BoxRec

Posted: **21 Mar 2008, 17:14**

Spud wrote:I completely agree with the people who state no matter what the weight and no matter what the preparation - Ricky Hatton was never going to and never will beat Floyd Mayweather.

For me the question all of you need to get your teeth into is this - whilst I do not think any sane person can deny Ricky Hatton is without doubt a world class boxer how will he come back from the defeat against Mayweather - do not say he had an easy time - for me it was a slow and painful taking apart of Hatton and yes I stress from the worlds best pound for pound boxer - but nonetheless if was for me a bad defeat - couple that with the struggles against Collazo and the not so easy fight against Urango - I am completely and utterly intrigued how Ricky will fare against Lazcano.

Call me a cynic - but Ricky has just signed with Golden Boy and will be one of their premier fighters - Lazcano is a Golden Boy fighter - put 2 and 2 together and then make 5 with regards to the outcome of this fight - it is clearly going to be a win for Hatton but how will he look - will he ever be good enough again to take on the best pound for pound fighters in the world??

Vickys garbage............so are your posts.

Posted: **21 Mar 2008, 18:09**

Vicky+Fatton=Ringpost

Posted: **21 Mar 2008, 18:57**

i cant believe the idiocy of arguing that 7 lbs doesnt matter in pro boxing.
of course it f..ing matters.
i have tried to point out good examples but if you are going to combat mine with sam peter without legs against ricky hatton at 140 then your argument dissolves into broken pieces and deserves to be ignored and that is what i am going to do.

Posted: **21 Mar 2008, 19:03**

harrygreb wrote:i cant believe the idiocy of arguing that 7 lbs doesnt matter in pro boxing.
of course it f..ing matters.
i have tried to point out good examples but if you are going to combat mine with sam peter without legs against ricky hatton at 140 then your argument dissolves into broken pieces and deserves to be ignored and that is what i am going to do.

You do that. Now you can see how futile your argument is.You completely fail to acknowledge that Floyds skillset is what set him apart from Hatton. Its not even close. But if you think 7lbs is the magical diffrence why not debate a diffrence of a lb or even half a lb.Its clearly that significant for you.

Posted: **21 Mar 2008, 20:05**

actually you muppett, if you read my post it says clearly that floyd would still have won at 140 against ricky. so stick that up your arse. you have not answered my post about the how weight is different for different fighters. you just came up with some unintelligible rubbish about heavyweights having their legs removed and still managing to be competitive against talented lightwelters!! perhaps steve molitor (super bantam) should take on manny at lightweight!! 7lbs? naahh that wont matter; steves a better boxer so the pac man wont stand a chance.
hang on, i have just come up with a great idea. how about we have different weight classes so that heavier men do not have advantages over lighter guys? perhaps i could sell the idea to the governing bodies of professional and amateur boxing!!! what was that? they already did that 200 years ago? oh, okay...back to the drawing board.

mug

Posted: **21 Mar 2008, 20:10**

harrygreb wrote:actually you muppett, if you read my post it says clearly that floyd would still have won at 140 against ricky. so stick that up your arse. you have not answered my post about the how weight is different for different fighters. you just came up with some unintelligible rubbish about heavyweights having their legs removed and still managing to be competitive against talented lightwelters!! perhaps steve molitor (super bantam) should take on manny at lightweight!! 7lbs? naahh that wont matter; steves a better boxer so the pac man wont stand a chance.
hang on, i have just come up with a great idea. how about we have different weight classes so that heavier men do not have advantages over lighter guys? perhaps i could sell the idea to the governing bodies of professional and amateur boxing!!! what was that? they already did that 200 years ago? oh, okay...back to the drawing board.

mug

Your post is typical of the chav scum that follow Hatton. Your not even capable of debating your point cleanly and clearly without resorting to childish name calling.You might want to take some of your own advice next time.

Posted: **21 Mar 2008, 20:18**

harrygreb wrote:actually you muppett, if you read my post it says clearly that floyd would still have won at 140 against ricky. so stick that up your arse. you have not answered my post about the how weight is different for different fighters. you just came up with some unintelligible rubbish about heavyweights having their legs removed and still managing to be competitive against talented lightwelters!! perhaps steve molitor (super bantam) should take on manny at lightweight!! 7lbs? naahh that wont matter; steves a better boxer so the pac man wont stand a chance.
hang on, i have just come up with a great idea. how about we have different weight classes so that heavier men do not have advantages over lighter guys? perhaps i could sell the idea to the governing bodies of professional and amateur boxing!!! what was that? they already did that 200 years ago? oh, okay...back to the drawing board.

mug

Hatton-Mayweather was the sort of fight that didnt matter which weigh it happened, remember Mayweather offered the fight to Hatton 5 times at 140. Insiders (that maybe biased) say Hatton wanted Mayweather at 147 so he didn't lose his ring belt at 140 if he lost

Why doesn't weight matter? Because Mayweather fights within a couple of pounds of the weight he fights at. Hatton drains to make 140 and is actually less drained and therefore better at 147. Mayweather was not bigger than Hatton at 147, Hatton most probably outweighed Mayweather on fight night

Posted: **21 Mar 2008, 20:31**

Your wasting your time. Like most Hatton fanboys his blind to the facts.

