Do you agree with this Hatton - Witter quote?

Both. If you ask boxing fans around at that time the direct question do they think Sibson avoided Graham you'll get a lot of "yesses", if you then ask them whether they think it was a big deal or if it affects how they view Sibsons career you'll get a lot of "no's", because he's accomplished more than enough in his career that one 'missing' fight isn't that a big deal.

But thats just saying again what I put in that first post which I thought was pretty easy to understand (whether you agree with it or not)....

 

People will be deluded to think Witter is never going to be mentioned in 20 years or however many years it takes for biographys and such to come to print. It is bound to be talked about in Hatton's rise to the top because it was a recurring theme, unless he specifically asks for it not be which wouldn't surprise me from such a devious energy.

It will be mentioned, and when people sit down and look at his career outside of a few fights they'll wonder why he didn't fight a WBC champion that was British. And yes, being British does matter. The 'If Witter was Australian' is as tired as old boots and makes no sense, because he's not Australian, and the best Brits have a proud history of fighting each other.

That's not to say Hatton's career is 'defined' by not fighting Witter, of course not, but it is part of the story.

 

Sibsons RECORD would look better with a win over Graham on it, theres no denying that but thats not the question being asked.

There are a lot of obvious parallels between the 2 situations, if you want to be awkward and pick out the differences then there are those too but its a very good example for the situation that Hatton will find himself in regarding Witter 20 years down the line.

 

I wasn't saying "never", of course both fighters will be mentioned each others full biographies. But when people are putting 1 and 2 pages pieces on Hatton for the general boxing history books, Witter will hardly figure in those just like Graham dosn't figure in Sibsons.

If people do ask why the fight didn't come off a quick comparision of who and where the two were fighting inbetween 2005 and 2009 should go some way to answering the question. Of course 2003-2004 is harder to justify but I still can't see it being as big an issue 20 years from now as some people would obviously like it to be.

 

A big issue or an issue in 20 years...its an issue

Now its a big issue because its current..time is a healer and all. We'll love Ricky in a few years.

 

Yep, Joe that was my point (sorry, I thought you'd turned into a grammar Nazi back there!!) theres a case for Sibson having ducked Graham thats every bit as strong as the case against Hatton for not fighting Witter.

The reasons given are also very similar but Sibsons is little easier to undertand because he'd lost to Hagler and time was running out on his career so had to choose his fights very carefully if he was going to get another world title shot and didn't need a fight against a young, awkward Brit whereas Hatton has had plenty of time/ opportunity to fight Witter around 2004 and chose not to do it for whatever reason(s), after 2005 is another matter IMHO though.

Either way both Sibbo and Hatton will "get away with it" in the fullness of time......

 

Nah, its fair enough after what happened at the Award Ceremony.

 

I think this post highlights why there is never going to agreement on this issue. Most of the Hatton fans on here would rather watch their fighter actively seek out the biggest and best challenges out there and be willing to take his show on the road to do it. As Hatton showed the appetite to do and Witter never did. The detractors are more interested in banging on about fights which may have had interesting little sub-plots but are the next best thing to irrelevant in the wider picture of the sport's history.

I personally think that it is delusional to think that Witter is going to be mentioned as anything other than a footnote in Hatton's history, or that of boxing. As I said on another thread when Doug Fischer or Steve Farhood review Ricky Hatton in 20 years are they really going to think another reasonable "champ for a day" type fighter is such a big deal. As Gaz said, in a large scale biography of Hatton, he might rate a mention. In a one or two page article, no chance. By contrast, if anyone cares enough about Witter to write an article about him in 10-15 years' time, you can guarantee that Hatton will be the recurring theme of the article. That tells us a lot about which one has actually gone out of his way to test himself and make his own career. Witter let his career happen to him. Hatton went out and made his.

The fact that a couple of dozen loons on the internet have chosen to use this one particular issue as a stick to try and beat Hatton over the head with does not mean that in the grand scheme of things it will be seen as any kind of big issue. Real boxing fans know that if it wasn't him it would be somebody else. Haters are never satsified and I've never yet known one admit he was wrong.

 

No more so than the "real boxing fans" bollocks we hear spouted from certain other members of this board on a regular basis as a convenient way to dismiss the views of all who disagree with them

 

It's always the sign of a weak argument when someone has to resort to building in cheap digs about ring posts and the like. Basically, annihilated or not, Witter has never dared to leave the cosy confines of the Doncaster dome, take his gloves and fight someone of that level. That is why he will be forgotten. Hatton may be partially remembered for those fights and why not, they were two of the biggest British sporting events of the decade, but he will also be remembered for many of his biggest victories as well and deservedly so.

 

[quote="TKO";4300552]It's always the sign of a weak argument when someone has to resort to building in cheap digs about ring posts[/quote]

Weak argument or not its still funny

Witter has never left the Dome because to be honest he isn't good enough to take on the likes of Mayweather and Pac....but then again neither was Ricky Hatton. Which set of fans feels the more ripped off?

 

Well, I suppose it has to be Hatton's by default as I'm not sure that Witter actually has any fans. However, if he did then I think it's safe to say those who paid to watch the track meet Judah would have to take the nod. However, I've ceased to take this seriously as a constructive debate at this point. So now not having the balls to test yourself against the top guys is a good thing because at least the fans won't feel ripped off if you lose? Dear god, talk about twisting things. I honestly think some of you guys could sell ice cubes to TFFP!

However, why on earth would anyone feel ripped off? This isn;t horse racing or football (the way it's going these days) where it's full of corporates only there for a bit of entertainment and the prawn sandwiches. Hatton's fans go to cheer him on to win the fight and 45 times out of 47 they've gone home happy. You pays your money you takes your chances. As long as your fighter gives it his all and puts in the effort, nobody should feel ripped off. Plus, Hatton gave it a damn good effort for the first six against Mayweather. Admittedly he got flattened against Pac and fair play, but as a Hatton fan that's credit to how good Pac is. I;ve enjoyed watching him give it a shot far more than watching Junior Witter knock over another stiff at Donny Dome.