Isn't Ricky Hatton greater than Carl Froch ?

I can only echo what others have said.

Hatton has the best singular win of the two, but I think his resume falls short in terms of depth when compared to Froch, who fought an incredible number of names and winning more often than not.

Hatton might have been more talented, but I think resume has to take precedence over anything else when evaluating a fighter's historical ranking. By that measure, I think Froch ranks slightly higher than Hatton.

As a side note, I saw Froch live in 2009 in his fight against Andre Dirrell. Dreadful fight.

 

Their resumes are very different.

Hatton burned very brightly, and burned out quickly.

After he lifts the lineal title from Tyszyu, he picks up two additional straps in two weight classes, within a twelve month period.

He becomes Ring Magazine Fighter of the Year, and rightly so in my opinion.

Then he runs into Mayweather's jab, and it is downhill from there.

Now Carl Froch is never the man in the division, although he unifies.

He beats Jean Pascal in 2008, George Groves in 2014, and has solid work between.

It was probably his misfortune to share an era with Andre Ward, because there was nobody else that he couldn't have found a way around at some point.

 

Not to argue semantics mate, but Beating Taylor, Abraham, Dirrell, Bute, and Kessler is a bit better than 'solid work'.

 

I can go along with that.

 

No problem with differing opinions Noel, this place would be boring without them.

As I alluded to in the post you've quoted, I think Froch had the deeper win resume of the 2, so I can see how you'd feel that way.

 

Carls body of work is clearly better to me. Overturning disputed results and losses is the test of greatness and Froch done that not once , but twice.
Bute was smoking people left and right. . Froch beat the career out of him. Rematch for Bute who was the projected winner cancelled.
Id argue Andre Ward was better than Mayweather , pity didn't get the chance to paste Golovkin

 

My issue with "overturning disputed results" is that I don't think there was too much dispute with Kessler decisioning him and beating him in the rematch didn't really put to rest who was better, seeing as Kessler wasn't prime. Personally, I think the best Kessler beats the best Froch more often than not.

I think most here have it in the ballpark though: Hatton was better with the bigger single win, while Froch had the deeper resume. Neither was great, however, and I don't think either should be in the IBHOF.

 

If you want your carpet fitted to a professional standard there's simply no comparison.

 

That was a joke mate. Something Froch liked to mention every time he was interviewed....although he himself laughs about it now.

 

Froch well deserved his place as first ballot hall of famer. Nobody would dispute that.

Plenty disputed the first Kessler result. Its has a 60% controversy rating.

The rematch was only 3 years later. Froch was 2 years older than Kessler and was just one year away from retirement himself.

Between the first and second fight , Kessler destroyed all the top ranked opponents put before him. He was still very good and planned to continue after the loss to Froch but injury forced him to retire.

So Froch did overturn disputed decisions TWICE. And that stands to him as a far greater achievement than Ricky rag dolling a past prime Kysta Zoo. Because beating the guy who beat you first is the mark of true greatness

Why ? Because your confidence is down. You have to fight a guy you know already won. You don't want to lose again. The pressure is higher. The nerve are worse. It takes more bravery to go up against that guy again. Boxing is filled with guys to NEVER attempt to settle the score.
Most guys if taken the leathering Froch got from Groves would take their win and move on.
Froch went back in there with Groves with better tactics , better gameplan , better adaptability and sent Groves to sleep.
Froch is without doubt much much higher up the greatness list than Ricky Hatton. There is simply no more to it than that.