Champ or Chump ?.

[DG.]

Calzaghe

Hatton


What are they ?.. Champ or chump ?.

Calzaghe is a champ I think..

Hatton ?...

[stujones]

Whilst I can fully understand the frustration and criticism of Hatton of late, I do think it a little over the top.

I mean, compare Hatton's WINS to the older Witters, or the even older Eastman. His record looks good to them, yet it is Ricky who get the buck of the criticism.

Yes, I would love to see Hatton vs Pinto, Harries, Cotto, Urkal etc etc, but the lad has just turned 25 and himself has never hyped the WBU title (unlike Farnell). The frustration and criticism is warranted, but to call him the biggest chump in UK boxing - I can think of alot more worse cases of fighters holding bad belts or guys with padded record - I have mentioned 3 of them already.

[bennie]

I'm afraid anyone who wastes his time with a WBU title for as long as Ricky has, is a boxing chump (though financially, Ricky is just the opposite).
The same applies to Joe and his WBO title (financially too: he's currently squandering a lot of cash on a 21-year-old and even more on a soon-to-be-divorce).
Both fighters are unbeaten in a combined 72 fights and both fighters can fight. But if they retired right now, their boxing legacy would be tainted by their belts. Say no more.

[knockout artist]

Neither one of them is a champion.

Hatton is and Calzaghe was a titleholder.

There is a BIG difference.

[DG.]

Whilst I can fully understand the frustration and criticism of Hatton of late, I do think it a little over the top.

I mean, compare Hatton's WINS to the older Witters, or the even older Eastman. His record looks good to them, yet it is Ricky who get the buck of the criticism.

Yes, I would love to see Hatton vs Pinto, Harries, Cotto, Urkal etc etc, but the lad has just turned 25 and himself has never hyped the WBU title (unlike Farnell). The frustration and criticism is warranted, but to call him the biggest chump in UK boxing - I can think of alot more worse cases of fighters holding bad belts or guys with padded record - I have mentioned 3 of them already.

I asked the question !... you provided the answer 1-- he is a chump !
Eastman and Witter WANT THE OPPORTUNITY !!!!


Hatton turns them down !

[stujones]

I'm afraid anyone who wastes his time with a WBU title for as long as Ricky has, is a boxing chump (though financially, Ricky is just the opposite).
The same applies to Joe and his WBO title (financially too: he's currently squandering a lot of cash on a 21-year-old and even more on a soon-to-be-divorce).
Both fighters are unbeaten in a combined 72 fights and both fighters can fight. But if they retired right now, their boxing legacy would be tainted by their belts. Say no more.

Oh yes, no doubting that - all I am saying there are other fighters this can be applied to, but these two get the brunt of the criticism. Johnny Nelson? Is he a boxing chump? If Hatton and Calzaghe are, then so is he. What about Eastman, still his most credible win was against a faded and overated Robert McCraken 5 years ago, yet he is supposed to be the second best middleweight in the world.

What about Junior Witter, just who has he fought?

IMO they can all be classified boxing chumps, compared to true fighting champions like a DLH or Corey Spinks - but why are the rest almost immune from the critcism.

I would place Calzaghe as much as a chump as Hatton, at least Ricky will openly admit he isn't the best in the devision. Calzaghe has claimed he has cleared up the Super Middleweights - what about Ottke, Beyer, Mundine, Scica, Green, Lucas, Larsen, Magee, Lacy, Echols. That is ten fighters.

[bennie]

Whilst I can fully understand the frustration and criticism of Hatton of late, I do think it a little over the top.

I mean, compare Hatton's WINS to the older Witters, or the even older Eastman. His record looks good to them, yet it is Ricky who get the buck of the criticism.

Yes, I would love to see Hatton vs Pinto, Harries, Cotto, Urkal etc etc, but the lad has just turned 25 and himself has never hyped the WBU title (unlike Farnell). The frustration and criticism is warranted, but to call him the biggest chump in UK boxing - I can think of alot more worse cases of fighters holding bad belts or guys with padded record - I have mentioned 3 of them already.

I asked the question !... you provided the answer 1-- he is a chump !
Eastman and Witter WANT THE OPPORTUNITY !!!!


Hatton turns them down !

Yeah, remember all that "Witter is written into my contract" shit.
I think a bigger scandal is Jimmy Vincent not getting a rematch with David Barnes. The Board ordered a rematch. So what happened there?

