BoxRec

My main point is that Hatton is overrated by many people. One of the reasons being that he barely beat Collazo. You can't use Collazo's close loss to Hatton as evidence that Collazo was good. That is elmer logic.

The Hatton-Collazo fight was a bad fight. Both looked terrible for most of it. After seeing that fight, I knew Hatton had no chance against the elite guys, yet people still believe that he could do it. We all saw how that turned out.
Collazo's wins over Victor Ortiz and Rivera? Well Ok, if that is best we can come up with.

Gatti wouldn't win one second? That isn't going Kalan?

Notice that you didn't mention any wins of Hatton's except for Collazo. That always seems to be the case with him. You would think there would be a laundry list of really good fighters that Hatton beat considering how good he was supposed to be. Yet people never come up with it.

Again not saying that Gatti was some legend. He was often good, occasionally mediocre-bad, occasionally really good, never great. I just think some people underrate him a bit, (probably because he is in the HOF and shouldn't be) and that many people overrate Hatton a bit.

Ambling Alp II wrote:My main point is that Hatton is overrated by many people. One of the reasons being that he barely beat Collazo. You can't use Collazo's close loss to Hatton as evidence that Collazo was good. That is elmer logic.

The Hatton-Collazo fight was a bad fight. Both looked terrible for most of it. After seeing that fight, I knew Hatton had no chance against the elite guys, yet people still believe that he could do it. We all saw how that turned out.
Collazo's wins over Victor Ortiz and Rivera? Well Ok, if that is best we can come up with.

Gatti wouldn't win one second? That isn't going Kalan?

Notice that you didn't mention any wins of Hatton's except for Collazo. That always seems to be the case with him. You would think there would be a laundry list of really good fighters that Hatton beat considering how good he was supposed to be. Yet people never come up with it.

Again not saying that Gatti was some legend. He was often good, occasionally mediocre-bad, occasionally really good, never great. I just think some people underrate him a bit, (probably because he is in the HOF and shouldn't be) and that many people overrate Hatton a bit.

That's more Gatti than Hatton. I'd pick Hatton over Micky Ward and I doubt Gatti stops Malignaggi. Gatti is the type of fighter that would lose to someone like Ben Tackie even though he's capable of beating him.

golden oldie wrote:

expe wrote:

golden oldie wrote:Do you know what the word " slipping " means in this context, or is that too difficult for you to understand?

Allow me to give you a clue. It certainly isn't a guy who after losing a single fight in his career thus far, has 8 fights in less than 4 years winning them by stoppage in a total of 49 rounds, has one less than stellar performance, then goes on to have a further four fights in 3 years disposing of 3 of those four in a combined 11 rounds. Next you'll be saying the total out classing of Tackie shows he was slipping because he couldn't KO the guy who had never been off his feet.

If you want to cry Kostya had only been in the ring once in nearly 2 and a half years prior to Hatton, you might do well to remember it didn't stop him tearing Mitchell apart 7 months previously, now did it? Slipping my ass. Another thing you might do well to remember is if Dave Parris hadn't ruled a perfectly good body shot by KT as a foul in the 8th, Hatton would have been KO'd, because he certainly wasn't up and ready to go on in 10 seconds.

Oh and before you argue about that even the blatantly pro Hatton commentary team admitted the shot was legal after watching the replays.

Hatton was up inside 3 seconds, the timekeeper was just beginning the count at 2 as he got back to his feet, he was nowhere near being KO'd. And it was not a perfectly good bodyshot and the commentators said nothing of the sort, Jim Watt saying "that was well low", so low that it was actually below the belt line. Tszyu was lucky not to have a point taken for it, along with numerous other low blows throughout the fight.

I care about as much about what Jim Watt says as I care about rotting fish. This is due to the fact he always starts commentating on fights with a preconceived agenda, which is usually dross along the lines of " He's not wuurking enough, he's got tae dae more wuurk " Or he's got use the jab moore, he's no using the jab enough. " Which he repeats from the first round until the end of the fight. I personally find his high pitched nasal voice more irritating that chalk scraping a blackboard.

