I know what the official weghts were the point was except Tarver all the other fighters had to come up in weight to fight him when he rated #1 in the division and then dosent fight for a year and still holds his place, when Hatton has what I think in general is a better resume than Bradley even though he lost to Pacquiao cause Bradley hasnt fought at that level or close to it before (Maywheather was at WW).
of course bradley should be higher, hatton is inactive and has'nt fought a LWW in well over a year plus he's past prime now... uncle rico: to answer your question id favour bradley now but prime hatton beats prime bradley!
cuz his american, but hatton should really be rated higher than bradley because he is a better fighter.
good post pal and i see where your coming from. i agree with big props to bradley if he takes on maidana as well. one point i do take exception too on here though are peoples descriptions of hatton v urango and hatton v lazcano. although they weren't great performances from hatton, people should go and check the scorecards from those 2 fights, they were virtual shutout wins for hatton - yet everyone likes to make out they were titanic struggles or something.
And you'll notice I agreed with that and said I wouldn't rate him #1 based on that record. I can't speak for anyone else, or why they have him rated as they do. I don't work for ring, I didn't design and don't own boxrec, and I don't have any say over their rankings. Please don't ask me about someone else's rankings, all I can do is point out that technically, according to the rules, the last 5 or 6 fights for B-hop have been light heavyweight fights, and people having been ranking him off of that work. Also, the Bradley-Campbell fight was not ruled a ND because of an illegal tactic, it was ruled that because of a headbutt and Campbell claiming he was injured, at least if I remember correctly. And for the record, I don't believe Hatton to be the best 140 pounder anymore. A year ago, sure. Two years ago, yeah. Today I feel that Bradley has earned that distinction with his recent work, and with the increasing evidence that Hatton is fading, and fading fast.
Please!!! Hatton would get the crap beaten out of him if he ever fought Bradley. Now or in his prime. As long as the fight would be away from England. The reason Hatton did so good was because he was fighting there. Once he came to the US he was crap. I was excited to see him fight for the first time here only to see a crude brawler who would clinch more than an MMA match.
The fight was as you say a ND due to a headbutt injury but headbutting is illegal to the sport and whether it was done intentionally or not, it took away an opportunity of a victory due to using too much rough house tactics. Im not convinced Hatton is the best 140 pounder or have said I think he is, what im saying is going with the names on the 2 respective fighters resumes and how they have won of late, I think Hatton even though he got KOd in 2 rounds by Pac (a level Bradley hasnt fought anywhere near so far) Hattons resume is better (Maywheather was at WW). This dosent mean I think he would or wouldnt beat Bradley, I just think a KO over Malignaggi (relinquished IBF champ), A KO over Castillo, a clear UD over Lazcano and a clear UD over undefeated Urango who was IBF champ and is now IBF champ again is better than being put down twice by Holt for a close UD, a split win over Witter (I had Bradley a close UD win), a ND against Campbell and a clear points win over an undefeated but untested fighter in Peterson
I agree with ranking Bradley over Hatton. H2H it would be a horrible match-up for Hatton. Prime 4 prime Bradley takes it imo. Bradley has beaten very good fighters lately and show s that he can be multi-demensional. Something that Hatton refuses to show. Straight up I think Holt KO's Hatton.
You're a idiot, Witter, Campbell, Holt were all better than Mallignaggi who was coming off 2 gifts, Petterson might have been better Hatton hasnt beat a top fighter in ages and his resume in the last 2 years is weak