[stujones]

Whilst I can fully understand the frustration and criticism of Hatton of late, I do think it a little over the top.

I mean, compare Hatton's WINS to the older Witters, or the even older Eastman. His record looks good to them, yet it is Ricky who get the buck of the criticism.

Yes, I would love to see Hatton vs Pinto, Harries, Cotto, Urkal etc etc, but the lad has just turned 25 and himself has never hyped the WBU title (unlike Farnell). The frustration and criticism is warranted, but to call him the biggest chump in UK boxing - I can think of alot more worse cases of fighters holding bad belts or guys with padded record - I have mentioned 3 of them already.

I asked the question !... you provided the answer 1-- he is a chump !
Eastman and Witter WANT THE OPPORTUNITY !!!!


Hatton turns them down !

Umm didn't Witter have the opportunity to fight Kelson Pinto?

[bennie]

I'm afraid anyone who wastes his time with a WBU title for as long as Ricky has, is a boxing chump (though financially, Ricky is just the opposite).
The same applies to Joe and his WBO title (financially too: he's currently squandering a lot of cash on a 21-year-old and even more on a soon-to-be-divorce).
Both fighters are unbeaten in a combined 72 fights and both fighters can fight. But if they retired right now, their boxing legacy would be tainted by their belts. Say no more.

Oh yes, no doubting that - all I am saying there are other fighters this can be applied to, but these two get the brunt of the criticism. Johnny Nelson? Is he a boxing chump? If Hatton and Calzaghe are, then so is he. What about Eastman, still his most credible win was against a faded and overated Robert McCraken 5 years ago, yet he is supposed to be the second best middleweight in the world.

What about Junior Witter, just who has he fought?

IMO they can all be classified boxing chumps, compared to true fighting champions like a DLH or Corey Spinks - but why are the rest almost immune from the critcism.

I would place Calzaghe as much as a chump as Hatton, at least Ricky will openly admit he isn't the best in the devision. Calzaghe has claimed he has cleared up the Super Middleweights - what about Ottke, Beyer, Mundine, Scica, Green, Lucas, Larsen, Magee, Lacy, Echols. That is ten fighters.

I think any fighter who holds a WBO or WBU belt will be judged by that. Johnny Nelson lost in two IBF cruiserweight title challenges (well, one was a draw but we all know Nelson was the biggest loser of all that night), targets the WBO and wins it. He's made at least 10 defences of that title, and has cashed in. But he's a WBO champ. Historically, it won't mean much.

[stujones]

I'm afraid anyone who wastes his time with a WBU title for as long as Ricky has, is a boxing chump (though financially, Ricky is just the opposite).
The same applies to Joe and his WBO title (financially too: he's currently squandering a lot of cash on a 21-year-old and even more on a soon-to-be-divorce).
Both fighters are unbeaten in a combined 72 fights and both fighters can fight. But if they retired right now, their boxing legacy would be tainted by their belts. Say no more.

Oh yes, no doubting that - all I am saying there are other fighters this can be applied to, but these two get the brunt of the criticism. Johnny Nelson? Is he a boxing chump? If Hatton and Calzaghe are, then so is he. What about Eastman, still his most credible win was against a faded and overated Robert McCraken 5 years ago, yet he is supposed to be the second best middleweight in the world.

What about Junior Witter, just who has he fought?

IMO they can all be classified boxing chumps, compared to true fighting champions like a DLH or Corey Spinks - but why are the rest almost immune from the critcism.

I would place Calzaghe as much as a chump as Hatton, at least Ricky will openly admit he isn't the best in the devision. Calzaghe has claimed he has cleared up the Super Middleweights - what about Ottke, Beyer, Mundine, Scica, Green, Lucas, Larsen, Magee, Lacy, Echols. That is ten fighters.

I think any fighter who holds a WBO or WBU belt will be judged by that. Johnny Nelson lost in two IBF cruiserweight title challenges (well, one was a draw but we all know Nelson was the biggest loser of all that night), targets the WBO and wins it. He's made at least 10 defences of that title, and has cashed in. But he's a WBO champ. Historically, it won't mean much.

Where would you categorise a Scott Harrison then, who although its only the WBO title has defended his title against a recent IBF champion (Manuel Medina) and also a top ten opponent. Is he a chump?

