Hang On a minute Here!!

[MR UNTOUCHABLE]

Saturdays fight probably generated anywhere between £8 - £12 million soley in UK PPV's.
They then say that around 25k Brits went to Vegas in a recession and probably spent a good few million $'s.

Add in the US PPV's and you are talking big business.

ANYBODY who believes this has no bearing on Hatton's future marketability simply does not understand how boxing works!!

[DaveyH]

You have to wonder then, Banjo, why they didn't work on his limitations and develop him to reflect the talent he showed as an amateur.
Could it be because the brute strength, aggressive, all action fighter puts bums on seats and goes in tandem with the "likeable lad who likes a pint" image? Or am I being overly cynical now?

[Autobarn]

Hatton has done well for himself though. He peaked in the Tszyu fight and it seemed like after that he never had the energy. The infamous stamina and all out attacking. And the skills didn't improve very much, in fast regressed, post Tszyu. Only to work on the jab and the angles for Malignaggi, convincing ppl that he was ready for a big fight again.

To have won the belts that he won, and to have made the money that he made, is certainly an achievement. But he paid a price for it, where he was badly beaten in his 2 biggest fights. You'd have to think he's set up for life now though.

I think his best may have been wasted in the WBU fights but he made a lot of money. Certainly he showed signs of being stale in a couple of fights. But it seems they always would have to wait until the "right time", "right place" to go after Tszyu.

Would have been a bad idea to fight a rival champ/top 3 light welter like Sharmbah Mitchell pre 2005, as Mitchell was slick, mobile, and had a decent lead right hook. We do think "what if" but I reckon Ricky's career couldn't have gone any other way, really. Given the circumstance.

[DG.]

Hatton fought mediocre fighters until KT then after KT he picked the weakest of the available bunch.

Add that to all the bullshit about not fighting Witter etc and I have no sympathy.

Bottom line is Hatton got the BIG FIGHTS by dodging the best of the rest.

When he got to the best he was destroyed, plain and simple.

[rhino222]

Hatton fought mediocre fighters until KT then after KT he picked the weakest of the available bunch.

Add that to all the bullshit about not fighting Witter etc and I have no sympathy.

Bottom line is Hatton got the BIG FIGHTS by dodging the best of the rest.

When he got to the best he was destroyed, plain and simple.

spot on the money DG, i am right with you.

[DG.]

Hatton fought mediocre fighters until KT then after KT he picked the weakest of the available bunch.

Add that to all the bullshit about not fighting Witter etc and I have no sympathy.

Bottom line is Hatton got the BIG FIGHTS by dodging the best of the rest.

When he got to the best he was destroyed, plain and simple.

spot on the money DG, i am right with you.

Even that psuedo-intellectual called Carbo (hydrate yourself, you are drunk) can not disagree with that!

[Autobarn]

I suppose in British boxing there is no middle ground. It's like our fighters are taking on guys 2 weights below them, OR they're in a fight of considerable magnitude, v someone good. How about the "building" fights in between. I'm thinking fights like Haye v Gurov and Fragomeni that got him ready for the world title fights. Guys with ability, ambition, good records, who had sufficient time to prepare.

Given that 90% of British fights are "building fights" and "showcases", I think it would be good to have more competitive action.

[Carbo]

I suppose in British boxing there is no middle ground. It's like our fighters are taking on guys 2 weights below them, OR they're in a fight of considerable magnitude, v someone good. How about the "building" fights in between. I'm thinking fights like Haye v Gurov and Fragomeni that got him ready for the world title fights. Guys with ability, ambition, good records, who had sufficient time to prepare.

Given that 90% of British fights are "building fights" and "showcases", I think it would be good to have more competitive action.

Yup. A big problem

[Quixall]

I did'nt give him a chance against Mayweather and always thought that Pacquaio's speed, accuracy and timing would give Hatton problems. I thought that Pacqauio would win either by a decision or late stoppage and was quite suprised when he got nailed twice in the first round. His tactics were hopeless and he left himself wide open and as you say, his punch resistance seems to have gone, because those fisrt two knock-downs did'nt seem to be fromparticularly hard punches. Having said that, i feel that it was a combination of the speed of punch that caught Hatton out and the fact that he had been caught four or five times, before the first knock down in round one.

Do you think the Hatton that beat Tszyu would have lasted any longer against Mayweather or Pacquiao?

Personally I don't! he has 2 names on his record and got stiffed against them both, he looked good against Malignaggi last time out because he was allowed too against a fighter who didn't make him fight.

