Hatton would have been a nightmare for Cotto at 140. Cotto wasn't quite a glass cannon at the weight, but his rigors on the scale made him perceptibly less robust and enduring than at 147.
If Cotto's skills are overrated then how did a war torn and past his sell date version of Cotto take a far more athletic fighter in Floyd Mayweather into some deep water for stretches of multiple rounds? If they could swap out natural athleticism, that is to say make Cotto as athletic as Mayweather and Mayweather as athletic as Cotto does anybody really think Mayweather would win? I doubt it.
As I know you know, and plenty have already posted, Gatti was prime at lower weights of course. Gotta say Hatton would've, most likely anyway, tko'd Gatti mid to late. But, if in a different universe, lets say a prime Gatti ( the version coming off his win over T.H. Patterson / Ruelas perhaps ) happened at 140/147. At the same time in this universe, lets say Hatton was just hitting his 2005 win over Tszyu prime in the same respective weight class. If those two fought, would be a heluva grueling war that Hatton probably wins on points or tko late, with a small/fair chance of a Gatti ko.
This part of the discussion is generally by the by as far as I'm concerned, since the Cotto I see struggling with Hatton is the 140 Cotto, whose issues were less a matter of skill deficiency than a matter of robustness/endurance at the weight, but... ...that fight looked a lot like Mayweather's goofy sparring with the late Omar Henry, especially the portions he spent with his back to the ropes; This content is protected It was pretty clear to astute fight fans who viewed it live on Ustream back then that Floyd was preparing to engage with Cotto more than was widely expected. Floyd even wanted 8oz gloves, despite 154 and up calling for 10oz (if I recall right, he didn't get his wish). If he'd wanted to spoil/play keepaway more and win the fight going away, he likely could've. That was one of the more offense-minded displays the "Money" era Mayweather put on. As for Cotto's skills, he's one of the best ring-cutters that have been in my lifetime, he was like a ghost, a judicious step and his guy was trapped. On the back foot, he could still be effective, though not at as high a level. Fine jab, knew how to use footwork and timing to outjab rangier guys. Also knew about southpaws, (specifically the importance of the inside angle, more than just the standard issue 'keep the lead foot on the outside' wisdom), no doubt due to being a natural lefty.
Exactly. A prime Cotto with Mayweather's athleticism would have beat Floyd convincingly. And probably pounded Pac into the canvas if he was blessed with their athleticism. His skill was sublime, I don't see how anybody could dispute that. He easily blasts out Gatti and outboxes Hatton even as a subpar athlete. But anyways I don't rate Gatti at all. He's really not that good, at all. He's not a good fighter.
How can anybody ignore that Gatti went life and death with king of the 10 rounders Mickey Ward? And wasn't Ward like 38 years old or something crazy like that?
Well, now you're underrating Ward a bit. He'd give Hatton a good fight, too. (he'd almost certainly lose, but he'd make Ricky work his ass off for it).
Mentally his toughness breaks the scale. Physically speaking, no, not really. He was not difficult to stun, hurt, floor and KO.
I dunno, if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. Putting reach aside, Cotto has some size on Floyd, so it's not as if there were no natural factors weighing in his favor. And Cotto, while not as gifted as Floyd/Pac, isn't such a slouch athletically, while Floyd wasn't excessively reliant on his athleticism (that's a criticism more apt for a guy like Roy). If Cotto was more of an outrageously gifted athlete, would he have been as inclined to refine his skills so much? I should also add, on top of the plusses I mentioned, Cotto did have flaws, especially defensively, could be a sucker for a good shot up the middle, never met an uppercut he didn't want to eat. Gatti was a very capable boxer, he just loved to entertain.
Athleticism plays a huge role in boxing, it's the most underrated part of the sport and nothing comes close. James Toney was 10 times the technician as Roy Jones. It didn't mean a thing when they fought because of the athleticism. Bernard Hopkins is 100 times the technician as Joe Smith, but it didn't mean a thing because he was nowhere near as athletic as Smith when they fought. Hell, Cotto was the superior technician to Pac, as were a handful of Pac's top opponents. It didn't mean a thing because they all got a beatdown. I don't think Gatti was a gifted boxer.
We can agree to disagree about whether Gatti could box some. Restating positions over and over gets boring. Most of the thread is in agreement that Hatton beats him, and nobody thinks he would've beaten Cotto, it's not really imperative to talk Arturo down. Athleticism isn't underrated in boxing at all, not even close to it. People base predictions on it and overrate fighters based on it constantly. Refined fundamentals, on the other hand, are very underrated among fans on boxing forums. If you have them, you can get very far in boxing with even mediocre athleticism. What I'm saying is, Cotto was more gifted an athlete than some might realize. Meanwhile, 2009 Manny Pacquiao wasn't as much of a technical slouch as some make out (and Cotto has natural size over Manny besides). You're talking in polar terms, and it isn't really like that. There's more of a balance. Roy is a very extreme example. You're talking about the biggest athletic freak the sport has ever seen. Hopkins was two years inactive at 51 (52?), that's another quite extreme and not very apt example. More reasonable examples (one for superior athleticism and one against) would be Khan-Kotelnik and Garcia-Khan. Again, the general balance is closer, and the finer variables more important, than you're acknowledging.
Not really, tbh. He was the archetypal "ugly-record but world-class journeyman" - the sort of 'jobber to stars' that never usually beats HoF elites, but does give them hell ...and on a good night can defeat pretty much anyone beneath that level. Sort of like his onetime foe, Augustus. (whom Floyd Mayweather cited as his toughest fight; although in fairness that was before the Cotto and Maidana I fights, both of which I reckon were at least as difficult for him)
