BoxRec

MF DOOM wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 07:10

RKY wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 07:02

MF DOOM wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 06:54

Gatti picked up the WBC title that had been vacated by Tszyu and then lost it to Floyd after an undistinguished run, who moved up in weight that same year so wasn’t a concern at light-welterweight. Cotto fought no one anywhere near the calibre of Tszyu in 2015. Hatton became the dominant name at 140 with that win, I shouldn’t even be explaining this to you.

Flip it. Steve Cunningham held the IBF when Haye beat Mormeck, Enzo the WBO, but that doesn’t mean Haye wasn’t the number one in his division after Mormeck. He beat the man at the weight.

As I said, no one at the time disputed that Hatton became the main man at 140. The main dispute was whether he should have fought Witter, he shouldn’t have, and not that Floyd’s single win at the weight that year erased what was a better win for Hatton over Tszyu.

This meeting is adjourned.

Beating a brink-of-retirement Tsyzu is still a better opponent than Gatti, but Gatti was Floyd's 3rd win at 140lb in the space of 13 months.

What exactly is your argument here - that Hatton bagged a better name for his CV in 05 than his fellow title-holders Floyd & Miguel? Fine.

But I'm saying Hatton wasn't the best ten stone fighter in 05, period. He wasn't even top 2. Argue otherwise.

He was, he proved it with a win over Tszyu, who, as I mentioned previously, had been in great form and was bullied out of it. It was a smart performance from Hatton. Having wins over Corley Brussles and Gatti then being out of the division by November does not make you number one at that time, beating Kostya did and, again, Hatton did just that.

My argument is that Hatton had a better career than Haye, but you gave up on that one a few posts ago.

As I said, the difference here is between a perspective that was formed from watching this all happen in 2005 and someone having to join up the dots years later.

RKY wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 07:17

MF DOOM wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 07:10

RKY wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 07:02

Beating a brink-of-retirement Tsyzu is still a better opponent than Gatti, but Gatti was Floyd's 3rd win at 140lb in the space of 13 months.

What exactly is your argument here - that Hatton bagged a better name for his CV in 05 than his fellow title-holders Floyd & Miguel? Fine.

But I'm saying Hatton wasn't the best ten stone fighter in 05, period. He wasn't even top 2. Argue otherwise.

He was, he proved it with a win over Tszyu, who, as I mentioned previously, had been in great form and was bullied out of it. It was a smart performance from Hatton. Having wins over Corley Brussles and Gatti then being out of the division by November does not make you number one at that time, beating Kostya did and, again, Hatton did just that.

My argument is that Hatton had a better career than Haye, but you gave up on that one a few posts ago.

As I said, the difference here is between a perspective that was formed from watching this all happen in 2005 and someone having to join up the dots years later.

He wasn't. Hatton beating Tsyzu didn't magically make him a better fighter than Floyd or Cotto, the other belt holders in the division.

Let's make this real simple;

October 05, unification fight: Hatton vs Floyd, who wins? Hatton vs Cotto, who wins?

Thought so.

The point with Haye, we knew he was the best of his era. Not simply "had a good win, but there were better fighters around at the time".

MF DOOM wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 07:23

RKY wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 07:17

MF DOOM wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 07:10

He was, he proved it with a win over Tszyu, who, as I mentioned previously, had been in great form and was bullied out of it. It was a smart performance from Hatton. Having wins over Corley Brussles and Gatti then being out of the division by November does not make you number one at that time, beating Kostya did and, again, Hatton did just that.

My argument is that Hatton had a better career than Haye, but you gave up on that one a few posts ago.

As I said, the difference here is between a perspective that was formed from watching this all happen in 2005 and someone having to join up the dots years later.

He wasn't. Hatton beating Tsyzu didn't magically make him a better fighter than Floyd or Cotto, the other belt holders in the division.

Let's make this real simple;

October 05, unification fight: Hatton vs Floyd, who wins? Hatton vs Cotto, who wins?

Thought so.

The point with Haye, we knew he was the best of his era. Not simply "had a good win, but there were better fighters around at the time".

OK, so you have conceded that Hatton's win made him the main man at his weight, which is a good as it makes you look slightly less foolish. Unfortunately, you then want to make a fantasy fight in October 2005 between them. In reality, Mayweather was at 147 by then as he fought at 147 (145) in the November. Hatton was annexing the WBA belt and on their 2005 form I'd have taken him over Cotto. Hatton was The Man at 140, in fact he remained the man to beat at 140 until he lost to Manny in 2009.

RKY wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 07:46

MF DOOM wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 07:23

RKY wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 07:17


He wasn't. Hatton beating Tsyzu didn't magically make him a better fighter than Floyd or Cotto, the other belt holders in the division.

Let's make this real simple;

October 05, unification fight: Hatton vs Floyd, who wins? Hatton vs Cotto, who wins?

Thought so.

The point with Haye, we knew he was the best of his era. Not simply "had a good win, but there were better fighters around at the time".