In all honesty Hatton was a good champion but not great.

Hatton never had the skill set or fighting style to be an elite fighter and no, i don't think that the Hatton who beat Tszyu would have beaten either Mayweather or Pacquaio, because as Freddie Roach said, Hatton can only fight one way. The Malignaggi fight was more of a blue print as to how Hatton should have fought Pacquaio, but he could do that against Malignaggi, because he is'nt an elite fighter and has a different fighting style to Pacquiao or Mayweather. As Manny Steward said, Tszyu threw punches at a quarter of the speed of Pacquiao and so whilst i feel that a tactically astute Hatton (If there is such a thing) would have lasted longer then he did, Pacuaio would have evenyually broken him down, it was just that Hatton helped him, by employing tactics that were ripe for Pacquiao to exploit.

[Quixall]

I just want to say 5 words to the people who say this loss and the manner of this loss signfies that Ricky is not, or never was an elite fighter.

ROBERTO DURAN VS THOMAS HEARNS.

The difference is Stu, that both Duran and Hearns can point to other fights that prove they were elite fighters, who could operate at that level. Ricky has had two "elite" fights against Mayweather and Pacquaio, two fighters who were in their primes and respected as p4p the best fighter in the world at the time that he fought them.......and he lost to both !!

Whilst the Tyszu and Castillo fights were impressive, they have less credibilty as "elite" fights, because both fighters were past there best when Hatton defeated them.

But in Tszyu's case, how do you know? He was only six months removed from one of his best performances, and was big betting favourite, and since he hasn't fought since, we have no time of reference. So, while one might assume he was past his prime (because if he wasn't he wouldn't have lost to Hatton, the argument goes), there can be no proof. Yet this seems to have passed as historical fact.

You have a point about whether or not Tyszu was past his prime or not, but in the eyes of the boxing world, when Hatton's career is evaluated, the names of Mayweather and Pacquaio, will stand out more than either Tyszu or Castillo, which was the fight that got the American audiences interested. Styles make fights and Tyszu has the kind of style that Hatton can deal with, where as he struggles against fighters with quick hands and especially south paws, as is the case with Pacwquaio. Personally, i feel it's how you reference what is an "elite" fighter. To me, Tsyzu is a fighter, like Castillo, who is one step above the status of a mere world champion, where as Mayweather and Pacquaio are in a sphere above that and it's at that rarified level that Hatton cannot compete.

[Counter-puncher]

But Khan is also fast. Hattonn has no punch resistance...

More proof, if any was needed, of your idiocy.

"Hatton has no punch resistence."

Yeeeessssss. OKaaaaay.

That's rather like watching Michael Spinks against Mike Tyson and saying "Spinks has no punch resistence".

I wonder if anyone, after watching Cuevas against Hearns, said that Cuevas had "no punch resistence".

Pur-lease.

Hatton took bombs of Tszyu. He took a couple of heavy shots off Phillips, too.

The guy has -- or at least had -- punch resistence. What he doesn't have is the ability to withstand a perfectly timed left hook/cross from pound for pound one of the hardest two of three hardest punchers in boxing, landed right on his chin that he didn't see coming.

But that doesn't mean he has "no punch resistence".

Honestly! Some people....[/quote]


The 2nd knock down landed on the gloves. Hattons punch reistance is OK for domestic level BUT at World Level, he is done.

Your comments have no historical basis and you have no idea what you are talking about.

The wear and tear on Hatton has contributed to his 'resistance' being ground down to not much on the World Stage.

Pacman has not stretched anyone out like that before, 7 years since he had a quick win like that.

If Hatton had the resistance he had pre KT then he would ave ;asted until the later rounds.

I know the Sport, Carbo does not.


[/quote]

carbo i would have to ask you a question i have been pondering:

if Hatton's punch resistance was up to scratch- how come Dave Diaz took Pac's shots nonstop for 9 rounds? Diaz being supposedly close to shot at that point, 'only a natural lightweight' etc

its a question that's beaten the buggery out of me.....

[Carbo]

carbo i would have to ask you a question i have been pondering:

if Hatton's punch resistance was up to scratch- how come Dave Diaz took Pac's shots nonstop for 9 rounds? Diaz being supposedly close to shot at that point, 'only a natural lightweight' etc

its a question that's beaten the buggery out of me.....

I didn't say that you couldn't build an argument for it, I said you couldn't prove it as fact: and the fact is that it could be to do with a whole vareity of factors -- or any combination of them.

