If Hatton Had beaten PBF should he of then been p4p no1?

Yes, he was already like 5 or 6 P4P and beating the P4P#1 at a weight class higher would have certainly given him a case for being considered the top fighter.

 

he wasnt #1 P4P?
who was?

and yes if he beat floyd he earns that title

 

he would have earned with a floyd win, but not with a pac win.

 

Hatton doesn't have the boxing skills to be P4P No.1.

 

he went face first into a ****ing ringpost..

why is this even a thread??

 

Yes, he would've done. They're similar size at this age.

140, 147. doesn't matter. PBF would've always won that fight - and by then it was probably fair to say he was a natural light-welter. That and the Tszyu win plus a title in another weight class (please, please, please someone tell me what seven rounds Collazo won in that fight for him to have won. He didn't. end of, as far as I'm concerned) would've been enough.

Fact is, P4P, RJJ and PBF are the best of the past 10-15 years, even including Whittaker. Lewis, Holyfield, BHop and possibly Toney are the other genuine greats of this timeframe.

 

without a doubt he would have been #1 P4P

 

Hatton haters will say no and Hatton fans will say yes. For me the P4P no 1 spot is earned based on who you beat so I dont agree with this nonsense that Hatton does not have the skills to be considered No 1.

 

Hatton would have to defeat Christ, in heaven, by first round KO, with Joe Cortez as ref in order to break into most ESBers top 10.

 

Yes. Against FLoyd he would have beaten someone his size against Manny he is beating a smaller guy

 

Fair-ish... Hatton has done himself no favours by saying his strength (which implies, albeit doesn't necessarily mean, his size, is going to be the difference).

But I've said it in other threads, and I'll say it here, should Hatton win (and I believe, though would not bet huge money on that), please don't take that win away from him.

Critics did that with Tszyu, which was fcuking bollox

 

Does that mean that BHOP should never have been considered P4P no.1 of the back of his wins with Tito and Oscar?

 

When did longevity get taken away from the p4p argument?

Calzaghe is far from my fave British fighter of the past 20 years (and I do bias UK fighters, though in my defence that does help us win a fortune when the likes of Lewis and Naz get treated as sub-world class fighters), but his resume, while questionable, was consistently very good over a very, very long period. Even great, great fighters lose to silly names or get robbed (JMM vs Marquez??? robbed or not, there was a loss there).

BHop's longevity deserves recognition. IMO, he got beaten twice by Taylor and once by Calzaghe for fighting dumb fights (I believe he is better than both), but vs Tarver and Pavlik truly proved himself as one of the great fighters of the past two or three decades. Couple that with longevity, he might edge PBF, RJJ and *sob* my hero Lewis. Either way, longevity should not be ignored. Also, everyone can lose to someone silly - which is also why an '0' should not be ignored. Calzaghe's '0' doesn't make him greater than people who have been defeated, but it should not be dismissed either.

Errrr.... not sure what I was arguing for or against. But I'm drinking Jim Beam, and errr that's it