OK, so you have conceded that Hatton's win made him the main man at his weight, which is a good as it makes you look slightly less foolish. Unfortunately, you then want to make a fantasy fight in October 2005 between them. In reality, Mayweather was at 147 by then as he fought at 147 (145) in the November. Hatton was annexing the WBA belt and on their 2005 form I'd have taken him over Cotto. Hatton was The Man at 140, in fact he remained the man to beat at 140 until he lost to Manny in 2009.

"The man", "the main man" means nothing to me. I can accept that by virtue of beating an Tszyu, Hatton became lineal champion, but I'm having a harder time wording this in a simpler fashion; in Summer 05 there were 2 better fighters than Hatton in the division. Good job on shirking the question of Floyd, but we know who wins if they fight in 05.
I suspect you're being disingenuous about Cotto though, or you overrate Hatton - because Cotto would have flattened him (Cotto would've stopped Tsyzu aswell for that matter).

MF DOOM wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 07:51

RKY wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 07:46

MF DOOM wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 07:23

OK, so you have conceded that Hatton's win made him the main man at his weight, which is a good as it makes you look slightly less foolish. Unfortunately, you then want to make a fantasy fight in October 2005 between them. In reality, Mayweather was at 147 by then as he fought at 147 (145) in the November. Hatton was annexing the WBA belt and on their 2005 form I'd have taken him over Cotto. Hatton was The Man at 140, in fact he remained the man to beat at 140 until he lost to Manny in 2009.

"The man", "the main man" means nothing to me. I can accept that by virtue of beating an Tszyu, Hatton became lineal champion, but I'm having a harder time wording this in a simpler fashion; in Summer 05 there were 2 better fighters than Hatton in the division. Good job on shirking the question of Floyd, but we know who wins if they fight in 05.
I suspect you're being disingenuous about Cotto though, or you overrate Hatton - because Cotto would have flattened him (Cotto would've stopped Tsyzu aswell for that matter).

No, you think Cotto would have beaten both and you also think Mayweather beats Tszyu, but neither man managed to make the fight, Hatton did and won it. As I said earlier, Hatton went out and did what he needed to do to be the division's #1 fighter. No ifs or buts or maybes, he registered the better win and therefore we don't have to rely on a fantasy match-up to identify what he did. You stick to perusing the fiction section, I always preferred non-fiction myself.

Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 08:17 I think Hatton could well have beaten Cotto in 2005. I remember opinion being pretty much split on who might win.

orbtastic wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 08:28 Keeping Cotto at 140 at that point in time would only have done Hatton favours, he was absolutely dead at the weight.

RKY wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 08:35

orbtastic wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 08:28 Keeping Cotto at 140 at that point in time would only have done Hatton favours, he was absolutely dead at the weight.

Eh? Cotto stayed at 140 for over a year later, in summer 06 he smashed an unbeaten Malignaggis cheek bones in.

MF DOOM wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 10:04

RKY wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 08:35

orbtastic wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 08:28 Keeping Cotto at 140 at that point in time would only have done Hatton favours, he was absolutely dead at the weight.

Eh? Cotto stayed at 140 for over a year later, in summer 06 he smashed an unbeaten Malignaggis cheek bones in.

That is another really poor attempt from you, RKY. There was a lot of concern about how bad Cotto looked on the scales

RKY wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 10:42

MF DOOM wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 10:04

RKY wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 08:35

Eh? Cotto stayed at 140 for over a year later, in summer 06 he smashed an unbeaten Malignaggis cheek bones in.

That is another really poor attempt from you, RKY. There was a lot of concern about how bad Cotto looked on the scales

Cotto had 4 more fights at 140 since Hatton won the title. (Facts not fiction)

"But he looked drained on the scales"..... wow, modern day boxer in weight draining shocker - i can't believe it.

Cotto was brilliant vs Malignaggi (ironically it was probably malignaggis career best showing).

MF DOOM wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 10:48

RKY wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 10:42

MF DOOM wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 10:04

That is another really poor attempt from you, RKY. There was a lot of concern about how bad Cotto looked on the scales

Cotto had 4 more fights at 140 since Hatton won the title. (Facts not fiction)

"But he looked drained on the scales"..... wow, modern day boxer in weight draining shocker - i can't believe it.

Cotto was brilliant vs Malignaggi (ironically it was probably malignaggis career best showing).

That is your response to being told he was badly drained at the weight? OK. The fact is he moved up after hitting the scales for Malignaggi, who was hardly a great foil for bringing the best out of him. As you've been told, and more than once, people who followed the sport back then were split on a Hatton-Cotto outcome. Today's thread on CHB would suggest that is still the case today.

ironbeard wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 10:54 My subjective opinion is that Cotto stops Hatton at 140, late.

RKY wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 10:57

MF DOOM wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 10:48

RKY wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 10:42

Cotto had 4 more fights at 140 since Hatton won the title. (Facts not fiction)

"But he looked drained on the scales"..... wow, modern day boxer in weight draining shocker - i can't believe it.

Cotto was brilliant vs Malignaggi (ironically it was probably malignaggis career best showing).

