Hatton clinches... but what about Hopkins?

In response to the recent thread and the constant bleatings from the resident kindergarten noobs, lets take some time to analyse why Hatton is criticised for his hit and hold technique.

First off let me start by saying I respect all boxers, even if some outside the ring are bad for the sport and generally idiots, but Hatton and Hopkins are two guys I've followed for quite some time and I think there are some parallels that can be drawn.

Hatton is much maligned for his hit and hold and you wont hear an arguement from me to say this is a false claim, I have no issue with that... what I do have issue with is the sheer hypocrisy of some of the (so called) fans of boxing who take every opportunity to berate him for it. Is it justified?

Personally I dont feel it is. While Hatton (since the KT fight) has done his fair share of this in fights over recent years it has been a hot topic... so what of Hopkins? I'm sure most here saw his bore fest against the recently retired Joe Calzaghe? What are peoples thoughts to him initiating 176 illegal clinches and not one point deduction and barely a mention on the boards?

Hatton and Hopkins are both guilty of clinching, however Hatton is the more global fighter (sorry if some dont agree with this) and as such maybe more open to fan scrutiny. That's one aspect, the other is that while some say Hatton is a dirty fighter (which I agree to an extent), Hopkins has made a career out of it. Consider the following: When you watch Hatton his fouling is somewhat obvious is it not? He clinches and mauls his opponents and wears them down this way, it's not subtle, but it's effective for him and has worked on a number of very good fighters. Hopkins is the flip side of this, he's accute and subtle with his fouling, turning it into an almost art form where he varies his fouls from leading with the head, using elbows on the inside, clinching and generally anything he can get away with.

My question is, how can Hatton be singled out for this when Hopkins breaks almost every rule in the book in varied manners to win fights? Is it okay for one to do it and do it more, but not the other? Again, going back to the Calzaghe fight... 176 clinches, low blows, faking low blows, leading with the head... Hopkins maybe an ATG, but I just wish some of you on here would take the rose tinted glasses off and wake up a bit. Hatton clinches, but there are boxers much more guilty of this...

It leads me to another point though, do people actually watch fights take place or go via heresay? Reason I ask is that Hopkins fouling is obvious to most people who follow boxing and have any knowledge of the sport, but it must go pretty unnoticed for there not to be multiple daily threads regarding it?

 

He's never been in a war, he's lived a clean life, he's still boxing and he just totally schooled pavlik and initiated less than half the clinches... so now we have that out the way feel free to offer some intelligent debate. Thanks

Scurla - fair enough, you dislike Hatton for some reason, but how about giving some reasoning, Hopkins being an ATG isn't justification for 176 clinches in a fight. Roy Jones Junior is an ATG and on the wrong side of 40, he didn't hang on to Calzaghe 176 times. Question is, why when Hopkins fouls more do people accept it? Being an ATG is not an answer...

 

On balance they are both guilty, but to say either has done it in all their fights shows a lack of boxing knowledge. You may remove yourself to the lounge.

Ideally this would work better if people actually had a point they wanted to make and not just take cheap shots at guys who put their lives on the line for our mere entertainment.