http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=37495&cat=boxer :think I'm not so sure this one is though. I'd wager Peter Buckley giving him a more stern argument to be honest, watching it on ITV4 I found it amusing. One thing I don't understand..... Lenny Daws was also on the bill against somebody I'd not heard of, why not stick them against each other? Unless the pair are mates or something, but I'd imagine Daws would have been bang up for it, chance to knock a bigger name off his perch - decent payday also?
Yeah they were decent wins, Phillips was an excellent fighter, but he was older than Gods dog when Hatton fought him. I was at ringside for the Tackie fight and it was a fantastic boxing exhibition by Hatton, but Tackie has his limitations I don't think you should have to beat absolutely everyone before moving onwards, but I believe fighters should take on their main homeland rival, which was clealry Witter. Clear out Britains best then move onto the World scene Witter called out Hatton when JW won his title. Witters first choice was Hatton not Mora, it was Hatton who stopped the fight happening not Junior. Plus Ricky had the luxury of being able to pick and choose whatever fight he wanted because of his following and his profile, as we all know Junior didn't have that luxury Cheers for the post Beeston, I'm glad some people can construct and argument and debate without resorting to insults :good
I don't know if you are an alias, or have been on here in a different guise but if you are a noob just check back through some threads and see why I get pissed off when Witter is just used as a club to beat the Manc with...everytime Hatton is mentioned Witter gets dragged up, it gets tiresome, especially when we are not talking about the merits of Witter but the flaws in Hatton. Fair enough, the fight should and could have been made in 2000 - 2001 (Witter wins IMO), it didn't happen and both fighters took different routes, Witter the more traditional one...You are right when you say that at the beginning of 2007 the fight could also have been made, but wasn't (I would have had Hatton edging that)...money talked and Hatton took the path of least resistance all the way to pay dirt with Mayweather. So what, he put money above our curiosity, big deal...it wouldn't have been a career defining fight for Hatton, but it would have been for Witter...why risk losing the pot of gold just to define someone elses career They could make the fight now, and despite what happened to Junior last time out I think he has everything to stop Hatton, but would either of us like to watch two ghosts trying to prove a point that should have been made nearly a decade ago?
Hatton being discussed on Talksport right now if any of you guys fancy it. Discussing whether he was a great boxer or just a good one.
I'm not an alias of anyone, just a boxing fan who's new to this site. No offence, but I'm not going to be trailing through threads looking for 'why you get pissed off when Witter is just used as a club to beat the Manc with' It's impossible for me to comment on a thread titled 'Hatton Bashing' without bringing Junior into it as Hattons avoidance of Witter is my main gripe with him. I could have forgot about the 30 odd 'Cash-Cow' fights prior to Tszyu, if he'd have eventually took on Junior. There were far more opportunities for this fight to happen than just in 2000-2001, although there were some times when the 2 fighters were on different levels making the fight inpractical, but there were also numerous times when Hatton could have took the fight but chose not to in favour of lesser opponents from the far corners of the world. That (^^^) sums up the reasons why I'm no longer a Hatton fan. I don't like my boxers to take the path of least resistance to make the most money (I don't know a fan that does) . IMO it's an insult to the fans that have repeatedly turned up to watch him over the years and the people who tune in to watch him. Obviously he stepped up in time, but only when the money was astronomical. Spot on :good It's pointless them fighting each other now
Ok what is real? What do you think the point of boxing is? Is there any data that can correlate the need for such weight divisions? Why not 185, 190, 195, 200 Why not a 145 division now that cathweights have become the norm? Where do you rank Ricky Hatton in the 140 division in modern times...post 1960? Answer all this? No you will not, you will yet again dance around the subject, you will attempt to make it personal against me when it does not matter about me but the points that are being discussed. Its a repeat for you, your wish to let general public be fooled by great promotinal, and commercial fighters like Hatton is the ulitmate irony and the very fact this sport has not progressed like others.
Is there any data to correlate with what YOU think is right? It's an opinion, nobody needs any dumbass stats. Most people are happy with the weight classes for the most part, for the simple reason they are about right and pit same sized fighters against each other unless they choose to do otherwise. A few could be trimmed but to go back to the way you suggest would be ludicrous in the extreme. You talk about manufactured fighters but under your system perfectly good fighters would be penalised.
I havn't got personal with you, but why have you bothered to quote my post without addressing a single point in it? I don't have to justify extra weight divisions around 200lbs because thats not the point I'm making. Why do you bring it up all the time? The boundaries for the current weight divisions have been in place for many years in most cases and they are for the most part pretty well spaced out. Whats the point in a) moving them or b) cutting them out all together when from watching boxing you can see that 6-7lbs difference in natural weight can be too much for a lot of boxers to overcome? Forget Hatton and your attempts to "prove" he wasn't a good fighter by dropping his natural weight division, this is just about the fact that 10-15lbs inbetween weight divisions is too much. Again, if you're so bothered about too many titles then you should be concentrating on the governing bodies, not the weight divisions. As it stands though it just looks to me like you use it as tool to have a pop at fighters you don't like rather than being truly concered about the issue.
Thats because (bar the 145lb catchweight thing you mention, which I addressed) I couldn't find one that had anything to do with what I've said on this issue. I'm not going to defend your premise that anyone who is happy with the current divisions must automatically want more divisions at heavyweight. Because thats just a conclusion you've somehow come to, not me. The only statement I have to defend is that 10-15lbs difference inbetween divisions is too much for 130-160lb fighters.
This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
Gazoc one more, do you think Hatton would have been champion when these fighters were in there prime; I will help him and not list any fighters that were at 147. Only fighters around 135 or 140 at there best in the last 40 years. Jose Luis Ramirez Julio Cesar Chavez Oscar De La Hoya Shane Mosley Miguel Angel Gonzalez Pernell Whitaker Edwin Rosario Hector Camacho Aaron Pryor Antonio Cervantes Wilfred Benitez Esteban De Jesus Roberto Duran Alexis Arguello Ray Mancini Also I helped by not putting up a prime Kosta Tysyu or Manny Pacaman, and i stopped myself from putting down S. Sanchez as he was a featherweight......but i just know he would have done Hatton