On reflection, how do you rate Hatton's performance v Malignaggi?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by DINAMITA, Apr 7, 2009.


  1. DINAMITA

    DINAMITA Guest

    Here are the highlights:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2QQDNiGBWA


    And here are some comments from Hatton's ex-trainer Billy Graham as published in the April edition of Boxing Monthly:

    "A positive about the Malignaggi performance was he kept calmer than he normally does... but then I saw all these great reviews from some writers and I thought 'What the **** were you looking at? You don't know Ricky Hatton like I know him if you think that was a stellar performance.' Ricky didn't think it was a stellar performance, I could see his body language after it..."


    When I first watched the fight, I thought it was an excellent performance from Ricky. And on paper it is. He went in there against the consensus number 2 lww in the world, and thoroughly dominated him. You can only beat the man in front of you, and Ricky beat him in emphatic fashion.

    Yet on watching the fight back again, I'm not so sure this was vintage Hatton. Of course it was a vast improvement on the relatively poor showing against Lazcano, but I wouldn't judge Ricky on the Lazcano fight. He was clearly still shellshocked in that one, his confidence was shot, and just getting the win was enough that night. Ricky deserved that win.

    I just don't know how to judge the Malignaggi fight.

    Was Ricky so good? Or was Paulie so bad?

    On the night I thought it was the former. Now I'm edging more towards the latter.

    Watching that video, Malignaggi looks very straight-up, square on and easy to hit. He seems to wait for Ricky to strike and takes the hit before he moves and tries to retaliate. Now, I put this down to him being intimidated by Ricky - the rabbit in the headlights syndrome, because a guy who can outmuscle Kostya Tszyu must strike terror into the heart of someone like Malignaggi.

    But my difficulty is, in light of Graham's comments, was this fight a case of Ricky only being as good as he needed to be, or was it a great performance against a top class opponent?

    :bbb
     
  2. BADINTENTIONS2

    BADINTENTIONS2 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,073
    0
    Feb 16, 2008
    it was as good as he needed to be.

    PM isn't going to make serious waves from hereon in.
     
  3. TommyV

    TommyV Loyal Member banned

    32,127
    41
    Nov 2, 2007
    I think it was a combination of Hatton's improvement and Paulie being limited. I mean he didn't have anything to work behind in the fight, only a jab and no right hand behind it, meaning Hatton didn't respect his power and all he could try and do was circle and jab, or try and survive the 12 rounds.

    Hatton did show improvement in the short time he had been with Floyd Sr. He jabbed a bit more coming inside, he seemed more patient and thought a bit more about what he was doing, and picked his shots nicely, especially the straight right hand, and obviously the trademark left hook.
     
  4. Strike

    Strike Boxing Addict banned

    3,982
    0
    Sep 14, 2004
    It was decent. But Paulie was ****ing shite. I was not especially impressed and didn't see all these improvements that the press seemed to have seen.
    He has always had a good jab when he chooses to use it and is capable of boxing off the back foot.

    A prime example would be against Ben Tackie, that was a far more complete performance than against Paulie, in and out with the jab and 1-2s, stepping around the right hand and going to the body when in close and then moving away again...

    He threw lots of single shots against Paulie and it was enough.
     
  5. nulty

    nulty Guest

    I was suprised by all the rave reviews.

    He did enough but nothing special.
     
  6. Rock0052

    Rock0052 Loyal Member Full Member

    34,249
    5,941
    Apr 30, 2006
    It's funny, I still feel a little bad for Paulie that they didn't let him finish. He takes alot of pride in not being stopped, and it'd have been a big deal for him to have been able to say he went 12 with Cotto and Hatton even though they were both losing efforts.
     
  7. socrates

    socrates THE ORIGINAL... Full Member

    7,559
    3
    Sep 30, 2008
    people will under play it and say the usual drivvle...

    near domination of a classy fighter.

    considering hatton at this stage in his career is still a work in progress and seems to be moulding into a more complete fighter,leaves me full of confidence with regards to his upcoming fights.
     

  8. yeah

    and the guys that downplay the win...were probably the same guys who said paulie would box his ears off
     
  9. pngo

    pngo #1Contender Full Member

    7,543
    1
    Apr 24, 2007
    I've always said Paulie is ****, and has looked like **** in his fights before that one.
     
  10. socrates

    socrates THE ORIGINAL... Full Member

    7,559
    3
    Sep 30, 2008
    pass it round selfish

    me want d herbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
     
  11. BigReg

    BigReg Broad Street Bully Full Member

    38,117
    5
    Jun 26, 2007

    Well, I said Paulie was a one handed, feather fisted, defensively challenged fighter who was tailor made for Hatton before the fight. It was a solid win for Hatton over an overhyped fighter in the form of Malignaggi. It's funny how Hatton fans try to prop up this win by puming up Malignaggi's status as the supposed number 1 contender. However, these same people claim that Hatton doesn't/didn't need to fight other number 1 contenders like Bradley and Witter even though both of them are clearly better than Paulie.
     
  12. littlefloyd

    littlefloyd Pure boxer Full Member

    2,232
    0
    Dec 8, 2008
    hatton has no respect at all for paulie's power. He was walking through paulie's shot, paulie's a good boxer though if he had a bit of pop the fight would have been a bit different.

    Plus the fact that paulie looked **** and its like he won a lot of controversial decisions before his fight with hatton.
     

  13. Ive never seen anyone claim Hatton doesn't have to fight Bradley..... Most have said they woud like to see the fight.

    But again ppl like you show yourselves up as being haters

    At the time Paulie was the IBF champ and the longest reigning belt holder in the division..... When this fight was made Bradley hadn't even won a belt yet... so it's pretty easy to say he is better with hindsight on your side.

    The only problem with fighting no 1 contenders is that someone is always there to take his place and you will be accused of ducking him

    and there are always thousands of haters there to say he was never that good
     
  14. AceNguyen

    AceNguyen Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,098
    0
    Dec 7, 2008
    Paulie landed his right hand every time he threw it (like 5), he's just a mentally shot fighter scared to death of breaking his hand. Watch the Cotto fight - that Paulie is a completely different fighter than the one that faced Hatton.

    So while Hatton looked good, his opponent wasn't near his top form whatsoever.
     
  15. BADINTENTIONS2

    BADINTENTIONS2 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,073
    0
    Feb 16, 2008
    its not hating to say hatton shouldnt have to fight bradley.

    hatton's earned his stripes and taken chances to be where he is now.

    hatton deserves whatever fights he wants to take on.