BoxRec

tanibanana wrote:And right now, people should'nt start concluding Khan is better than Hatton...

As of this moment in time mate, Kahn is leagues below Hatton and he shouldn't even be compared to him.

tanibanana wrote:no way to tell right now, skills is not the end all of comparison; we had yet to see Khan's heart, chin (improvement), passion (will he stay at top).

Personally, I would just put it down to the quality of opponents, and Kahn hasn't fought opponents in the same calibre as Hatton...
He just hasn't.

And as for people mentioning Barrera to me, I'm sorry but I can't have that...
No wya in hell is Kahn a better fighter than Barrera.

tanibanana wrote:

Crease wrote:Hatton had One Big Fight?
Are you mad?

1. Floyd Mayweather Jr
2. Manny Pacquaio
3. Kostya Tzsyu
ANY of these guys would give you a hard nights work.

And lets count Castillo as a 1/2...

Then we have: Malignaggi, Lazcano, Urango, Maussa, Collazo
Yeah, I think we can safely say that Hatton had at leasta dozen big fights.

Agree..

And right now, people should'nt start concluding Khan is better than Hatton;
no way to tell right now, skills is not the end all of comparison; we had
yet to see Khan's heart, chin (improvement), passion (will he stay at top).

Dont think anyone would argue that Khan has reached the same level that Ricky did in his prime. Most just say that with his set of tools, he has the potential to surpass the levels Ricky reached.

He is now. A mere con is not that good of a fighter. He just isn't. He has an ok offense although he is at best an average puncher. He also has absolutely no chin. You Brits have had some great fighters Watson, Benn, Calzaghe, Lennox Lewis and Eubank among others, but you ought to be ashamed hyping this conjob.Hatton was a force in his prime and I haven't seen anything out of Con yet to say he is better. Hatton has a better chin, more power and a destructive style. Ricky has underrated hand and footspeed. If he could control his urges outside the ring, he would have been even better. I don't see anything extraordinary about Con.

Snowman wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote: but he wouldn't get embarrassed against Manny like Hatton did.

Actually, given what we know of his chin, he might have been KO'ed by Pacquaio as quickly.

He wouldn't get embarrassed by Manny because they'd never fight (because of Freddie Roach)...

People tend to forget what a great champion Kostya Tszyu was even if he was arguably a little past his prime. Even if he was though not many people gave Hatton a chance and he pulled off the upset.

[quote=" i, along with many others i presume, would take a prime Hatton to clean up todays welterweight division in style.[/quote]



Prime Hatton almost got flattened by Collazo. While he was good, he was always beatable by bigger guys especially at welter. You must be talking about today's light-welterweight division.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote: < Hatton had ONE big fight in his career ... maybe the Castillo fight counts as a half. So how was he SO GOOD?

Against Hatton's schedule, Khan would have the exact same record, but he wouldn't get embarrassed against Manny like Hatton did.

Yes he would.

Your mental superior wrote:He is now. A mere con is not that good of a fighter. He just isn't. He has an ok offense although he is at best an average puncher. He also has absolutely no chin. You Brits have had some great fighters Watson, Benn, Calzaghe, Lennox Lewis and Eubank among others, but you ought to be ashamed hyping this conjob.Hatton was a force in his prime and I haven't seen anything out of Con yet to say he is better. Hatton has a better chin, more power and a destructive style. Ricky has underrated hand and footspeed. If he could control his urges outside the ring, he would have been even better. I don't see anything extraordinary about Con.

Spot on.

sg1985 wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote: < Hatton had ONE big fight in his career ... maybe the Castillo fight counts as a half. So how was he SO GOOD?

Against Hatton's schedule, Khan would have the exact same record, but he wouldn't get embarrassed against Manny like Hatton did.

How can being Ko'd by one of the best boxers of the last 30 years be considered embarrassing? Especially when you're comparing him to a guy who cleaned out in under a minute by a nobody compared to Pacquaio.

People are very quick to dismiss Hatton, but it remains that his only two defeats have come against the two best fighters of his generation. Khan's sole defeat so far has come against an unheralded and, quite frankly, pretty average slugger. There's just no comparison to be made.

