Fair enough but should we really be giving this guy the time of day? We've tried telling him about why Hatton should fight Witter several times without success. Most reasonable fans see why the fight should happen.
Hatton has always had many excuses for not fighting Witter...hes not got a world title....he can't draw flies...im not giving him a pay day...the American execs don't care... Truth is, he knows there is a chance he might lose this fight and with it, not only his status as the best 140lber in the world but also as the best in Britain! Such a loss is less easy to shrug off than being beaten out of your natural weight class by PBF... A Witter loss would hit his earning potential. Hatton wouldn't love that.
True. By consensus, hes pretty much a top 3 worst poster on the British forum. I regret giving him the air time I did over the Calzaghe coward remark. Ive said my piece on Hatton, no more.
Yes, I'm sure thats the case. Given HBO wanted to take Witter vs Lazcano when it was mooted a while back, you really seem to have a clue what the hell you are on about...
It's not even my opinion that Hatton shouldn't fight Witter. I just think that Hatton has done so much more than Witter, he's fought better guys, he's the true champion, he has a much bigger fanbase, he brings all the money, he brings all the viewers... and on and on. That is it crazy to hear that Hatton "has to" fight this guy. IMO, Hatton can do what the f*ck he likes. He earned it. I like Witter too.
I think Kessler is his best win by far. Hopkins was 43 (although I still think any win over Hopkins is a good win) and Lacy wasn't really proven. Kessler had won a title, had some impressive defences and unified. He was also in his prime.
I don't like using what a fighter does after a fight to detract from or add to another guy's victory over him. I don't like Lacy's crap performances since the Calzaghe fight being used to detract from Calzaghe's victory and I wouldn't like a decent win for Kessler being used to make Calzaghe look better. The result of one fight always affects the fights after it. Lacy took one hell of a beating so of course he isn't going to be the same afterwards. Kessler hadn't been in with anyone as good as Calzaghe so maybe he'll learn from the fight and get confidence from pushing Joe so close.
Did you think about doing the same poll for Hopkins? Trinidad - Blown up WW De La Hoya - Blown up WW Winky - Blown up LMW Glen Johnson - Lost 6 of his next 10 fights Tarver - Was 3-2 going into the fight
Quality of opponent and performance combined. 1. Mikkel Kessler 2. Bernard Hopkins 3. Jeff Lacy 4. Chris Eubank 5. Omar Shieka
Didn't ask about what forum, just seems like a cheap shot at JC and i'm making the point Hopkins best wins aren't the greatest either!
I've never said Hopkins had a brilliant resume. However, compared to Calzaghe's it's a fantastic one. He has wins over an unbeaten Felix Trinidad, an unbeaten Glen Johnson, De La Hoya, Tarver, Wright. And he fought an unbeaten Roy Jones, an unbeaten Taylor twice... it's basically a whos-whos of boxing for this era, and not one of them were 43 years old when he fought them. Now, you can pick holes in Bernard's record - but if you do it to Hopkins, Calzaghe's record would have nothing left of it they'd be so many holes there.
Hopkins lost to the who's who of the middle weight division and beat the who's who of the light middle and Welter weight divisions. And one win against a wanna be actor. Hopkins steps up and losers. Kinda like a good version of Howard Eastman.