Posted: **22 Mar 2008, 07:58**

how wrong can a guy be? first youre wrong about the weight issue - remember and as i have stated all along i am not saying hatton beats floyd at 140 in fact i have said he loses - 7lbs (half a stone) is a lot of weight to give away for most fighters. go back to my point about molitor/pac man or colin lynes at 147 you have not answered them yet.
me? a chav? i'll tell you mister, chav i certainly am not. and you accuse me of name calling!! and back to the boxing, i am not a hatton fan. i'm just not one of the arrivistes who saw hatton get a boxing lesson from a really excellent opponent and who see a chance to gain some "boxing expert" cred by predicting his imminent downfall. sorry for using the word "muppet" to describe you but it was quite a decent Chianti.

Posted: **22 Mar 2008, 08:23**

scurlaruntings wrote:
harrygreb wrote:actually you muppett, if you read my post it says clearly that floyd would still have won at 140 against ricky. so stick that up your arse. you have not answered my post about the how weight is different for different fighters. you just came up with some unintelligible rubbish about heavyweights having their legs removed and still managing to be competitive against talented lightwelters!! perhaps steve molitor (super bantam) should take on manny at lightweight!! 7lbs? naahh that wont matter; steves a better boxer so the pac man wont stand a chance.
hang on, i have just come up with a great idea. how about we have different weight classes so that heavier men do not have advantages over lighter guys? perhaps i could sell the idea to the governing bodies of professional and amateur boxing!!! what was that? they already did that 200 years ago? oh, okay...back to the drawing board.

mug
Your post is typical of the chav scum that follow Hatton. Your not even capable of debating your point cleanly and clearly without resorting to childish name calling.You might want to take some of your own advice next time.

S Curl, Harry Greb has exposed himself as the turd i always knew was always waiting to drop.

TEAM HATTON STATED THEY PICKED MAYWEATHER BECAUSE HE WAS SMALL @147...RICKY HATTONS CAREER PRIOR TO PBF WAS BUILT ON FIGHTING LIGHTWEIGHTS AND/OR OVER THE HILL FIGHTERS.

These d!cks build up there fighters under blind patriotism them cry like babies and make multiple excuse when they get there arse kicked..then attempt to back track and mask over their excuses.

C^NTS.

Posted: **22 Mar 2008, 08:37**

StepinFetchit wrote:
scurlaruntings wrote:
harrygreb wrote:actually you muppett, if you read my post it says clearly that floyd would still have won at 140 against ricky. so stick that up your arse. you have not answered my post about the how weight is different for different fighters. you just came up with some unintelligible rubbish about heavyweights having their legs removed and still managing to be competitive against talented lightwelters!! perhaps steve molitor (super bantam) should take on manny at lightweight!! 7lbs? naahh that wont matter; steves a better boxer so the pac man wont stand a chance.
hang on, i have just come up with a great idea. how about we have different weight classes so that heavier men do not have advantages over lighter guys? perhaps i could sell the idea to the governing bodies of professional and amateur boxing!!! what was that? they already did that 200 years ago? oh, okay...back to the drawing board.

mug
Your post is typical of the chav scum that follow Hatton. Your not even capable of debating your point cleanly and clearly without resorting to childish name calling.You might want to take some of your own advice next time.
S Curl, Harry Greb has exposed himself as the turd i always knew was always waiting to drop.

TEAM HATTON STATED THEY PICKED MAYWEATHER BECAUSE HE WAS SMALL @147...RICKY HATTONS CAREER PRIOR TO PBF WAS BUILT ON FIGHTING LIGHTWEIGHTS AND/OR OVER THE HILL FIGHTERS.

These d!cks build up there fighters under blind patriotism them cry like babies and make multiple excuse when they get there arse kicked..then attempt to back track and mask over their excuses.

C^NTS.

Couldnt agree more. Iv watched Hattons meteroic rise since he turned pro

And iv seen NOTHING to convince me his an elite fighter or even close to a world beater. His been carefully guided under the auspices of the WBU and "world tidal" boxing and has made a fantastic career out of fortune great marketting and shrewd match making.
His fans said he could beat Floyd.Now that his been humiliated the excuse is 7lbs was the magical diffrence. The ref was against him. etc etc. Its one excuse after the next. The reality is the kid simply isnt good enough.

