10 year anniversary of the best win of the 2000's. Floyd Mayweather, Jr (38-0) vs Ricky Hatton 43-0

Although one of my favourite fighters lost, although one of the Boxers i disliked the most won, although my man got knocked out by that turd and although the ref may aswell of been Roger Mayweather it was overall from build up, to promotion, to pressers, to the weigh in especially, to the end of the fight a hell of an event.

 

The single greatest victory of the 21st century is Marquez KO6 Pacquiao.

This was a great performance, though, and a somewhat underrated win. I was thinking about the anniversary yesterday, couldn't quite believe ten years had passed - my recall of the promotion and the fight are so vivid, it all feels like yesterday.

I'd say that Hatton was much more of a stylistic test than Corrales. Not an easy man to fight at all, fast feet and a brilliant combination puncher on the inside. Floyd needed (and aptly demonstrated) the full range of his skills for this one. Ricky brought a real veteran's performance out of Floyd, made him work through a problem methodically, whereas Corrales allowed for a virtuoso display.

6-6 even on my scorecard, with the early knockdown granting Hatton the narrowest of victories.

To men of a similar size, which Mayweather was, prime Hatton was a very challenging stylistic proposition. Big welterweights cancelled out the physical advantage that Hatton's style significantly predicated on, and that's what we saw in the Collazo fight (although, FWIW, the majority have Hatton winning that one whenever there's a poll).

Hatton was much more dangerous than Gatti, which is why you saw a methodical performance from Floyd as opposed to a virtuoso one. Floyd could do whatever he wanted with Arturo, but he had to work through Hatton.

Mayweather defeated the better version of Hatton, which Hatton himself acknowledges when questioned on the matter. Pacquiao got a dilute version and dealt with him in style. Mayweather got the real deal and demonstrated a broad palette of skills to thoroughly deconstruct him.

 

This right here. Collazo was knocked down and lost every round against a faded Mosley 6 months later; he was never an elite fighter. Hatton struggled against him badly. Hatton was never elite himself and if this is Floyd's best win, what does that say about his resume?

 

So, if this unnuanced, triangle-based logic is failproof, how is it that Floyd dominated faded Mosley (who was arguably better under Richardson than in his last four fights with his father) and was given a more challenging fight by Hatton? I'm aware that Mosley went the distance with Floyd and hurt him in the 2nd, but that doesn't really count for much, given that Mosley is known for extreme durability and a big punch and was being walked down by Floyd by the end of the very same round in which he had him rocked. Excepting Shane's sixty fleeting seconds of success, Ricky gave Floyd much more of a test.

 

Shane was a 3-4 round fighter at the point, Hatton at least had a gas tank. Since Floyd has effectively no power above 135 pounds, Hatton lasted some rounds against Mayweather. Still it shows how open Hatton was defensively since it is one of the only wins by knockout Mayweather had at WW.

If Mayweather was fighting a prime version of Mosley, he probably gets knocked out in that round. You could see that Mosley was already winded by the end of the second round. You can't compare a fighter in their prime (Hatton) against a guy who is shot (Mosley) when they fought Mayweather.

 

Hatton didn't just last some rounds, he was very competitive and took rounds on a lot of scorecards.

On what do you base "a 3-4 round fighter"? Prior to facing Floyd, Shane had battered Tony into the 9th, stopped Mayorga in the 12th and had come on late against Cotto.

It shows how good Mayweather was at breaking down a problematic style. Mayweather demonstrated a nuanced range of skill to undermine Hatton's foundations and soften him up, culminating in the neck-snapping jab festival he put on in the 9th.

Even if true, that's beside the point. We're discussing your triangle-based logic for diminishing Hatton - if Hatton is poor because Collazo gave him a good fight before being handily beaten by Mosley, how is it that Hatton tested Mayweather more sternly than Shane did?

 

Margarito lost his loaded gloves and that seemed to take the steam out of his sail against Mosley. I'm also not 100% certain but there was VADA testing for his fight against Mayweather, was there for his fight against Margarito and Mayorga? Shane is an admitted PED cheat, so I'm guessing not being on PEDs hurt Mosley at 39 years old. Besides beating Mayorga and Margarito were not really great feats, both fighters were at speed/skill disadvantages against Mosley.

Hatton didn't have a problematic style. He had good footspeed but he never really had a plan B against Mayweather. He was competitive for about 3-4 rounds before his leaky defense started to let him down against Mayweather. Judah was competitive against Mayweather too, so what? Neither one came close to winning. And I'd argue that Mosley came closer than both of those guys to winning the fight since he almost K Mayweather TFO

If Hatton had a problematic style, he wouldn't have needed the ref from saving him from getting KTFO in his next fight against journeymen Lightweight Juan Lazcano.

Again, Hatton was in his prime against Mayweather, Mosley clearly wasn't at 39 years old. Mosley didn't win as many rounds as Hatton but he had Mayweather out on his feet. Hatton never hurt Mayweather and that was Hatton in his absolute prime. A primer version of Mosley probably stops Mayweather, the shot, PED-less one couldn't do it.