So I have found Russian film of the fight where I suspect you have as much idea of what the commentators say as I do. NONE WHATSOEVER. At 22.36 of the clip in round 7 Tszyu hits Hatton with a perfectly good left hook to the body. Hatton goes down, and he is not fit to continue when he jumps back up again, which is why the action doesn't resume until 22.56. A full 20 seconds. Had Parris given Hatton a standing 8 count I have no doubt Kostya would have been on him like a leopard, and finished the job. Also, if the punch wasn't legal, why bother starting the count in the first place?

Why lie about what the commentators said then? You're not interested in what Jim Watt says and can't understand the Russians so where's the evidence for "even the blatantly pro Hatton commentary team admitted the shot was legal after watching the replays"?

It was not a perfectly good left hook to the body, it was well below the belt, not for the first time that night and certainly not the last either, followed by a shot to the back of the head for good measure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJqdimk7X0E 12:50 of this video for anyone blessed with the power of sight, slow motion replay can be seen at 14:10.

It took 20 seconds because a fighter hit with a low blow can have up to 5 minutes to recover, Hatton was up and ready to go and Parris sent him to the corner while he warned Tszyu. Hatton then spent the rest of the round coming forward like he did all fight, no evidence whatsoever to suggest that 10 seconds less rest would have been enough for Tszyu to finish him.

The timekeeper started the count because he saw Hatton touch down, then stopped straight away when the referee called no knockdown. It isn't for the timekeeper to make the call on the legality of the punch, if they see a fighter go down they start the count, then it's up to the ref to decide whether it's a knockdown.

Hatton big favourite to win this fantasy fight

IKSRTFO wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:My main point is that Hatton is overrated by many people. One of the reasons being that he barely beat Collazo. You can't use Collazo's close loss to Hatton as evidence that Collazo was good. That is elmer logic.

The Hatton-Collazo fight was a bad fight. Both looked terrible for most of it. After seeing that fight, I knew Hatton had no chance against the elite guys, yet people still believe that he could do it. We all saw how that turned out.
Collazo's wins over Victor Ortiz and Rivera? Well Ok, if that is best we can come up with.

Gatti wouldn't win one second? That isn't going Kalan?

Notice that you didn't mention any wins of Hatton's except for Collazo. That always seems to be the case with him. You would think there would be a laundry list of really good fighters that Hatton beat considering how good he was supposed to be. Yet people never come up with it.

Again not saying that Gatti was some legend. He was often good, occasionally mediocre-bad, occasionally really good, never great. I just think some people underrate him a bit, (probably because he is in the HOF and shouldn't be) and that many people overrate Hatton a bit.

That's more Gatti than Hatton. I'd pick Hatton over Micky Ward and I doubt Gatti stops Malignaggi. Gatti is the type of fighter that would lose to someone like Ben Tackie even though he's capable of beating him.

Well Gatti did beat some pretty fighters in his career. As mentioned he beat Ruelas, Harris-Patterson (2x), and Leija. Dorin was supposed to be good until Gatti beat him.

Gatti did lose more fights than Hatton. However, Gatti's wins are more impressive.

I guess Gatti could lose to Ben Tackie; crazier things have happened. If that is really one of Hatton biggest wins though, that that says a lot about Hatton.
Maybe Gatti would not have stopped Malignaggi. Then again, would you actually bet that Hatton would stop Dorin within two rounds?

As for Ward, well I think he had atleast as good of a chance of beating Hatton and Tackie does of beating Gatti. If Hatton fought Ward three times, there is a good chance he would have lost once; especially if Ward fought as well is he did in the Gatti fights.

Right after the first Gatti-Ward fight, so many people seemed to think it was a great fight. Ward fought the fight of his life. It was Fight of the Year. Gatti certainly could have got the decision in that fight. Didn't hear anyone ripping his performance. Now over the years, this has somehow morphed into being an embarrassing loss.

I thought gatti won that first epic fight. I'd give ward a better chance to upset hatton. Neither could beat collazo.

I like Hatton in this match-up and would make him a 2/1 favorite.

Too fast and more rugged than Gatti.. Better body attack and liver shot.. Actually a better boxer who out-boxed Paulie Malignaggi pretty strongly.