That is your response to being told he was badly drained at the weight? OK. The fact is he moved up after hitting the scales for Malignaggi, who was hardly a great foil for bringing the best out of him. As you've been told, and more than once, people who followed the sport back then were split on a Hatton-Cotto outcome. Today's thread on CHB would suggest that is still the case today.

I followed the sport back then you clown. How hard it is for a guy to make weight is pure soeculation and can only really be evidenced by his subsequent performance. Hatton became Champ June 05 when Cotto was already WBC champ - Cotto didn't move up in weight for another 19 months.

Cotto would have smashed Hatton up in 2005, arguing he wouldn't because he looked tight on the scales doesn't hold any merit, because none if his performance at 140 were adversly affected by draining.

RKY wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 10:57

MF DOOM wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 10:48

RKY wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 10:42

Cotto had 4 more fights at 140 since Hatton won the title. (Facts not fiction)

"But he looked drained on the scales"..... wow, modern day boxer in weight draining shocker - i can't believe it.

Cotto was brilliant vs Malignaggi (ironically it was probably malignaggis career best showing).

That is your response to being told he was badly drained at the weight? OK. The fact is he moved up after hitting the scales for Malignaggi, who was hardly a great foil for bringing the best out of him. As you've been told, and more than once, people who followed the sport back then were split on a Hatton-Cotto outcome. Today's thread on CHB would suggest that is still the case today.

I followed the sport back then you clown. How hard it is for a guy to make weight is pure soeculation and can only really be evidenced by his subsequent performance. Hatton became Champ June 05 when Cotto was already WBC champ - Cotto didn't move up in weight for another 19 months.

Cotto would have smashed Hatton up in 2005, arguing he wouldn't because he looked tight on the scales doesn't hold any merit, because none if his performance at 140 were adversly affected by draining.

Covfefe wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 11:02

RKY wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 10:57

MF DOOM wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 10:48

That is your response to being told he was badly drained at the weight? OK. The fact is he moved up after hitting the scales for Malignaggi, who was hardly a great foil for bringing the best out of him. As you've been told, and more than once, people who followed the sport back then were split on a Hatton-Cotto outcome. Today's thread on CHB would suggest that is still the case today.

I followed the sport back then you clown. How hard it is for a guy to make weight is pure soeculation and can only really be evidenced by his subsequent performance. Hatton became Champ June 05 when Cotto was already WBC champ - Cotto didn't move up in weight for another 19 months.

Cotto would have smashed Hatton up in 2005, arguing he wouldn't because he looked tight on the scales doesn't hold any merit, because none if his performance at 140 were adversly affected by draining.

But he didn’t and Hatton beat the division number one.

RKY wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 11:10

Covfefe wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 11:02

RKY wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 10:57

I followed the sport back then you clown. How hard it is for a guy to make weight is pure soeculation and can only really be evidenced by his subsequent performance. Hatton became Champ June 05 when Cotto was already WBC champ - Cotto didn't move up in weight for another 19 months.

Cotto would have smashed Hatton up in 2005, arguing he wouldn't because he looked tight on the scales doesn't hold any merit, because none if his performance at 140 were adversly affected by draining.

But he didn’t and Hatton beat the division number one.

Semantics. In June 05 pretty much prime versions of Floyd Mayweather Junior & Miguel Cotto were world champions at 10 stone.

Hatton was never the best in his division.

I'm done arguing this point, nothing further needs to be said.

RKY wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 11:10

Covfefe wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 11:02

RKY wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 10:57

I followed the sport back then you clown. How hard it is for a guy to make weight is pure soeculation and can only really be evidenced by his subsequent performance. Hatton became Champ June 05 when Cotto was already WBC champ - Cotto didn't move up in weight for another 19 months.

Cotto would have smashed Hatton up in 2005, arguing he wouldn't because he looked tight on the scales doesn't hold any merit, because none if his performance at 140 were adversly affected by draining.

But he didn’t and Hatton beat the division number one.

Semantics.

Covfefe wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 11:12

RKY wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 11:10

Covfefe wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 11:02

But he didn’t and Hatton beat the division number one.

Semantics. In June 05 pretty much prime versions of Floyd Mayweather Junior & Miguel Cotto were world champions at 10 stone.

Hatton was never the best in his division.

I'm done arguing this point, nothing further needs to be said.

The problem is you’re judging Cotto on what we know now, not what was thought then. Hatton was number one in the division after he beta Tsyzu. That doesn’t mean he was the best boxer in the division, it means he was ranked first.

RKY wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 11:15

Covfefe wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 11:12

RKY wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 11:10

Semantics. In June 05 pretty much prime versions of Floyd Mayweather Junior & Miguel Cotto were world champions at 10 stone.

Hatton was never the best in his division.

I'm done arguing this point, nothing further needs to be said.

The problem is you’re judging Cotto on what we know now, not what was thought then. Hatton was number one in the division after he beta Tsyzu. That doesn’t mean he was the best boxer in the division, it means he was ranked first.

What does it matter what anyone thought back then? It's a legacy question now.

* Haye was the best in his era at CW.
* Hatton was never the best at 140.

At what point those facts became clear is irrelevant.