Also worth remembering that Malignaggi is, so far, the best fighter Khan's beaten. Hatton beat the same man, just as convincingly, 18 months earlier. Hatton's also got a list as long as his arm of good fighters that he's beaten. Khan against Hatton's opposition (leaving out Mayweather and Pacquaio, who'd both flatten Khan as they did Hatton)? I'd expect that he'd beat most but would get put out at least two or three times. Compared to what Khan's faced so far, Hatton went in against some real monsters.

Bearing in mind how Amir dealt with in-fighting last weekend does anyone who posted above saying he's better than Hatton still think he beats a prime Ricky Hatton?

Not that I'm slagging Khan off, I think he's still a talent and gets WAY too much stick on here, but just goes to show how people get carried away with a good victory, just as much as a bad defeat.

Happy Slapper wrote:Bearing in mind how Amir dealt with in-fighting last weekend does anyone who posted above saying he's better than Hatton still think he beats a prime Ricky Hatton?

Not that I'm slagging Khan off, I think he's still a talent and gets WAY too much stick on here, but just goes to show how people get carried away with a good victory, just as much as a bad defeat.

Peterson is a better all rounder than Ricky.

Sorry mate can't agree with that.
Until the Bradley fight, Peterson hadn't fought anyone of note.
He lost to Bradley by a wide points margin and was on his arse in the third.
Then he drew with Ortiz and again was on his arse in the third.
The only result of note on his resume is this latest win aginst Khan.
I think that Hatton's resume more than matches that mate.
If he's such a brilliant all rounder, why does he hit the canvas so much ?

Trouble wrote:

Happy Slapper wrote:Bearing in mind how Amir dealt with in-fighting last weekend does anyone who posted above saying he's better than Hatton still think he beats a prime Ricky Hatton?

Not that I'm slagging Khan off, I think he's still a talent and gets WAY too much stick on here, but just goes to show how people get carried away with a good victory, just as much as a bad defeat.

Peterson is a better all rounder than Ricky.

Nah....

Hatton would have done Khan inside the distance

Let's not do the fella a disservice, he was one of UK's all-time greats. Ricky has losses to two men on his record and so does Khan.

Amir is quality, but there's a chasm between Prescott/Peterson and Pacquiao/Mayweather

Khan should get his title back in 2012, but he still just about falls short of Hatton..... for now.

twenty six wrote:Sorry mate can't agree with that.
Until the Bradley fight, Peterson hadn't fought anyone of note.
He lost to Bradley by a wide points margin and was on his arse in the third.
Then he drew with Ortiz and again was on his arse in the third.
The only result of note on his resume is this latest win aginst Khan.
I think that Hatton's resume more than matches that mate.
If he's such a brilliant all rounder, why does he hit the canvas so much ?

Trinidad/Hearns and other hit the canvas. I think Khan is way more talented than Hatton and more willing to take risks. Hatton would fight King Kong for $10M but not for $1M. Khan is still a baby but already achieved a great deal. AND he is willing to fight the best anytime, Hatton? No! Dodged too many fighters that were dangerous.

Hatton was too strong, relentless and had too much for Khan

Late stoppage

Hang up mate, now you're comparing Khan with Hatton.
My response was to you saying Peterson was a better all rounder than Hatton.
Justify.

MIG wrote:I was a big fan of Hatton but I believe Khan would beat Hatton in his prime. Since going with Freddie Roach Khan has improved more and more - he's nowhere near his peak yet, he can unify the division and move up one or two weights too.

Would you say the same if Hatton went to Roach in his early twenties?

Maybe at a PUSH he is.

A prime Ricky Hatton is definitely better than the current version of Amir Khan, imo. Very good standard for both, though.

Have to agree Asterix.
A prime Hatton would have just marched forward a la Peterson and worn Khan down.

Oh dear. This thread is a bit embarrassing.

I seriously think its time to start screening posters. The absolute bollocks you have to sift through is becoming unbearable. Peterson is better than Ricky hatton? Khan has footwork? Oh. My. God.

Khan would be stumbling "back to his drawing board" after a night at the MEN in 2005.

Probably inside 6 minutes.

G0mez wrote:Khan would be stumbling "back to his drawing board" after a night at the MEN in 2005.

Probably inside 6 minutes.

Abso-bloody-lutely.

Is 'Trouble' the worst poster of all time? Hatton not willing to fight the best? What about Pac and Mayweather? Peterson is better than Hatton? Huh? Did you ever actually watch Ricky fight? Div.