is Hatton overrated?

May 2nd is what boxing is all about.
The word Overrated don't mean **** next to Competition.

Best Champ @ 140lbs Vs. Best Fighter @ 130lbs/135lbs Nuff said.

 

Tszyu was the P4P #3 at the time and had just destroyed Shabra Mitchell, Castillo was not far removed from his KO win over Corrales, and BOTH were the heavy betting favourites. Even if Castillo was past his best, Hatton dispatched him accordingly with an early body shot that made Castillo quit. He beat a top ten ranked LWW fighter in Lazcano. An undefeated at the time, and now up and coming, world title holder in Urango, another belt holder in Maussa, and solids pro's and top ten guys like Vince Phillips and Ben Tackie. In his most recent fight Hatton was the first to stop Malignaggi, the NO 1 ranked contender at the time.

That is not a "poor record", by any stretch of the imagination. But then again, being the linear champ "doesn't mean **** to you", so I don't expect you to accept actual facts in place of your rather obvious hatred of Ricky Hatton.

 

Yep, "overrated" or "underrated" are just meaningless words in this context, really. Not everyone has the same opinion on a fighter, in fact most people's opinions on Hatton vary wildly, so how there can even be a suggestion that he is overrated, or underrated, doesn't really make sense.

 

I doubt that very much. I'm sure you'll come up with plenty of excuses. "Pac was fighting above his natural weight class" etc. etc. etc.

 

I don't. I think its a good record for someone at the stage of his career which Hatton is at right now. Considering his next three fights are probably going to be against absolutely elite competition, it could turn out to be a very good record, all thing considered. The point is that you said it was "poor", when it clearly isn't. And you said that being the linear champ "doesn't mean ****", when it clearly does.

Hatton is about my 9th favourite active fighter, and most people on ESB know that I'm nothing like a nuthugger. I find it highly amusing that you accuse me of ignoring certain facts, yet all you do is pick holes in Hatton's record, to the point where all you see is negatives. But it seems you lack the self awareness to realise that so, we just go over the same ground again and again.

You need to find the right balance, and a shred of objectivity. Hatton's record isn't great, but is certainly isn't poor either.

 

You are a poor poster:yep

 

Well, that seems to be the popular opinion. I don't think titles are meaingless, they don't mean as much as they should, but they are not meaningless.

You have to reach a certain level of competition, and display a certain amount of ability to win one. And beyond the subjective opinions of a few boxing fans, titles are the facts and benchmarks which form and important part of the overall resume of wins and achivements, which we use to judge a fighters ability and record. Thats how I see it anway.

 

Overated/underated is all so much bull**** imo. A usually meaningless question to ask.

Hatton is a good (but not elite) worldclass operator at 140lbs and for his ability level his resume isn't too bad.


What happens in his next few fights could change peoples perception of him drastically.