Agree with the OP pretty much. Hatton get's a lot of criticism from a lot of people, myself included, and people who like him are completely bewildered and in truth, I can understand their confusion. Hatton is a cherry picker. There's no argument against it. The only arguments that can possibly be made against the accusation are that: A) there are worse cherry pickers out there (and there certainly are) and B) that it's ok to do so because "boxing is a business". Hatton is not the worst cherry picker out there but he is one of if not the most popular and generates near to if not the most cash. Therefore he is probably the most talked about/criicised. Mayweather does it too, so does Calzaghe. But they're not percieved as such likeable personalties, so don't have the following so don't have the same amount of positive press so don't get the same amount of reactionary criticism. Hopkins did it for years too, so did Roy Jones etc. etc. etc. Some of us disagree with it, some of us think it's ok but almost all of us I'm sure at some point have said that we think boxing is a declining sport. Let's assume that's true (that we've all said it). The reason it's a declining sport is because the hardest guys around aren't all fighting each other. But it is argued that "boxing is a business" well......is it or is it a sport? Why do boxing fans argue against competitive fights on the grounds that it isn't 'good business' for their favourites? I really can't understand it. If Manu or Chelsea refused to play in the cup final the other night because they weren't all getting 20 million each would football (that's what it's called, not "soccer") fans stand for it? Would they ****, they'd burn Old Trafford and Stanford Bridge to the ground and hang the team from the nearest convenient small copse (well maybe not). Same for American Handball, Baseball etc etc etc. So why are boxing fans so approving of millionaires getting the most money for the least commensurate risk? It's our fault because we let mismatches happen by paying for them. Hatton shouldn't be defended but he shouldn't be the only one getting all the criticism
You're right about everything APART from the Witter thing. Why the **** does everyone make such a big deal about the fact that Witter - Hatton would have been a domestic clash, as if it matters a jot. Especially as Witter isn't a "patriotic" type of Brit anyway. It couldn't be hyped to the general public in that fashion because of Witter's lack of status. So when you put that into consideration you should ask yourself whether Witter is a better candidate than all others to fight Hatton based on ability? Which he damn well isn't, by any stretch of the imagination. He is the most over-hyped, over-rated British fighter of the last 15 years (and this even includes Hatton).
A mixed response to my thread, as I expected, it would seem that nobody polarises the forum quite like Ricky Hatton, Im also unsurprised by the inherent lack of depth in knowledge on the career of Ricky Hatton expressed by a handful of posters. I will respond directly to a small selection of the more uninformed comments made below: I refer you to the comments made in my second post in this thread. Ricky Hatton chose to employ the services of Frank Warren, if that relationship did not work to Hattons liking then he only has himself to blame. As will Amir Khan if he fails to land the big fights. These men know what Frank Warren is all about long before they put pen to paper. I can assure you that they did, they certainly wanted to see it a hell of a lot more than Hatton-Lazcano. Hatton received a lot of criticism from even his own fans for not making the fight happen. Hatton-Witter had been talked about for years, had it have happened it was widely believed that it would have been the biggest domestic dust up since Benn-Eubank and would have garnered equally as much interest. The fight would have been a shoe in sell out and would have been well received on both sides of the Atlantic despite Witters lack of drawing power. 1. Regarding his decision to fight Floyd, I refer you to my comments made in my second post made in this thread. Hatton had virtually nothing to lose by fighting Floyd and everything to gain. It is merely another example of how cushy Hatton makes it for himself even when he does rarely fight a worthy opponent. 2. Castillo was shot to pieces, most informed fans knew this long before the fight was inked. 3. Lazcano was never a top 10 ranked opponent, anyone who claims that he is forgoes the title of fistic scholar. 4. If he fights Pacman it will be a disgrace 5. If he fights Floyd again it will be a disgrace for boxing, not just Ricky Hatton
You're right, Hatton wouldn't have been that stupid. That performance set back his career terribly. Not just the fact he lost, mind, but the way he lost. He almost wrecked his chances of stardom in America permanently with that performance. Witter has no fans for a reason, which is that his style is absolutely ghastly to watch. But he has been hyped by hardcore boxing fans. Fair play to Witter, after the Judah fight he was actually good for a couple of years, but since around 2004 he has been getting steadily worse and people simply haven't realised it.
He doesn't have himself to blame at all. He employed Warren to get him fights which would help his career progress. As soon as Hatton became a cash cow, Warren didn't do that. He started to choose easy fights, which is when Hatton became disillusioned and threatened to leave, if he didn't get a big fight. As for the Witter fight, let me ask you a question. Did Hatton offer Witter his biggest payday? Yes or no? I can't be bothered with the rest of your points. It's just pure ignorance. The point I have replied to could actually go somewhere. The rest though is...I don't even know if you're serious about it, it's so ridiculous.
Based on what? Tszyu was a bigger threat, Castillo was, Mayweather obviously was and Pacquiao, if that fight happens, would be. What is that comment based on?
:roll: Jack, I'm beginning to think you're a wind-up merchant. Read Fallow's posts properly for ****s sake. by the way....this offer from Hatton that Witter turned down, the one you keep bringing up. Please elaborate.
will this thread starter shut the hell up complaining, crying like a dam baby, hatton has done things the smart way, to call him greddy is insane any fighter in the world would be in his position given the choice. with his ability to fill stadiums. hatton has fought tough opponents in his career he has always been a peoples fighter, like it or not the facts dont lie, you dont fill 55000 seater stadiums against a nobody if your not a peoples champion. just because a few haters want to air there bull**** over and over again doesnt mean nothing. hatton has simply been smart in his career, made alot of money and people are jealous of him, its as simple as that
Hatton never had the need to do such a thing in his career at short notice. Witter seemed to regret it as well, judging from his statements when later on he turned down a fight with Cotto at short notice. I see no reason to think that Hatton wouldn't fight Judah at proper notice given who he has fought.
You don't have a clue what you are talking about. 2 whatever people say or dont say at the end of the day Castilo was no 7 in the ring P4P rankings. 3 Lascano was a ring magazine top 10 contender 1 Hatton had everything to lose against Floyd how dare you. He was 43 and 0, undefeated...he put his record on the line...not many boxers would do that...the guy was in tears after he lost and didn't know if he could comeback. 4 Pac is bigger then Hatton. 5 A rematch isn't going to happen. Anyone who totally discredits and ridicules Hatton for getting in the ring and fighting Mayweather, the first time, is obviously full of nothing but hate for the guy and is talking a load ot total crap.