Did Ricky Hatton deserved his 2 fights against P4P #1 boxers?

If he didn't deserve them the #1 P4P guys wouldn't have considered him as an opponent.

Voted yes.

 

Yes, i think KT was the man when Ricky beat him. Kostya had been away for a long time; however, many thought Sharmba would trouble or beat him, and KT obliterated him.

Coming into the fight KT was the favorite.

Ricky did not lose after that, made some good 140 defenses, was undefeated when he fought Mayweather (gave him some trouble early too)

Never lost @ 140 when he faced Pac.

Don't forget the huge following "$$$" he brought to the table as well. That's a big part of the consideration.

 

Yep, thats all.

 

I voted Yes, Hatton was 43-0 when he fought floyd, and was lineal champ at 140......

and when he fought pac, pac was moving up to 140, so it just made since that manny would fight the lineal champ at 140, Hatton.....

 

Yes.

He was undefeated, linear champ at 140 and a world title holder at 147, when he fought Floyd.

Pacquaio was moving up to challenge Hatton. Not the other way around.

 

hmm says... both of them brought him back to reality.

 

Hatton was the best at 140.

And boxing is entertainment. Hatton got that fan favourite quality.

 

rjj was # for # and fought a bunch of tomato cans. they fought him because they could make a lot of money, and thought they could beat him.

Paul Williams deserves a shot, and Pac and Mayweather don't talk about him.

anyway, that said, ricky did deserve a shot for the reasons mentioned in earlier responses.

 

RJJ fought nothing but champions at Light heavyweight and #1 contenders, all this talk about him fighting tomato cans comes from people that don't know jack**** about rankings and how things were back then.

 

Pac was moving down.

 

hmm says... reality that he doesn't have what it takes to be p4p #1 like he thought he would be.

 

Pac was moving down from the Delahoya fight yes, but he was moving up from the division where he was a champion