 

This is all highly speculative.

Though it's an incidental point, since the issue is your claim that Shane was a "3-4 round fighter" at that stage of his career, this may give you some food for thought on the matter of "loaded gloves";
[url]https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/hbo-miguel-Ángel-cotto-vs-sadam-ali-rey-vargas-vs-oscar-negrete-rbr.598035/page-27#post-18907485[/url]

I wouldn't tout them as great feats necessarily, but they certainly disprove any notion that Mosley was a "3-4 round fighter" in his later career.

It's unreasonable to claim that Mosley was a "3-4 round fighter" and then dismiss examples to the contrary by citing a speed/skill differential between Mosley and his opponents - if he was a "3-4 round fighter", his speed advantage would surely have diminished and his skills have become blunted by the later rounds of those fights.

He came on late against Cotto, too, who can't be described as an unskilled or slow fighter.

Hatton was a stylistically horrible guy to fight, Plan B or no Plan B. This is no secret.

Floyd had the tools to negate the stylistic trouble Hatton presented and showed him a high degree of strategic respect in doing so.

It wasn't until the second half of the fight that Hatton began to sag from the accumulation of careful investments by Mayweather. Floyd was able to take over and start unloading around the 8th.

Again, we're talking about your triangle-based logic for diminishing Hatton. It makes no sense to diminish Ricky via a Old Mosley > Collazo > Hatton triangulation when Hatton gave Mayweather a better fight than Old Mosley.

He didn't even drop Floyd, let alone come close to ending him. Mayweather was shelled up for all of 10-15 seconds. After that, he was walking Shane down for the remaining minute of the round.

Shane had sixty seconds of success against Mayweather, located in the middle minute of round 2. After that, he was pretty much a mobile heavybag who spent the remaining rounds getting hit and looking increasingly confused and forlorn.

Lazcano buzzed Hatton with a left hook, but Ricky was nowhere close to being stopped.

Hatton looked jaded and diminished in the Lazcano fight, but still won handily and barely lost a round. If one's aim is to diminish the Hatton that Mayweather fought, Hatton-Lazcano is a blunt sword in the arsenal.

Again, that's not the argument. We're talking about the logic of diminishing Ricky via an Old Mosley > Collazo > Hatton triangulation.

Mosley was past his prime when he fought Collazo, too. Past prime Shane is the Shane we were discussing from the very beginning of our exchange.

Hatton gave Mayweather a better fight than Old Mosley, which invalidates the Old Mosley > Collazo > Hatton triangulation.

Even if this were true (it's more an exaggeration), Mosley's success lasted all of sixty seconds in the middle of round 2. He was lost at sea for the remainder of the fight.

This is true. Hatton did, however, give Mayweather an overall much better fight than Mosley.

Again, this is irrelevant, because the argument isn't Prime Floyd Vs. Prime Shane: Who Ya Got? or Who's Better? Prime Shane Or Prime Hatton?

We were discussing Old Shane from the very beginning. Old Shane is the Shane you mentioned in your triangulation. I'm discussing your specifications, whereas you have strayed away from them in attempting to defend your original reasoning for minimizing Hatton's quality as an opponent.

To clarify, of course a prime Shane Mosley is a more valuable scalp than a prime Ricky Hatton. However, that doesn't mean a prime Ricky Hatton is not a very good scalp. The Old Mosley > Collazo > Hatton triangulation is flawed as a means of diminishing prime Hatton's value to a top fighter's résumé.

 

Point #1 Mosley didn't have his PEDs for Mayweather and was 39 years old. He wasn't able to sustain any attack for longer than 30 seconds. It was why he couldn't follow up on knocking Mayweather out. He fought in spurts the rest of the fight, a common theme for shot Mosley. You saw it against Canelo and Pacquaio too. Mosley also fought Cotto/Collazo in 2007, he fought Mayweather in 2010. The difference between being 36 and 39 is huge in boxing, it's not like the difference between being 24-27.

Point #2 Hatton was not a stylistic problem for Mayweather, beyond being able to get inside and maul him (which is illegal BTW). All it did was get him timed and knocked out by Mayweather. A stylistic problem to Mayweather was a guy like DLH, not Hatton.

Point #3 Laczano hurt Hatton badly in tenth and the ref stopped the fight so he could tie his shoes or something stupid. We don't know what would have happened because Hatton was on home turf and was saved by the ref. Laczano also hurt Hatton in the eighth. It just shows what level Hatton was operating at, he was never an elite fighter. Do you think Crawford would struggle with a guy like Laczano?

I guess I could give you the triangle theory since Hatton won more rounds than shot Mosley but at the end of the day, Hatton was nothing more than a B level fighter. Mayweather's win is nowhere near one of the best of the 2000's. Hell, Hatton is probably like #5 on Mayweather's resume, which is sad for a guy who claims TBE.

