Rank these top brits

I suppose a fighter ought to work to his strengths - whether those be his physical strength, boxing brain, handspeed or whatever.

Now - some of those you are able to carry up, as guys like DLH, Mayweather, Mosley and RJJ have proved, whereas physical strength you can't, which is exactly why Hatton couldn't do welterweight effectively.

A couple of points though......

Hatton came in good shape against Mayweather, and wasn't that bad really. The huggers use weight as an excuse - but in reality he would have given most welters a bloody good fight.

The aforementioned Americans (Mosley excepted) began fighting at a weight below their optimum - they filled out with age and put on weight naturally. Hatton probably filled out as a 16 year old kid and began life in his natural weight class and therefore any move up is artificial.

 

It's not so much he didn't come in in good shape, of course he was in shape. But he doesn't have the natural body mass for 147 or the all-round boxing ability to cope with the elite.

 

Neither Benn nor Watson were simply "brawlers". I think your definition of the word is off. That's 4 good performances in itself.

It's a crap argument even if it was the case. I don't think Hatton has ever looked good against southpaws, or counterpunchers. Every style has its weakness.

Hatton's has more than most, because he has little defence which is 50% of boxing ability in itself, if not more.

 

I don't really think body mass is an issue - in hindsight he was made for Floyd Mayweather, regardless of whatever division in which they met.

His all-round boxing is underestimated - understandably so having not used his skills for quite some time.

 

RESUME
lewis
benn
calzaghe
hamed
eubank
hatton

OVERALL BOXING TALENT
hamed
calzaghe
lewis
eubank
benn
hatton

LEGACY
lewis
benn
calzaghe
hamed
eubank
hatton

 

Swarmers and brawlers then. Oh and btw Eubank was extremely fortunate in both Watson fights and the second Benn fight. And I'll have to check on which of Hatton's opponents where southpaws and counterpunchers...

And if Eubank was so talented could you please tell me why he couldn't deal with fighters with any kind of workrate? Or why fighters outside of the tip 40 of the independent boxing rankings could give him hell to pay while he held the WBO belt? In fact, why the **** was he fighting those fighters at all? (Rhetorical question as that's a 'Resume' issue)

 

Only those of the bum variety

Though he has never lost to one

Debatable - but point taken

 

They were still good performances. When you are fighting good fighters, of which Hatton has not fought that many, if you go close and even lose it can still be a good performance. Whether he was lucky or not is neither here nor there.

A good example of a fighter not performing while whilst losing is Hatton, against Mayweather.

 

Well, he looked quite good against Joe Hutchinson :yep

 

No, they weren't. The second Benn fight was an absolute maul and he was getting outclassed in the second Watson fight before he got lucky in the 11th. I'll give you the first Watson fight as a good performance though, even though he blatantly should have lost the decision.

Btw I could name at least 3 performances by Eubank that are worse than ANY of Hatton's as any kind of champion (and that includes his regional belts)

 

He looked good against Eamon Magee for 10 rounds as well, AFTER being decked in the first and rocked big time in the second

I think I could have looked good against Hutchinson!

 

I think we'll struggle to find any common ground here. Anybody that looks at Ricky Hatton and comes to the conclusion he's a more talented boxer than Eubank or any on this list has a different ideology on boxing to me.

Oh well.

 

I had him bottom of the overall talent list - but refuse to accept that his legacy and resume are the worst, unlike your goodself.

Now - I would guess that a few people who rank Hatton bottom in the legacy stakes are probably deducting him points because he has accumulated a lot of fans who wouldn't know which glove to put on which hand, or what Hatton actually looks like.....

Which could be considered unfair.

Those who rank him bottom of the resume stakes are also a tad harsh - if you looked purely at wins (or conversely opponents faced), you would have to list the top 5/8/10 wins for each based upon their ability at the time and also that of the opponent and make an informed choice. Huggers and haters often struggle with this kind of rationale......

 

Well if you actually list out his wins and compare you could easily find a case for him being bottom. He really only has Tszyu that could be considered an A level win, then a shot Castillo maybe a B+ being generous. After that you are into the B levels at very best.

Perhaps only Hamed's could be considered worse, as there are no star wins on his. But a lot of solid B+ or B level types.

 

I'd love to know why a lot of those fighters ended up retiring before reaching the very top....