Greater/Better: Tszyu or Hamed

Apologies --- I didn't realize 150 words was too much for you to process. That explains a lot. Get ready, though, because this one's closer to 200.

Since you're struggling with the specifics of Tszyu's win column, here's something that can help:
https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/004388

Now, let's clarify something - What argument of mine do you think you're 'destroying,' exactly?

My only argument against you was your shallow and biased take on the Tszyu/Judah fight, and I've already dismantled that. Instead of addressing this, you've pivoted to making a case for Hamed and demanding I defend Tszyu's résumé in exhaustive detail. Anything I've said about Hamed since has been a direct response to you, not because I felt compelled to shift focus or justify my preference for Tszyu.

To reiterate - I favor Tszyu, and I've already explained why. If you need further specifics, the link above and numerous comments in this thread offer plenty of insight into why Tszyu's résumé more than holds up. Meanwhile, your take on Tszyu/Judah remains unsupported and reductive --- exactly the critique I raised with you from the start.

 

Once again, zero names discussed. Just a bunch of twaddle because you now realize that Hamed has a notably better resume than the guy who beat Zab and a one legged Mitchell but got ko'd at his peak and lost his titles again by quitting.

 

He's being compared to Tszyu who never avenged anything.

 

One day, you might learn not to give in to your temptation to act like a moron.

 

hamed by a pretty long way.

hatton can be compared to tszyu. hamed was the next level up.

 

1. Hatton's best win is better (Tszyu).
2. Hatton is a two division champion.
3. Both have similar depth, but Tsyzu lasted longer.
4. Hatton had the balls to fight the best of his generation.

 

And lost those 5 titles by the time he fought Naz, I ask again, when did Naz ever beat a fighter ranked no.1 by the ring magazine by the time Naz fought them aside from Johnson?

 

That's a completely different question than the one you asked. And Medina had not lost five belts before fighting Hamed.

 

I’d say my point more is that we generally don’t overlook overlook flaws like a weak chin or penchant for getting cut or having little or no power when contemplating matches or careers, but (especially with certain fighters like Duran or Tyson to name two) some people overlook lack of dedication in a sport that absolutely demands it to stay successful and consistent. I don’t buy the asterisk with ‘didn’t train hard’ behind it as an excuse for losing — it’s a flaw that’s just as real as an inability to take a punch. To me, it’s like ignoring that Ken Norton had trouble with big punchers.

If you’re a professional accountant, you’d better be doing your math right 100% of the time. If you’re a professional baseball pitcher who throws 99 mph, you don’t guy a bye because every 10th start you didn’t feel like throwing hard and instead just lobbed it over the plate.

If you’re a professional fighter, your job includes training and preparing. Not doing that is as much of a mark against a boxer as any other flaw — it’s a knock on them as a professional that has to be assessed. If Hamed didn’t train, I don’t give him a pass.

It also assumes that the winner didn’t have any issues going, that the winner is always 100% physically and mentally. If Mike Tyson had knocked out Buster Douglas, nobody today would be debating that Buster should get a pass because his mother died … he overcame that tragic moment in his life and turned it into a positive. Yet Mike gets an excuse when he actually has no excuse for not being prepared to defend the heavyweight championship of the world, if, indeed, he wasn’t.

 

Prime Tszyu was a level above Hatton and, overall, he has a greater rating.

Hatton spent 80% of his career languishing under the governing domain of the WBU. He came good against Tszyu at the right time - but Hatton would never repeat that level of performance again.

There's little similarity in depth of résumé, either. Despite his 48 bouts, Hatton only has three legitimate title fights at light welterweight, i.e., fights for one of the major titles, going 3-0, and only two at welterweight, going 1-1. That's 4-1 overall.

And this could easily have been 0-2 at welterweight, given the shocking performance he gave against Collazo. Suffice to say that Hatton was unconvincing at 147.

[Incidentally, Zab Judah had a light welterweight title fight record of 6-0 going into the Tszyu bout and would later be Ring welterweight champion for a while.]

Hatton is 6-2 against Ring-rated competition. Tszyu is 11-1 against the same.

Unlike Tszyu, Hatton never became the undisputed light welterweight champ and vacated both the WBA and IBF belts to facilitate his path to riches (Mayweather). He also failed to meet his domestic rival, Junior Witter, who, for a short spell during 2007–08, happened to be The Ring's number one contender.

[Incidentally, Zab Judah beat Witter rather handily --- away from home.]

Hatton dined out on his Tszyu win for a few years and made a potload of cash in the process, to which I say "Good for him." But even a cursory look at Hatton's record is enough to see that there's not a heck of a lot more to talk about beyond the Tszyu win.

 

And out come the names and stats once Zoo isn't compared to Hamed.

And LOL at 11-1 bc Vince Phillips wasn't rated.

 

Oh - you mean like Hamed's going 8-1 against Ring-rated competition (much closer to Hatton than Tszyu)?

Vince Phillips wasn't rated, but Hatton was.

 

TelIl us about more about how Hatton's 6-2 is worse when he lost to the two best fighters of the century whereas Zoo lost to Phillips and...Hatton.

Tell us who Zoo actually beat other than Zab.