It could have been a significantly harder punch than the ones which caught Diaz. Roach certainly seems to think so. They could have been more accurate in terms of finding the point of the chin, which I tend to think on first impressions.

The second KD might not have been clean, but Hatton did well to get up from the first IMO, and was still rocking and rolling all over the place when the second came.

Also, Roach said before the DLH fight that Pacquaio was too tight 135 and that Manny had said to him after the fight that "this is the last time we fight at 135." Whether this is BS or not, one could equally construct an argument to say that Pacquaio is stronger at 140. for not having to weight drain.

Or, alternatively, it could be that Hatton's punch resistence has suddenly, between the Lascano fight and the Pacquiao fight, dropped to nil, as DG speculates.

But we just don't know. Until Hatton has fought again, or someone else has been caught flush with that punch, we can't make that a fact. We can just guess.

I suspect Hatton's punch resistence may be deteriorating, but that's not what DG said: He said "Hatton has no punch resistence", based on one fight in which he was caught twice flush on the point of the chin by one of boxing's most powerful pound for pound punchers with a punch he didn't see coming.

Not a strong position, CP.

[Counter-puncher]

hahaha. i merely asked the question in the interest of opening the debate out- did it get turned into a putative 'position' there? as it happens i was uninterested in engaging with DG's 'position'. this is not a subject guaranteed to bring out any rational debating habits that may lurk deep within his frontal lobes.

never mind. it seems to me the alternatives are no more edifying for Hatton

either (a)Diaz did get caught equally cleanly. in which case his punch resistance is better. he's so slow, molasses give him sprinting lessons. what are the odds he didn't get caught cleanly by manny, more to the point the ground meat look of his face by the end would suggest that too.

or (b), and this is the horrifying one, Diazis a superior defensive fighter with better reflexes and instincts than hatton, which allowed him not to get hit as cleanly. that, as someone with some affection for hatton, and a little knowledge of Diaz' face-first propensity to eat half the shots thrown at him over the years, is a horrib le prospect to contemplate. the sentence 'david Diaz has better defence than hatton' should throw hatton into retirement if he reads it.

[Carbo]

hahaha. i merely asked the question in the interest of opening the debate out- did it get turned into a putative 'position' there? as it happens i was uninterested in engaging with DG's 'position'. this is not a subject guaranteed to bring out any rational debating habits that may lurk deep within his frontal lobes.

never mind. it seems to me the alternatives are no more edifying for Hatton

either (a)Diaz did get caught equally cleanly. in which case his punch resistance is better. he's so slow, molasses give him sprinting lessons. what are the odds he didn't get caught cleanly by manny, more to the point the ground meat look of his face by the end would suggest that too.

or (b), and this is the horrifying one, Diazis a superior defensive fighter with better reflexes and instincts than hatton, which allowed him not to get hit as cleanly. that, as someone with some affection for hatton, and a little knowledge of Diaz' face-first propensity to eat half the shots thrown at him over the years, is a horrib le prospect to contemplate. the sentence 'david Diaz has better defence than hatton' should throw hatton into retirement if he reads it.

No-sorry, I didn't explain myself properly. I totally know that you weren't associating with DG's position, but my last sentence mean that his position isn't strong, CP.

Or (c) Pacquiao has improved or (d) Pacquaio hit Hatton harder, plain and simple or (e) Diaz got lucky or (f) a combination of all of the above.

The possibilities are endless. Of course, some are more likely than others, but without any future points of reference we can't just say one was wrong.

If I said "Hatton was unlucky to get hit so early on" that would be idiotic, but no more so than saying it's a FACT that Hatton has no punch resistence.

[Counter-puncher]

not wishing to sound like i am being pedantic here (but nigh-impossible to avoid it... oh well...)

(c) a 55 fight best fighter in the world improving that much? unlikely IMO
(d) possibly. the extra 5lbs he didn't have to drain may well have given pac a boost.
(e) Diaz lucky? last time i checked, he lucked out in the genetic lottery for what AJ liebling called 'a seemingly unlimited capacity for percussive absorbtion'. or words to that effect. he was also 'lucky' enough to get free plastic surgery across most of his already cratered face. he got the shit beaten out of him, took three or four times more punches than hatton did, and stayed standing

regardless of all other contingent factors that alone to me casts huge question marks over hatton's ability to take a punch at elite level.

