Was Hatton/Witter the biggest British fight not to happen?

[stujones]

Khan straight after Kotelnik vs Ricky. I know Ricky didn't box after, but it would have have been massive. That's the one I would have loved to have seen and I think a tough one to call.

TBH, after I saw Witter somewhat exposed at the Ndou, Kotelnik level - I wouldn't have given him much of a chance vs Ricky.

but ricky struggled with Collazo and though he beat an old Tszyu, never really beat a top world class opponent in his prime...neither did witter but i still think he would have been too awkward for ricky and would have stopped him...

Ricky in his pomp would have brushed aside the likes of Ndou and Kotelnik without much trouble.... Paulie Malignaggi not world class, Jose Luis Collazo not world class? Malignaggi beat up Ndou in their first fight and still beat him when he clearly wasn't that motivated in the rematch -Witter really struggled. Junior's power at the higher level was found wanting really and Ricky had an absolute cast iron jaw in his pomp. Ricky might have looked bad for a few rounds, but then Witter would have faded and Hatton would have won a either by about 4 rounds or stopped him. Time and time again Witter showed he was a good 5 round fighter at pace. He did his stalking and fencing for a reason - not just to frustrate the fans - cause the times he tried to put on a show against quality opponents, he gassed.

[Counter-puncher]

i have never been keen on the 'Ricky didn't do so well against Collazo, therefore...' line.

you mean, Ricky didn't do that well against this huge, tall, southpaw?

mmm.

let me know the next time he fights a huge, tall, southpaw, and the analogy may have some pertinence for me.

[stujones]

Good call on Calzaghe Vs Woods

Khan straight after Kotelnik vs Ricky. I know Ricky didn't box after, but it would have have been massive. That's the one I would have loved to have seen and I think a tough one to call.

TBH, after I saw Witter somewhat exposed at the Ndou, Kotelnik level - I wouldn't have given him much of a chance vs Ricky.

If Witter and Hatton fought the stylistic match-up would have been fascinating IMO. I think Witter would've been very dangerous in the first half of the fight*, but if the fight made it to the second half then I think Ricky would've taken over.

Hattons come forward all action style is perfect for a counter puncher like Witter (although Ricky would've obviously modified his tactics to a certain extent)

When Ricky showed he could take Kostya's big right hands I don't think what Witter would have offered would have been a problem. Witter was a 5 round fighter (at pace) and baring cuts I don't know what he would have offered to beat Hatton. I used to think Witter would have taken him when Witter was going through that good period at EBU champion, but Ndou, Kotelnik and his rather poor world title reign signified to me that he was a level below Ricky.

[Counter-puncher]

Think Bruno-Lewis II when Bruno was WBC title-holder would have been the biggest. Lewis won an eliminator over Lionel Butler but was sent down a few pegs when Sulimain decided that Mike Tyson deserved #1 spot and a shot at the title. For a fleeting moment the rematch between Lewis and Bruno did seem to be possible, and it would have been far bigger than Hatton, a star name, versus Witter, not quite a star name.

good call

[stujones]

What about Marsh vs Honeyghan, or Honeyghan vs Jones.... although I still think Hatton vs Khan would have been massive.

[stujones]

I remember when Naz had some war of words with McGuigan, one red paper tried to rumble up some attention and get McGuigan to comeback. It would have been a horrible disaster, but would have been massive - similar to the Audley vs Bruno thing about eight years ago. McGuigan was about 35 at the time.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Khan straight after Kotelnik vs Ricky. I know Ricky didn't box after, but it would have have been massive. That's the one I would have loved to have seen and I think a tough one to call.

TBH, after I saw Witter somewhat exposed at the Ndou, Kotelnik level - I wouldn't have given him much of a chance vs Ricky.

but ricky struggled with Collazo and though he beat an old Tszyu, never really beat a top world class opponent in his prime...neither did witter but i still think he would have been too awkward for ricky and would have stopped him...