Posted: **23 Mar 2008, 02:03**

Mayweather would've beaten Hatton at any weight. Okay? It's just that Harry and I believe Floyd has a frame which is better suited to carrying extra pounds. He's taller for a start. Ricky may have been bigger on the night, but a man of his height should make 140 with ease.

Both fighters were above their prime divisions, yet this affected one guy far more than the other. Skill can be carried up, whereas a bread-and-butter boxer loses out.

Hatton wanting the fight at 147 in order to retain his 140 belts is very plausible. I'd say that's true.

Posted: **23 Mar 2008, 02:19**

Hatton's a manufactured clubfighter.

Posted: **23 Mar 2008, 02:26**

He is. So you have to give him some credit. (Before retracting it, in light of Witter.)

Posted: **23 Mar 2008, 03:33**

Grilling Machine wrote:Mayweather would've beaten Hatton at any weight. Okay? It's just that Harry and I believe Floyd has a frame which is better suited to carrying extra pounds. He's taller for a start. Ricky may have been bigger on the night, but a man of his height should make 140 with ease.

Both fighters were above their prime divisions, yet this affected one guy far more than the other. Skill can be carried up, whereas a bread-and-butter boxer loses out.

Hatton wanting the fight at 147 in order to retain his 140 belts is very plausible. I'd say that's true.

I concur.

Just as an aside, I know theres been some talk about 'do the pounds matter', and i did some quick totting up on this one....
someone moving from straweight to fly, 105 to 108, is putting on 2.8% of their former weight (weigh in weights obviously), whereas from 140 to 147 is exactly 5%....

Posted: **23 Mar 2008, 10:49**

Hatton turned down $13million to fight Mayweather at 140 in 2006. He said he wanted more money.

Posted: **23 Mar 2008, 11:52**

STP wrote:Hatton turned down $13million to fight Mayweather at 140 in 2006. He said he wanted more money.

did he really?

Posted: **23 Mar 2008, 12:11**

Spud wrote:
STP wrote:Hatton turned down $13million to fight Mayweather at 140 in 2006. He said he wanted more money.
did he really?

According to the Mayweather camp, some people at HBO and even Hatton himself admitting it in an internet interview, all a few years back. Hatton was obviously proved right, though, that the fight could be worth more money if it was put on hold for abit.

Posted: **23 Mar 2008, 13:15**

Grilling Machine wrote:Mayweather would've beaten Hatton at any weight. Okay? It's just that Harry and I believe Floyd has a frame which is better suited to carrying extra pounds. He's taller for a start. Ricky may have been bigger on the night, but a man of his height should make 140 with ease.

Both fighters were above their prime divisions, yet this affected one guy far more than the other. Skill can be carried up, whereas a bread-and-butter boxer loses out.

Hatton wanting the fight at 147 in order to retain his 140 belts is very plausible. I'd say that's true.

But Floyd did not move up because he was struggling to make 140, he moved up to chase bigger [ay days and more titles.

I think floyd's optimum weight is 140, he looked no more defined at 147 its just he didnt drain a few pounds to weigh in at welter.

As I have mentioned before, Hatton fighting any other Welterweight (aside from maybe the small Zab Judah) and the weight would have mattered. Against floyd the weight had absolutely no bearing on the fight.

Posted: **23 Mar 2008, 13:29**

to be slightly more accurate and a touch pedantic i'd say the weight had no bearing on the OUTCOME OF the fight.

Posted: **23 Mar 2008, 13:31**

At least you agree

Posted: **23 Mar 2008, 13:53**

banjo wrote:Vicky+Fatton=Ringpost

I don't get it?

Wait a minute..yes I do!

Posted: **23 Mar 2008, 13:57**

The weight had a lot to do with it!

Hatton outweighed Mayweather by 7? 9? Pounds?

He needed to outweigh him by 100LBS!

He still would have lost

Posted: **23 Mar 2008, 18:32**

DG. wrote:The weight had a lot to do with it!

Hatton outweighed Mayweather by 7? 9? Pounds?

He needed to outweigh him by 100LBS!

He still would have lost

Did Hatton spurn you?

Being turned down for an autograph shouldn't make you feel bitter and full malice - no matter how good or not so good your idol proved to be.

Posted: **25 Mar 2008, 08:04**

i stated that from the beginning. its your mate's idea that 7lbs never matters in any fight that i have a slight problem with

BoxRec

Can Hatton ever train as hard....