I thought Hatton had much more potential than he ever showed in the ring.. The Pacquiao match-up was the dumbest match-up in the History of Boxing.. You DON'T take a kid who just hired a new coach in Floyd Mayweather Senior -- who did remarkably well against Malignaggi after he got over the 1st round jitters.. Mayweather talked to Hatton after the 1st round.. Hatton was all ears.. Hatton boxed very well the rest of that fight..

McGirt pulled Malignaggi out because he was outclassed so badly.. But you DO NOT EVER take a kid on the level Ricky displayed versus Malignaggi and match him with a peaking Pacquiao at 140 -- probably Pacman's best weight and he's an ATG fighter and never better than that fight.. What you're doing is, you're destroying whatever skills Hatton picked up in his Malinaggi fight. They're going to blow right out his ears the first time Pacquiao hits him because he's 3 levels above Hatton.. He's an A-plus fighter and one of the best fighters on the planet at that time.. What chance did Hatton have??? NONE!!

Anyway -- if Mayweather had Hatton for 6 or 7 fights and he were fighting intermediate level opponents you would have seen a much better boxer.

Kalan wrote:I like Hatton in this match-up and would make him a 2/1 favorite.

Too fast and more rugged than Gatti.. Better body attack and liver shot.. Actually a better boxer who out-boxed Paulie Malignaggi pretty strongly.

I thought Hatton had much more potential than he ever showed in the ring.. The Pacquiao match-up was the dumbest match-up in the History of Boxing.. You DON'T take a kid who just hired a new coach in Floyd Mayweather Senior -- who did remarkably well against Malignaggi after he got over the 1st round jitters.. Mayweather talked to Hatton after the 1st round.. Hatton was all ears.. Hatton boxed very well the rest of that fight..

McGirt pulled Malignaggi out because he was outclassed so badly.. But you DO NOT EVER take a kid on the level Ricky displayed versus Malignaggi and match him with a peaking Pacquiao at 140 -- probably Pacman's best weight and he's an ATG fighter and never better than that fight.. What you're doing is, you're destroying whatever skills Hatton picked up in his Malinaggi fight. They're going to blow right out his ears the first time Pacquiao hits him because he's 3 levels above Hatton.. He's an A-plus fighter and one of the best fighters on the planet at that time.. What chance did Hatton have??? NONE!!

Anyway -- if Mayweather had Hatton for 6 or 7 fights and he were fighting intermediate level opponents you would have seen a much better boxer.

What was your record?

better than yours rook.

Hatton stoppage round 9 via relentless body attack.

expe wrote:

golden oldie wrote:Do you know what the word " slipping " means in this context, or is that too difficult for you to understand?

Allow me to give you a clue. It certainly isn't a guy who after losing a single fight in his career thus far, has 8 fights in less than 4 years winning them by stoppage in a total of 49 rounds, has one less than stellar performance, then goes on to have a further four fights in 3 years disposing of 3 of those four in a combined 11 rounds. Next you'll be saying the total out classing of Tackie shows he was slipping because he couldn't KO the guy who had never been off his feet.

If you want to cry Kostya had only been in the ring once in nearly 2 and a half years prior to Hatton, you might do well to remember it didn't stop him tearing Mitchell apart 7 months previously, now did it? Slipping my ass. Another thing you might do well to remember is if Dave Parris hadn't ruled a perfectly good body shot by KT as a foul in the 8th, Hatton would have been KO'd, because he certainly wasn't up and ready to go on in 10 seconds.

Oh and before you argue about that even the blatantly pro Hatton commentary team admitted the shot was legal after watching the replays.

Hatton was up inside 3 seconds, the timekeeper was just beginning the count at 2 as he got back to his feet, he was nowhere near being KO'd. And it was not a perfectly good bodyshot and the commentators said nothing of the sort, Jim Watt saying "that was well low", so low that it was actually below the belt line. Tszyu was lucky not to have a point taken for it, along with numerous other low blows throughout the fight.

Well both of these accounts can not be true. Anybody want to play "truth squad" here? And it can't be one of these contributors.....has to be a third party.