Ricky in his pomp would have brushed aside the likes of Ndou and Kotelnik without much trouble.... Paulie Malignaggi not world class, Jose Luis Collazo not world class? Malignaggi beat up Ndou in their first fight and still beat him when he clearly wasn't that motivated in the rematch -Witter really struggled. Junior's power at the higher level was found wanting really and Ricky had an absolute cast iron jaw in his pomp. Ricky might have looked bad for a few rounds, but then Witter would have faded and Hatton would have won a either by about 4 rounds or stopped him. Time and time again Witter showed he was a good 5 round fighter at pace. He did his stalking and fencing for a reason - not just to frustrate the fans - cause the times he tried to put on a show against quality opponents, he gassed.

Agreed, Witter would have struggled immensely with Hatton's torrid pace, Witter always liked to be able to dictate the pace of the fight. Hatton in his prime would never have allowed that.

[stujones]

Think Bruno-Lewis II when Bruno was WBC title-holder would have been the biggest. Lewis won an eliminator over Lionel Butler but was sent down a few pegs when Sulimain decided that Mike Tyson deserved #1 spot and a shot at the title. For a fleeting moment the rematch between Lewis and Bruno did seem to be possible, and it would have been far bigger than Hatton, a star name, versus Witter, not quite a star name.

If I remember rightly BM did a cover after Bruno vs McCall which said "Do the right thing, Frank" (or something like that) and wanted Bruno vs Lewis 2 over Bruno vs Tyson. If I remember, a few comments in the letter page thought it was a tad disrespectful for a Boxing Magazine not to just celebrate Bruno's win without having Lewis on the cover also.

As with the first one, it would have been bigger than Hatton vs Witter - but not sure it would have eclipsed fight 1. I don't think the McCall win gave anyone renewed confidence that Bruno could now beat an improving Lewis. I think people gave Bruno more of a chance vs Tyson, cause of the undoubted Rustiness of Tyson. Lots of people just wanted Bruno to say after the McCall fight - Dream accomplished time to retire.

[gobbles]

Benn-Eubank 3 - would have been massive, should have happened after that draw

[Kilsby]

Khan Vs Murray....

Always fancied Murray in this one but Khan is talking much bigger fights now so i can't see it happening unfortunately

[bad mamma jamma]

i have never been keen on the 'Ricky didn't do so well against Collazo, therefore...' line.

you mean, Ricky didn't do that well against this huge, tall, southpaw?

mmm.

let me know the next time he fights a huge, tall, southpaw, and the analogy may have some pertinence for me.

i have never subsrcibed to the idea of southpaws being harder to fight agains than orthodox..if you can fight you can fight anyone regardless of their stance...have sparred both and found no difference (they both beat me up!)...but, its not like hatton had to move up in weight like they did on the old days...really he was only moving up 1/2 a weight so I also dont buy that collazo was some huge behemoth and hatton was like david with a peashooter..hatton was limited IMO, 1 paced but yes had a good workrate..there was a reason he didnt fight witter and it wasnt the lack of money..

[Kilsby]

Lets not get mixed up here.... Ricky would have mashed Witter in his price.

Unfortuantely that prime is LONG gone.... & he no doubt be belted by Witter in his present state

[Kilsby]

^^^^

In his PRIME.....

[Counter-puncher]

i have never been keen on the 'Ricky didn't do so well against Collazo, therefore...' line.

you mean, Ricky didn't do that well against this huge, tall, southpaw?

mmm.

let me know the next time he fights a huge, tall, southpaw, and the analogy may have some pertinence for me.

i have never subsrcibed to the idea of southpaws being harder to fight agains than orthodox..if you can fight you can fight anyone regardless of their stance...

i do subscribe to that view to a large extent. alos, results seem to indicate that fighters who looks generally comfortable against orthodox opponents seem to look worse against lefties, like 3/4 of the time. of course this is not scientific

anyways even if we take southpaw out of the equation:

so ricky struggled against this huge tall guy, etc.....

[stujones]

I cannot remember it being that bad for poor Lenny. I pretty sure he had a nice financial reward for offering step aside money and the WBC didn't allow Tyson to hold that WBC title for too long. He maintained a high WBC ranking for allowing Tyson the chance at Bruno. I don't think King/Sulliman should be potrayed as evil there. The impression I got was the ball was in Lewis' court and he elected to take the money and keep a high ranking. He wasn't so accomodating when it came to Rahman and King offering Lewis cash to wave his rematch. Lewis knew his opportunity would come. For how the WBC treated Tyson after, I don't think they gave him any favours - seeing how the organisations are handling Long time mandatories now, Lewis might consider himself a tad fortunate after taking the cash he maintained his #1 ranking. Povetkin and Hide have lost theirs recently (quite rightfully).