[bennie]

Oh yes, no doubting that - all I am saying there are other fighters this can be applied to, but these two get the brunt of the criticism. Johnny Nelson? Is he a boxing chump? If Hatton and Calzaghe are, then so is he. What about Eastman, still his most credible win was against a faded and overated Robert McCraken 5 years ago, yet he is supposed to be the second best middleweight in the world.

What about Junior Witter, just who has he fought?

IMO they can all be classified boxing chumps, compared to true fighting champions like a DLH or Corey Spinks - but why are the rest almost immune from the critcism.

I would place Calzaghe as much as a chump as Hatton, at least Ricky will openly admit he isn't the best in the devision. Calzaghe has claimed he has cleared up the Super Middleweights - what about Ottke, Beyer, Mundine, Scica, Green, Lucas, Larsen, Magee, Lacy, Echols. That is ten fighters.

I think any fighter who holds a WBO or WBU belt will be judged by that. Johnny Nelson lost in two IBF cruiserweight title challenges (well, one was a draw but we all know Nelson was the biggest loser of all that night), targets the WBO and wins it. He's made at least 10 defences of that title, and has cashed in. But he's a WBO champ. Historically, it won't mean much.

Where would you categorise a Scott Harrison then, who although its only the WBO title has defended his title against a recent IBF champion (Manuel Medina) and also a top ten opponent. Is he a chump?

Definitely. The WBO don't mean shit!

[REAL_DEAL]

i wish all belts go away and only one champion in the divison

[DG.]

Whilst I can fully understand the frustration and criticism of Hatton of late, I do think it a little over the top.

I mean, compare Hatton's WINS to the older Witters, or the even older Eastman. His record looks good to them, yet it is Ricky who get the buck of the criticism.

Yes, I would love to see Hatton vs Pinto, Harries, Cotto, Urkal etc etc, but the lad has just turned 25 and himself has never hyped the WBU title (unlike Farnell). The frustration and criticism is warranted, but to call him the biggest chump in UK boxing - I can think of alot more worse cases of fighters holding bad belts or guys with padded record - I have mentioned 3 of them already.

I asked the question !... you provided the answer 1-- he is a chump !
Eastman and Witter WANT THE OPPORTUNITY !!!!


Hatton turns them down !

Umm didn't Witter have the opportunity to fight Kelson Pinto?

Yes he did but was injured and proved it to the bbb of no control !.

He also had the chance to fight Judah and DID !.

Hatton turned down.

Mitchell

Corley ( when RH was No 1 challenger - turned the fight DOWN ! )

Mayweather !

N'dou !

Need I go on ?.

OFFER WITTER ANY OF THEM AND HE WILL JUMP AT IT !..

Chump fuits the bill !..

RH looks at videos and if they are shit...he takes them !..

Chump is too kind a word !.

Naz - Honeyghan - Lewis - he is NOT !!

[stujones]

I think any fighter who holds a WBO or WBU belt will be judged by that. Johnny Nelson lost in two IBF cruiserweight title challenges (well, one was a draw but we all know Nelson was the biggest loser of all that night), targets the WBO and wins it. He's made at least 10 defences of that title, and has cashed in. But he's a WBO champ. Historically, it won't mean much.

Where would you categorise a Scott Harrison then, who although its only the WBO title has defended his title against a recent IBF champion (Manuel Medina) and also a top ten opponent. Is he a chump?

Definitely. The WBO don't mean shit!

Personally, I think its the fighter that makes the belt. The WBO title has been the property of the likes of Naz, Barrera, Bowe and Michaelswecki when they were concidered #1 in the devision. THe only other title Barerra has won was briefly the WBC Featherweight title, but I think to say he was never a champion at Super Bantam is harsh.

Before anyone misunderstands me, this is not that I am disagreeing with you concerning any of the current British champions, of any title - Like I said, Barrera made the WBO championship credible by fighting and beating the best. I don't think Calzaghe, Nelson, Harrison, Hatton have even come close to doing this.

I think the current status with the WBA also severly dents it historically. I mean, with this super champion business. Surely the normal champions deserve a similar credit as the WBO champions in an historical sense, both should be considered 2nd tier.