 

That's just speculation, though.

Your statement, btw, was that Mosley was a "3-4 round fighter" in his later years. Are you now stating that he was a "3-4 round fighter" only for the Mayweather fight (due to diminished access to PEDs)? The goalposts keep shifting.

The Mosley-Margarito, Mosley-Mayweather, Mosley-Pacquiao fights are all very different types of fight.

Mosley's energy drained quickly in rounds against Floyd, as compared to his seemingly boundless reserves of it against Margarito, because (and this is no secret) nervous energy saps you quicker. It was widely observed that Shane was a bundle of nervous energy against Floyd. A good feint game (which was never one of Margarito's strengths) can do that to a guy. Not to mention that Floyd was digging to the body with precision.

Shane wasn't shot when he fought Mayweather. He was past his prime, certainly well on the downside of it, as he was when he boxed Cotto, Mayorga and Margarito. There's a case to be argued that he'd enjoyed some revitalization under Richardson, by comparison to the last few fights with his father at the helm, or you can argue that Margarito made it seem that way. But whichever way you look at it, Mosley wasn't a spent force.

By the time he fought Canelo, he was pretty much done. There's a better case for him being close to shot there.


Just out of interest, what do you think a prime Mosley would have done differently when he had Floyd against the ropes after buzzing him? Are we giving Mayweather's defensive nous and awareness while hurt no credit at all?

And yet, Floyd treated Hatton with a great deal of strategic respect.

Why didn't he just whoop him at will like he did Gatti? You endorsed the Hatton/Gatti parallel, after all.

Looks like a huge chunk of boxing's centuries-old history is illegal, then.

In the 10th round, after he'd broken Hatton down and punched some steam out of his sails. Notice he tried that check left hook more than once earlier in the fight and wasn't able to get as precise a timing on it.

De La Hoya did, indeed, present stylistic challenges to Mayweather, ones that he was able to work through. That doesn't mean Hatton didn't present stylistic challenges of his own, which Mayweather also worked through with the help of a deep and broad skillset.

Be that as it may, hyperbole aside, Hatton was nowhere close to being "KTFO".

What it shows is that Hatton's resistance to punches had started to give way after a run of fights fought in an attritional style that culminated with a punishing stoppage loss to Mayweather. Hatton himself stated that his ability to absorb punches was compromised after the run that peaked with his bout against Mayweather.

Crawford hasn't fought Juan Lazcano after being deconstructed and knocked out at the culminating point of a career defined by attritional combat.

Ricky defeated legitimate junior welterweights, guys much better than Juan Lazcano, on his run toward Mayweather. Lazcano is a nonfactor, a side issue.

I don't think it's the best single win of that decade, but it deserves to be in the conversation.

Ricky was about a B+ guy at his best. His style was built to be most effective against men of a similar size (which Floyd was), and that's a big part of why Billy Graham never liked the Collazo fight for Ricky. Having said that, most observers still had Hatton winning that fight, which shows you that he still possessed a significant degree of capability even when stripped of the size/strength advantage.

Here, it seems, we get to the real issue.

I understand that you have an axe to grind with Floyd which accounts for an urge to diminish and belittle Ricky. But that kind of entrenched and astigmatic position isn't conducive to honest, rewarding discussion.

 

Mosley fought Mayweather 15 months after he beat Margarito. Is it possible he got old in that time? Well I'd say so given his performance against Mayweather and other fighters post that win. Mosley was shot by the time he fought Mayweather, he had next to zero stamina. I don't think that is even debatable.

If it was prime Mosley and he hurt Mayweather he probably drops a combo on Mayweather while Mayweather was on the ropes. Do you remember Mosley in his prime? He had some of the fastest hands in boxing and he was able to punch in combination. He couldn't do that by the time he fought Mayweather at 39. And he still almost knocked Floyd out.

I never compared Gatti to Hatton. Hatton was better than Gatti or at least he was when he fought Mayweather. Gatti had been put through the grinder before fighting Mayweather and he never had success against pure boxers.

You still seem to want to give Hatton a pass on Laczano as though Mayweather ruined him. It could be that Hatton was never that good, beyond beating an aging Zoo whom he went life and death with. Zoo retired after that fight as I'm sure you know.

Yes Crawford didn't fight Laczano after being KO'd because he wouldn't be knocked out by a safety-first fighter like Mayweather. And he would never struggle with that level of opponent in Laczano.

I have no ax to grind with Mayweather. He is a first ballot Hall-of-Famer but beating Hatton doesn't mean much. Would you really take Hatton over any of the top welterweights at the time: Paul Williams, Antonio Margarito, Miguel Cotto, Manny Pacquaio, faded Mosley? I sure as hell wouldn't.

 

TKO6

 

While you guys are discussing Mosley at length. How about Vernon Forrest's win over undefeated Shane Mosley? That was clearly a better win than Mayweather KO Hatton. It's even far beyond any win Mayweather ever had in his entire career.