I agreed with BM's stance and view, although thought they could have saved the photo of Lewis until the Magazine.

[Lenny]

i have never been keen on the 'Ricky didn't do so well against Collazo, therefore...' line.

you mean, Ricky didn't do that well against this huge, tall, southpaw?

mmm.

let me know the next time he fights a huge, tall, southpaw, and the analogy may have some pertinence for me.

But when did Ricky ever look good against a counter puncher? Even Joe Hutchinson gave him a couple of problems early (yeah, I said it!)
I can't make up my mind whether he just mauls Witter in close or whether Witter gets him outta there by catching him on the way in with hard single shots.

[Counter-puncher]

yeah, umm, i was just talking about Collazo really, it just doesn't quite seem right that against this octopus-armed dude 5'11 or whatever the smurf-sized Hatton didn't look good... therefore he struggles vs witter. just sounds like dud logic to me. from memory a lot of collazo's good work vs hatton was done getting off first with his 7 foot arms, anyway.

[Lenny]

yeah, umm, i was just talking about Collazo really, it just doesn't quite seem right that against this octopus-armed dude 5'11 or whatever the smurf-sized Hatton didn't look good... therefore he struggles vs witter. just sounds like dud logic to me. from memory a lot of collazo's good work vs hatton was done getting off first with his 7 foot arms, anyway.

Agreed, it's amazing how many people felt Hatton would blow Collazo away in a mismatch beforehand after viewing the fight in which Collazo was stopped (by a guy who must have been twice the size of Hatton)

[stujones]

How was the step aside money a necessity, and what would have happened had Lewis not taken it? Perfectly valid questions I think.

IMO, Lewis clearly wanted Tyson in 1996/1997 - who could blame him and I would argue wanted this more than Bruno or the WBC title. I don't think taking a step aside money was the right way about going for a title as soon as possible. It was the right way (in theory, didn't transpire) to get Tyson early - but upon realising King/Tyson wanted no part of Lenny, Lewis prevent the step aside scenerio going further and Mike got stripped.

Although, I do not see what the WBC did so corrupt. Tyson wasn't installed as the mandatory for Bruno. Lewis was the #1 contender. Tyson didn't leap frog Lewis in the rankings, yes he got his shot before cause Lewis accepted the reward and it was on the basis that Tyson would have to defend against him. What would have happened had Lewis gone to courts, not taken step aside money, at that stage - who knows. ONLY in that scenerio and with that decision could we say as a fact if the WBC were acting corruptly on this occasion.

Would love to hear FTM take on this and to uncover the truth behind it all.

[stujones]

Fair enough, I always thought Tyson vs McNeeley was for the #2 position. Independent article shows I'm wrong. It hardly cost him years mind, he wasn't the most active fighter on the planet at this time and, perhaps I am wrong, I cannot remember the court cases costing him prep time. He wouldn't have fought Bruno untill 1996 and he was WBC champion early 1997. It cost him years of big pay days yes.

Thinking about it, just a question and maybe one with better memories, I wonder if the IBC title he won against Morrison had anything to do with any issues. I remember the WBC being very anti any other organisation at that stage.

A question here, didn't Lewis get step aside money to let Frank have his shot? He was mandatory for McCall.

[Ezzard]

McGuigan-Cowdell

Really wnated to see that one. Would have been a great match up with their styles.

Honeyghan-Laing

At any point in their careers this would have been intriguing.

[hitman_hatton1]

witter and big are not 2 names i would associate.

bruno vs mason would have been bigger.

mason was higher profile than witter.

and bruno was probably the one british fighter who was more popular than ricky has been.

[stujones]

Fair enough, I always thought Tyson vs McNeeley was for the #2 position. Independent article shows I'm wrong. It hardly cost him years mind, he wasn't the most active fighter on the planet at this time and, perhaps I am wrong, I cannot remember the court cases costing him prep time. He wouldn't have fought Bruno untill 1996 and he was WBC champion early 1997. It cost him years of big pay days yes.