[bennie]

There's definitely good fighters holding a WBO belt (Barrera did, of course). But the way I see it, many WBO champs (like Scott Harrison) take that route because they wouldn't win a proper world title - or even a European title in the case of many Brits.
And we only have to look at Joe Calzaghe's reign as WBO champ to see how little the belt means. Joe has been WBO champ since 1997. He's made 14 defences of his crown. But his fight with Glen Johnson for the IBF title next month means more than all those years - all those defences - put together. That's because, at last, he's fighting for a proper belt.

[stujones]

There's definitely good champs holding a WBO belt (Barrera did, of course). But the way I see it, many WBO champs (like Scott Harrison) take that route because they wouldn't win a proper world title - or even a European title in the case of many Brits.
And we only have to look at Joe Calzaghe's reign as WBO champ to see how little the belt means. Joe has been WBO champ since 1997. He's made 14 defences of his crown. But his fight with Glen Johnson for the IBF title next month means more than all those years - all those defences - put together. That's because, at last, he's fighting for a proper belt.

Its not just the title that is important, he is fighting a good fighter aswell. Calzaghe made 14 defences, who can name at least 8 that didn't even deserve the fight. If he fought the likes of Ottke, Lucas, Beyer, Mundine, Green, Lacy etc (even if the other belts were not on the line) his reign would be more respected.

Barrera fought the best, even Michaelswecki fought good option, its personal opnion as to whether you discount them for fighting for the WBO? I personally don't. I don't give Calzaghe that much credit because the fights I have mentioned above never materialised. It didn't matter who he got the title from, it what he does with the title. So far (its early) but Scott Harrison is making a much better stab at making the WBO title credible than Calzaghe did.

Scott might not win a more prestigious belt in this devision, but in Medina he has a fighter who was worthy challenger for any of the proper champions. Let him get his mandatory out of the way and give him a chance, he has fought tough fighters throughout his career, and I hope it doesn't stop now.

[TheRiverCityHippy]

chump or champ?
almost like choosing which brand of dog meat to buy.
which is apt because if it carries on like this rickys career will become the dogs dinner joe`s is.

[dr_hook]

I asked the question !... you provided the answer 1-- he is a chump !
Eastman and Witter WANT THE OPPORTUNITY !!!!


Hatton turns them down !

Umm didn't Witter have the opportunity to fight Kelson Pinto?

Yes he did but was injured and proved it to the bbb of no control !.

He also had the chance to fight Judah and DID !.

Hatton turned down.

Mitchell

Corley ( when RH was No 1 challenger - turned the fight DOWN ! )

Mayweather !

N'dou !

Need I go on ?.

OFFER WITTER ANY OF THEM AND HE WILL JUMP AT IT !..

Chump fuits the bill !..

RH looks at videos and if they are shit...he takes them !..

Chump is too kind a word !.

Naz - Honeyghan - Lewis - he is NOT !!

Tackie was so shot when he faced Hatton sky had to show clips of Tackie beating up journey men years ago.

[JamieA]

Both fighters need to fight quality, game opponents to be considered champs. There careers are not progressing at the minute. Calzaghe's next fight should be interesting. Hatton needs a big fight, hopefully warren will bring a big name to the UK in sept/oct.

[jpjames]

Calazghe is good but he still aint fought any1 good. And Hatton well i think every1 agrees its becoming a joke!.

[DG.]

Calazghe is good but he still aint fought any1 good. And Hatton well i think every1 agrees its becoming a joke!.

How times have changed - JC is a Boxing god to many.... Hatton?

[Asterix]

Calazghe is good but he still aint fought any1 good. And Hatton well i think every1 agrees its becoming a joke!.

Of course Calzaghe has fought "good" fighters, unless your measure of the word "good" is extremely out of proportion.

[plopeater]

Calzaghe

Hatton


What are they ?.. Champ or chump ?.

Calzaghe is a champ I think..

Hatton ?...

The most stupid post ever. You say calzaghe is a champ then Hatton is a legend

[WildWaylon]

Calazghe is good but he still aint fought any1 good. And Hatton well i think every1 agrees its becoming a joke!.

Of course Calzaghe has fought "good" fighters, unless your measure of the word "good" is extremely out of proportion.

The post is 4 years old!!!

[Asterix]

Calazghe is good but he still aint fought any1 good. And Hatton well i think every1 agrees its becoming a joke!.

Of course Calzaghe has fought "good" fighters, unless your measure of the word "good" is extremely out of proportion.

The post is 4 years old!!!

Grrrr, I'm sick of people (DG & Red Med) dragging up old topics.