Why Hatton was better than Calzaghe

i see black

 

why are you compaing hatton and calzaghe? they fought 4 or 5 weight divisions apart. why not compare winky wright and john ruiz. its just as random.

 

I can definitely appreciate where you're coming from.

Hatton went to great lengths to secure fights with the two best fighters of his era who were his size - Mayweather and Pacquiao. At the time he fought them they were both prime and in the top bracket of the p4p rankings.

Calzaghe never went to anything like the same lengths to secure fights with the two best fighters of his era who were his size - Jones Jr and Hopkins. He could've chased them when they were prime or near-prime (very roughly 97-03) like Hatton did, but he waited till Jones Jr had been KO'd cold by Glen Johnson and Hopkins had twice been outworked by Jermain Taylor.


Hatton's win over Tszyu is better than any win on Calzaghe's resume IMO, and I respect his attitude and actions far more, he was determined to test himself against the best and put it all on the line.


But ultimately in this thread you are speaking about ability, and that's the one area where I give Joe the edge. Hatton at his best was a damn good junior-welter, but I think Joe was a better super-middle. I don't think Joe was quite on the Jones Jr/Hopkins/Toney quality level, but he proved against Kessler that he was a great super-middleweight (I don't place much stock in the Lacy win, I had seen a lot of Lacy before he fought Joe and I never rated him). Hatton was good, Joe was very good.

 

The fact you post in black, you're telling us we should ignore your post.

BTW: Joe Calzaghe will be held in higher regard than Ricky Hatton.

Hatton Vs Kostya Tszyu - Hatton got away with so much **** in that fight, not to mention he also fought a Zoo who had almost 2 years of inactivity.
Maussa - Garbage.
Callazo - Hatton lost despite the scorecards
Urango - Slow but powerful LW...
Castillo - pretty much shot and moved up in weight.
Malignaggi - B level boxer at best.

But yes, Hatton did dare to be great by taking on two of the best fighters in their primes. Shame the same cannot be said about Calzaghe who took risks too late in his career against opponents which were fading or shot. Still Calzaghe is the bettter boxer and will be held in higher regard and rightfully so.

 

Well, I have to agree you raised a lot of good points.

Hatton gets/got a lot of negativity for his style, where he would often hussle opponents into submission. I think a lot of this is unfair criticism as he was small with short arms, so couldn't really be expected to pick opponents apart from the back foot or on the outside. As you say, he wasn't scared of a challenge and he got a massive amount of respect from me when he went up to a weight where he clearly wasn't comfortable (Collazo was nearly a disaster) and fought the p4p best.

However, although you are right in saying Hattons record is clearly better than Joe's, it;s obvious that Joe is the better fighter, he just didn't have the balls to step up to the plate.

 

Oh i agree, I just think Calzaghe is the better boxer than Hatton and he'll be remembered as such.

 

There was a contract to fight Calzaghe waiting for Hopkin's signature in 2002 when Hopkins was P4P number 2 and undisputed middleweight champion. Hopkins agreed the contract, then changed his mind and ended up fighting Joppy in the slot where he would have fought Calzaghe.

The charge that Calzaghe 'waited' until Hopkins had been beaten by Taylor is therefore proveably false.

When it came to Jones, Calzaghe called his out regularly. But neither really chased the fight, Jones didn't want it and Calzaghe probably wanted paying more than was realistic. Both have admitted as much.

 

There is a huge skill gap between the two.

Hatton was just a smaller version of Ruiz with good stamina.

Calzaghe is in every way a better boxer than Hatton could ever dream of.

 

I agree with that.I reckon Calzaghe was the best ever skilled fighter in Britain other than Errol Graham.