Witters level of competition

Hattons former P4P status (and Witters lack of) is totally irrelevant, we're discussing quality of opposition. How Hatton and Witter were rated or viewed by people doesn't alter who they fought and who they beat.

 

Of course it does. Judging resumes always depends on the perspective you put on it. Just like Calzaghe's resume is one of the best today, yet if we're judging him amongst all-time greats its weak. This is not difficult.

As a direct comparison Hatton's is of course better than Witter's. It's still poor considering the idea he has about himself.

 

I suppose a better question would be how would they both do against the others competition

 

Hatton had been a decent champ in a poor division, Witter has also been a beltholder in that division at the same time, given that I don't think this ad hoc handicapping system you've developed to prove that Hattons record is "terrible" based on "ideas he has about himself" and because his P4P was too high for a while after the Zoo fight is fair.

He's not an ATG, hes not a top P4P fighter, hes a fighter who's been a good, world class boxer for 3 years or so (similar to Witter) and should be judged as such on a level playing field without any of your ridiculous spin.

 

Okay, all things being equal they are both poor. But I don't think we were mistaking Witter for having the resume of Sugar Ray Leonard.

It's Hatton's that is badly overestimated.

He has one scrappy win over Tszyu that has a lot of question marks over it, old ass Castillo and a hell of a lot of filler. There were plenty of good fights he could have made at 140, not only Witter, but he waited too long and in the end its affected his resume for the worse.

The only thing that is going to be said about Hatton by boxing historians is that he was a very popular fighter that got his ass whooped by Floyd Mayweather. Just like Zab Judah and Carlos Baldomir.

 

Right, my take on Hattons career: Decent but not great pre Zoo, good wins against Magee, Thaxton, Tackie, Phillips at that stage of his career. Great win against a faded but still heavily fancied Zoo, OK wins at world level against a shot JLC (did the job) and reasonable but not stellar beltholders in Urango, Maussa and Collazo, then beaten pretty convincingly by Mayweather.

That is not a "terrible" record...its not great but its decent enough for what Hatton is, a good world class boxer. I don't see where I'm overestimating him?

 

I think its terrible for a p4p rated fighter. That was my issue. Kelly Pavlik has a resume not that far off, and he didn't deserve it, nor did he get as high.

I think your overall summary is accurate.

It could and should have been a lot better, don't you think? If he didn't spend so long fighting WBU crap it would look a lot better.

Imagine if he fought Tszyu before he was closer to 40 than 30. Judah. Cotto as he was coming up. Witter. Hell, even Gatti. These were all guys in his own division.

Because he wasted so much time on the WBU it meant his 140 resume is based on Urango and Maussa rather than these guys. Huge mistake.

 

this is ridiculous............. it'll never end.

witter will never be as good as hatton has been. Its good that you follow someone so much to lie and kid yourselfs like witter is world class, he's an average fighter, yes he won a belt, but he got rumbled by an unknown qunatity. he'll never be as good as hatton, its history, he deserves **** from ricky, and any respect from anybody else, all he does is complain and then cant back it up. i wish we could ban junior witter from these threads he so ****ing boring and his fans

 

You're using the fact that Hatton was better than Witter to put down Hattons record. Records stand on their own merits, no ones saying "look at this ATG record" or "look at this record in a P4P context". Just look at the record. Yes, it could have been a lot better but doesn't stop it being what it is and Hatton being overrated P4P on back of the Zoo win is neither here nor there.

 

It is here or there, one of the two. I don't know which.

Because if he's rated higher than he deserves, which you are almost agreeing with, it means his resume must be overrated.

 

That totally depends on how you rate him. I don't see many people getting carried away or making outlandish claims of P4P rankings or ATG status? TBH it seems to be mainly the haters claiming people make these claims, rather than them actually being made?

 

So now you are telling me exactly what I just said, it depends on what context you are rating him as to how its judged?

Well I'll tell you how I'm rating him. On the basis he got so high on the p4p list before his one loss, and that his legacy and resume is supposedly higher than Benn, Eubank, Hamed and even Calzaghe in some cases according to the thread in our very own Brit forum.

So yeah, pretty high standards. By those its poor.

Just as a world class boxer, nothing more nothing less, its a good resume.

 

Then we agree!!

Benn and Eubank are tricky. Benn lost to Eubank and Watson close to his prime after beating a lot off poor opposition on the way up but beat G-Man, DeWitt and Barkley impessively as well as some OK Euro fighters after McClellan. Id probably give him the nod over Hatton based on who he beat rather than concentrate who he lost to but I think I could argue a good case for Hatton if pressed.

Eubank is even harder and I don't know where to even start with his WBO title reign. Truly awful.

 

Benn might have losses, but they are to good fighters. I don't see any prime Eubank's on Hatton's resume, so I find it difficult to hold that against him in this comparison.

For all Eubank's shoddy competition, very comparable to Hatton's WBU reign of terror, he does have the win and draw over Benn who you just put ahead of Hatton. Great results. Then Watson albeit fortunately, who although not proven to a great extent, you and me both know was an excellent fighter. Then the Italian geezer, would you really make Maussa and Urango better wins?

 

But I've (we've?) put Benn ahead of Hatton based on who Benn has beat after he lost to Eubank and largely ignored who he lost to. I don't have to rank Eubank higher than Hatton because of who Benn beat.

I think Hatton probably has a good case against Eubank.