I decided to post this after I was angered by a post by a guy who thought a whole slew of fighters including Hatton could have beat Benitez at 140, this is his post: [url]↑[/url] I meant Junior welter I think he beat Cervantes at that weight. Ah I thought Light-Middleweight. In that of course too, against many like Garcia, Alexander, Fraser, Perkins, Hatton, Camacho, Gatti, Haugen, Marsh, Witter, Holt, Malinaggi, possible Khan, Urango, Corley, Peterson... So like in the era between Bradley (against whom he have decent chances too) and Crawford (who is slower and can be outboxed as well, as Gamboa and Postol partly showed) would he have done it most likely. Between 2005 and 2008 could he do it very well too. Do you agree? I think he`s very young or something.
If the ref allowed excessive grappling, Hatton would be a live underdog. He did make Tsyzu quit and ragdolled Malignaggi.
Benitez made the 2nd best welter and one of the fastest fighters in history look ordinary at certain points in their fight before finally losing in the 15thrd (Leonard). The best Super welt/ jr mid and possibly the 3rd best welt in history looked ordinary in certain parts of their fight against Benitez though he did win(Hearns). He pretty much embarrassed the greatest lightweight in history (Duran) and gave a boxing lesson to a legend at 17yrs old also a top 5 fighter at jr welt(Cervantes). Does Hatton even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as those 4 fighters? No he doesn't, and he didnt have the skill or the physical ability to be mentioned as close to an ATG. The question should be how many solid punches could he possibly land on a prime Benitez, not if he could win, because he couldn't.
Benitez was a different level. Hatton was good.. very very good. Benitez was great at his best. Too bad he ran into Leonard and Hearns.