i think hatton would do well..he has something to prove after his poor showing against pacman, he always gets in good shape and has power.. if he fights the way he did at the start of the mayweather fight (before cortez ****ed him) we could all be in for a very good fight.
14 months is a long time when a boxers at the end of his career and you're comparing him with a fighter who's just reaching his peak. you said in that post 14 months ago that bradley was a clear #1 and hatton was #4 that was just after hatton demolished paulie who was the #1 contender at the time. which shows you were just a hatton hater then and now. i think hatton could still possibly still beat bradley now although he should retire.
Why are you even mentioning 14 months? Ricky's next and only ring appearance after that thread was created was six months after. He got humiliated. If you want to say he hit the wall and aged in that six months, OK (even though that's wrong, he had been barely a force to be reckoned with for some time by then and had almost always, like a trademark, jumped in recklessly as he did when Manny caught him) - but GTFO of here with talk of 14 months. Pumping up the "demolishing" of Paulie as evidence that Ricky was still a top head to head fighter at the time means either ignoring or flat out denying the circumstances surrounding Malignaggi's performance (horrible chemistry with McGirt; since rectified by a restructuring of his corner as demonstrated in his pair of very solid efforts against Diaz - either version of Paulie that fought Diaz doesn't struggle half as bad with a 2008 Ricky Hatton - that's not being a hater, that's recognizing the nuances of the sport). Throw away the Malignaggi win and Hatton's halcyon days at 140 are five years old. From Collazo on, the guy was riding his own coattails. Nothing he's done since 2006 stipulates a #1 ranking. Nothing. Meanwhile, Bradley has, since that thread's inception, resoundingly beaten Kendall Holt and Lamont Peterson (and seemed to be off to a great start against Campbell) - which alone trump all of Hatton's wins since '06 (generously ignoring his losses and their embarrassing nature). The claim that Bradley is the top dog in the division in a head to head sense (or that he had a better claim than Hatton, anyhow) was as true in November 2008 as it is today. :good
because you were refering to your thread - that you made 14 months ago. beating malignaggi who was the #1 contender at the time, more convincinly than cotto and then being the first person to stop him, being the first person to make p4p #8 at the time castillo hit the canvas and stopping him in 4 rounds and then comforatbly beating big punching urango (although not a great performance in the second half of the fight), are better wins than a witter who w3as worse than i've ever seen him, holt and peterson who is still unproven at world level. however i'm not going to argue that bradley shouldn't be #1 currently because hatton should retire and if he's not he needs to fight again, but you were saying bradley was #1 14 months ago when bradley's only two wins were a very poor witter and the p4p favourite edner cherry. and in that same thread you had hatton at #4 at 140 when his only loss was against pbf. do you really believe that paulie lost because of his corner? and that the paulie that fought diaz would do any better against hatton? lol I think its you that's "either ignoring or flat out denying the circumstances surrounding Malignaggi's performance" hatton beats paulie 10 times out 10 even now, on a bad night, the fight wasn't even competitive.
