How come Bradley is rated higher than Hatton?

I cant really understand why Bradley is rated higher than Hatton. Yes I know Hatton has been KOd twice with the 2nd time being early, but with the competition both have fought and the names on there records I still cant really make out why, when Hattons got names like Collazo (might not count being in a higher division), Urango, Tszyu, Malignaggi, Castillo and Maussa, over Witter, Holt and Peterson and Campbell on Bradleys record.
Im no fan at all of Hattons but dont think he should at this time be rated below Bradley (a good fighter all the same) at this stage. Bradley hasnt fought at the level of Maywheather and Pacquiao yet and it cant be because he hasnt fought just recently otherwise people like Hopkins who dosent tend to fight many people in his current division and who didnt fight for a year would also drop in the rankings.
So please someone with a sensible answer tell me why you think Bradley should be rated higher than Hatton at this stage.

 

Ive never rated Hatton and wouldnt bet confidently either way on who I think would win, I could see a case for both, but Hatton has better names on his resume at LWW than Bradley. I dont think a good win over Witter, a win over an undefeated but untested Peterson, a close win over Holt who had been KOd, and a win over an old but good LW rates better than a win over now IBF champ Urango and a win over then relinquished IBF champ Malignaggi (only time he has been stopped), a win by 4th round KO over Castillo, and the old win over Tsyzu.
I just dont think when you get a guy like Hopkins whos only ever beat one world class LHW and fought alot of smaller guys yet can still be rated higher than say Dawson by some ratings you can say Bradley who has not fought in the same league overall as Hatton can be rated higher at LWW, Ratings should be based on results not who we think would win shouldnt they?