(f) the primary combination of factors IMO = (1) Hatton's inability to anticipate and see shots coming, and (2) inability to take them when they come. the rest seems like details to me and the devil is NOT in them

[Autobarn]

hahaha. i merely asked the question in the interest of opening the debate out- did it get turned into a putative 'position' there? as it happens i was uninterested in engaging with DG's 'position'. this is not a subject guaranteed to bring out any rational debating habits that may lurk deep within his frontal lobes.

never mind. it seems to me the alternatives are no more edifying for Hatton

either (a)Diaz did get caught equally cleanly. in which case his punch resistance is better. he's so slow, molasses give him sprinting lessons. what are the odds he didn't get caught cleanly by manny, more to the point the ground meat look of his face by the end would suggest that too.

or (b), and this is the horrifying one, Diazis a superior defensive fighter with better reflexes and instincts than hatton, which allowed him not to get hit as cleanly. that, as someone with some affection for hatton, and a little knowledge of Diaz' face-first propensity to eat half the shots thrown at him over the years, is a horrib le prospect to contemplate. the sentence 'david Diaz has better defence than hatton' should throw hatton into retirement if he reads it.

i think it's that pac was smaller back then, and he was throwing for speed vs diaz. it was sort of calzaghe-lacy style, the way he was peppering (and mixing the odd hard shot). diaz seemed overwhelmed by speed, in pac's first fight above super feather

since then he hammered DLH and this must have made him grow in confidence re his power. vs hatton he seemed to be picking the shots better. also, i got the impression that pac is now enjoying being over his natural weight, and that hatton has been draining to make 140 a long time. but IMO both hatton and DLH weakened their bodies (to different extents) whereas pac is enjoying them extra pounds

it is strange that pac's stoppages are getting more impressive the higher he moves up

[DaveyH]

To be fair, the shot that sparked Hatton out would have probably flattened Nikolay Valuev, provided Manny had a stepladder or rocket pack D

And as eloquent as Carbo puts his points across, there's no way luck can be involved when you talk about how a fighter stood up to power shots. I wouldn't feel lucky if Pac man battered the crap out of me for nearly 30 minutes!

[Datsue]

hahaha. i merely asked the question in the interest of opening the debate out- did it get turned into a putative 'position' there? as it happens i was uninterested in engaging with DG's 'position'. this is not a subject guaranteed to bring out any rational debating habits that may lurk deep within his frontal lobes.

never mind. it seems to me the alternatives are no more edifying for Hatton

either (a)Diaz did get caught equally cleanly. in which case his punch resistance is better. he's so slow, molasses give him sprinting lessons. what are the odds he didn't get caught cleanly by manny, more to the point the ground meat look of his face by the end would suggest that too.

or (b), and this is the horrifying one, Diazis a superior defensive fighter with better reflexes and instincts than hatton, which allowed him not to get hit as cleanly. that, as someone with some affection for hatton, and a little knowledge of Diaz' face-first propensity to eat half the shots thrown at him over the years, is a horrib le prospect to contemplate. the sentence 'david Diaz has better defence than hatton' should throw hatton into retirement if he reads it.

Honestly guys, don't mean to interrupt, but Diaz did not get caught as clean as Hatton, or at least, not until the ninth round, when he ended up exactly in the same state as Hatton, facedown on the mat from a left cross. Watch the fight. He comes in (or you know, this is David Diaz, he tries to come in) behind a jab, all night he keeps his hands up & chin down. He never (until the ninth round) steamed straight in with his head immobile.

So basically I agree with your last sentence. This is what Hatton did, & why he got sparko'd in two. So, yes, at this point in time, off their respective last showing, David Diaz has a less porous defence than Hatton. Which I agree is a bloody indictment if ever there was one!

It's a question of attitude. You could see on Ricky's face; he looked wound up like a spring, he wasn't thinking or if he was all he thought was "Roooarrrgggghhhh, I'm bigger than ya, I'm gonna have ya!" Diaz sized up Pac behind a solid jab & kept his hands glued to his chin, didn't swing for the fences & didn't lunge (I'd use the phrase amateurishly but I know loads of amateurs who don't over-extend & swipe like Ricky did on Saturday) at Pac-man.

& I totally agree that that was what should lead Ricky to contemplate retirement. Most important bout of his career & he acts like a club fighter. Some of those missed swipes with the left were Goddamn embarrassing...

[Dioufy]

I think he tried to fight the same way as he did with the Zoo - take shots to land his own. It sadly failed him this time around and he paid the price.

[Carbo]

To be fair, the shot that sparked Hatton out would have probably flattened Nikolay Valuev, provided Manny had a stepladder or rocket pack D

And as eloquent as Carbo puts his points across, there's no way luck can be involved when you talk about how a fighter stood up to power shots. I wouldn't feel lucky if Pac man battered the crap out of me for nearly 30 minutes!

