe in his prime. For a long time Calzaghe was known in America as a fighter who was doin well at home, whereas Hatton had a following in Mexico and one of the strongest beer guzzling UK followings that an English fighter has had in many a year. I remember this like it was yesterday, they called Hatton the white Mexican in Mexico because of his fighting style. It's oe thing to dispute how good he was, and i'll agree, but you can't deny how famous Hatton was. Much more popular than a prime Calzaghe.

 

Two guys who promised a lot more than they delivered. Still,what they delivered was n't too bad in itself. As much as I hate to admit it,as I think Hatton's basically a nice bloke,and Hamed acted like a right ***** at times,but Naseem had a longer reign,and possessed more all round skills.