Thinking about it, just a question and maybe one with better memories, I wonder if the IBC title he won against Morrison had anything to do with any issues. I remember the WBC being very anti any other organisation at that stage.

A question here, didn't Lewis get step aside money to let Frank have his shot? He was mandatory for McCall.

Again, you're mistaken. Lewis was active after the loss to McCall. He fought three times in 1995 but only once in 1996, which bears out my point, the legal wranglings did impact and would have continued to do so.

As for Lewis getting paid to step aside for McCall-Bruno. Look at the timeline. McCall fought Holmes before Lewis beat Butler. On the night Lewis beat Butler, Bruno also won and his fight was mooted as a curtain call before a McCall challenge. So the McCall-Bruno fight, a canny person could argue, was in play before Lewis got into the ring with Butler and the WBC, I am sure, would have argued that McCall had another state of grace to allow for the Bruno fight. You seem to want to accuse Lewis of taking step aside money constantly rather than admit the truth, that the WBC are bent as a five bob note.

Consider this, Sulliedmon gave an interview in which he was challenged over Tyson's ranking. Jose, to his eternal credit, tried to make the argument that Tyson's pre-jail wins over Razor Ruddock had established him as mandatory and that Mike shouldn't be punished further on his release by having to fight his way through the top ranked guys, IE Lewis. It was absolute nonsense.

All things being equal, Lewis would have fought Bruno in 1996, you've got that one right, but would have been coming of a busy 1995 and maybe, legal wranglings removed, may have squeezed in two in 1996, good activity for a heavyweight at the time.

You're a fan of Evander Holyfield. If you won't listen to me then listen to the Vander. He went on record as saying that Tyson ducked Lewis and took him on instead and that is why he eventually agreed to a unification with Lewis, that and a big pile of dosh.

Final thought on the payout. I am not sure of the exact date but Lewis lost the case to get Bruno, Tyson made noises about taking Lewis on, effectively froze the WBC title, with their consent and collusion, and Lewis was paid to allow Mike to take other matches, I think starting with Seldon, with the argument that he wouldn't win the case anyway a strong one given what he was up against.

Lewis was no saint himself, but he got fucked during these years.

Now, there was a boxer who fought professional boxing matches whilst in prison and built up a good ranking whilst doing so, Berger wrote about him in Punch Lines. I cannot recall his name and haven't the time or inclination to look it up right now. You can maintain a ranking in prison under certain circumstances but it is not fair for you to get one simply because Sulliedmon wants to help rehabilitate former cons.

Holy molly.... I admitted I was wrong and asked a QUESTION regarding the Bruno vs McCall on the simple fact that McCall vs Bruno was after Lewis vs Butler and then I get that rant. Since when did I say right "an accusation here".

When did I once, ever, argue against the fact that Tyson didn't want anything of Lewis - ever post 1995. He didn't even want in him 2001 or 2002. So not sure why it was was worthy of a "listen to Vader" speech. Having said that, I do think Tyson vs Holyfield was a far bigger fight than Lewis vs Tyson at the time. Although, I re-iterate Tyson's heart was out of the game YEARS before and didn't want a piece of the 6 foot 5 Londoner.... Tyson was especially after the cash and a good risk/reward value - Old Evander looked to be a much easier option for a bigger purse. Maybe something might have happened had Tyson beaten Holyfield, Moorer and maybe Akinwande (which I think was King's original intention). Of course, Don still came out smiling cause the Holyfield up caused simply caused the biggest fight of 1997.

[stujones]

of course its a case of right and wrong.... when dealing with factual things, which is what we are dealing with. Obviously you are given me far too much credit cause I didn't know the answers (or crucially where to find them or got the time to search for them) and thought the old memory bank was correct. The independent article showed I was wrong, I wanted more answers on another matter again I thought it was a sensible question, and not one particularly researchable. A simple "no the WBC didn't offer Lewis a side step cause McCall vs Bruno was in the works before Butler vs Lewis" would have sufficed. You didn't have to give me the third degree over it, just a simple link would have done.... all you needed to show me was the independent link as a response to my reply.... it showed I was out or order and wrong. Not read that article before.

[flatnoseflynn]

Bruno-Mason

Alright maybe not but I would have liked that one 8)

Yeah I would of liked to of seen that fight happen interesting to see who would of won