I agree with you about luck; I was just trying to illustrate a point.

[Carbo]

hahaha. i merely asked the question in the interest of opening the debate out- did it get turned into a putative 'position' there? as it happens i was uninterested in engaging with DG's 'position'. this is not a subject guaranteed to bring out any rational debating habits that may lurk deep within his frontal lobes.

never mind. it seems to me the alternatives are no more edifying for Hatton

either (a)Diaz did get caught equally cleanly. in which case his punch resistance is better. he's so slow, molasses give him sprinting lessons. what are the odds he didn't get caught cleanly by manny, more to the point the ground meat look of his face by the end would suggest that too.

or (b), and this is the horrifying one, Diazis a superior defensive fighter with better reflexes and instincts than hatton, which allowed him not to get hit as cleanly. that, as someone with some affection for hatton, and a little knowledge of Diaz' face-first propensity to eat half the shots thrown at him over the years, is a horrib le prospect to contemplate. the sentence 'david Diaz has better defence than hatton' should throw hatton into retirement if he reads it.

Honestly guys, don't mean to interrupt, but Diaz did not get caught as clean as Hatton, or at least, not until the ninth round, when he ended up exactly in the same state as Hatton, facedown on the mat from a left cross. Watch the fight. He comes in (or you know, this is David Diaz, he tries to come in) behind a jab, all night he keeps his hands up & chin down. He never (until the ninth round) steamed straight in with his head immobile.

So basically I agree with your last sentence. This is what Hatton did, & why he got sparko'd in two. So, yes, at this point in time, off their respective last showing, David Diaz has a less porous defence than Hatton. Which I agree is a bloody indictment if ever there was one!

It's a question of attitude. You could see on Ricky's face; he looked wound up like a spring, he wasn't thinking or if he was all he thought was "Roooarrrgggghhhh, I'm bigger than ya, I'm gonna have ya!" Diaz sized up Pac behind a solid jab & kept his hands glued to his chin, didn't swing for the fences & didn't lunge (I'd use the phrase amateurishly but I know loads of amateurs who don't over-extend & swipe like Ricky did on Saturday) at Pac-man.

& I totally agree that that was what should lead Ricky to contemplate retirement. Most important bout of his career & he acts like a club fighter. Some of those missed swipes with the left were Goddamn embarrassing...

yes. agreed.

[DaveyH]

I saw what you were trying to illustrate. But if everyone in this thread is producing watercolours, then your point about luck would be a stick man drawing. It was dire mate.

[Boxingmad]

OK so which do you think was Ricky Hatton's greatest fight? Has there ever been a fight where we've all thought that he truly belongs in boxing's elite, i.e. the pound-for-pound top ten?

:?? :?? :?? :?? :?? :??

[Carbo]

OK so which do you think was Ricky Hatton's greatest fight? Has there ever been a fight where we've all thought that he truly belongs in boxing's elite, i.e. the pound-for-pound top ten?

:?? :?? :?? :?? :?? :??

Sure -- beating Tszyu, who, at the time of the fight, was in everone's pound for pound top 3 and was considered one of history's great 140lb-ers.

He then smashed Maussa, which, with hindsight, was an awful match, and was pretty bad at the time, but at least he was coming off a win against one of the other contenders, Vivian Harris, who before looking dreadful against Maussa, was making waves.

I think it's fair to say that Hatton would probably have been in the lower third of the p4p top ten then. Didn't he win Ring Magazine Fighter of the Year, or something??

And who's to say that "elite" is only the p4p top ten? I can't think of another sport where there is such a select number of elite players. It also means that there are few elite fighters in certain divisions.

Top 20 -- or even 30 -- would be more reasonable, and Hatton's been there for a long time.

Afterall, top twenty is barely more than two fighters per division, and less than three per classic weight division

[Carbo]

I saw what you were trying to illustrate. But if everyone in this thread is producing watercolours, then your point about luck would be a stick man drawing. It was dire mate.

Are you sure?

I mean, let's say Pacquiao is going to land one perfect punch like the one that iced Hatton every 10,000 punches landed.

Hatton just caught one. Awful defence, but that punch was something else.

Just read that Roach said it was the best punch he's ever seen in 20 years of boxing. He said that combination of the technique and the power was something like he's never seen.

Of course I don't put it down to luck. Mayweather would never have been hit with something like that. BUT! I wonder what role luck plays in these things.

And are you SURE people here were producing water colours??? That's a tenuous analogy, my friend.