BoxRec

Edited

Hagler2002 wrote:

BIGMARK wrote:
i know it should of been a question and not a statement but i forgot the question mark but the first post of the thread laid it out with plenty of question marks ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

i dont understand the point of this thread.

Well piss off back to your own thread and put a question mark in the title then

MODS any way of getting this abusive shitbag off our forum.

PM me your number before you get booted off cocksucker

how was the billy graham situation handled does any one no? i thought ricky and his dad took the piss out of fight academy so why is hobson to blame?

people go on about bg as he's a saint.as 4 hobson wasnt he considerd as a middleman??

the hattons just used hobson like they use every one they work with, i thought billy was sacked cos of his health

if hobson was stupid enuff to pay over the odds to get hatton then that's his look out.

hobson was lucky to get hatton in the first place.

Business is business, everyone who has worked with the Hatton's have cashed in, if Ricky had not taken control of his affairs other people, e.g FW, would just take a larger cut.
I have no problem with him maximising his profits, as a fighter he always turns u in great shape, fights his heart out and is damn exciting, that is the reason he generates so much and the likes of Witter didn't, it's all about bums on seats and a bit of business acumen, I don't begruge Hatton his success in that area because he has earned it.
Most criticism is due to jealousy

classic line about Jane Couch - "I'd like to see her box" - can't imagine any other boxer coming out with that one

whats the reason behind the billy graham shite then????

hitman_hatton1 wrote:

DG. wrote:Hatton is a very good Euro level fighter.

World Class? Yes, elite? no.

even mayweather knew he'd been in a fight.

what was it he said about hatton afterwards.

"the toughest opponent i've ever faced"

He later said it was the easiest fight he ever had..

Wake up, he was loking at the rematch cash.

Hatton hardly hit him.

Hatton if very good Euro Level and World class but not at the top end of world class.

G0mez wrote:Hatton has got a terrific website it must be said too, perhaps the best boxer's individual website out there.

Closely followed by Froch's !

You will be paying for Hattons site once it is popular..

Just wait and see!

hitman_hatton1 wrote:

NorthEastBoxingFan wrote:Carlos Baldomir would have beaten Hatton IMO, he took Mayweather the distance as well didn't he?

and he took virtually no chances all night.

just plodded thru.

hatton went for it like the proud fighter he is.

Proud fighter?

Dumb more like, pressing floyd and getting the check hook!

He did not change tactics all nvght..

Greg Nicholas wrote:Tszyu, Castillo, Mayweather, Pacquiao.. all modern legends nd modern greats,-three of them worlds best and the other worlds best best challenger.. Las Vegas.. WBA Welterweight Champion.. 44 fights before defeat to worlds v.best(potentially ever).. no other european fighter ever comes close.. cant argue w/ what the blokes done nd doing.. beat J.Thaxton when he was 21..

Tszyu.. Not Prime.

Castillo.. Not Prime

Mayweather Prime. KTFO

Pacman Prime...but small.. Hatton KO.


Are you Hatton?

sg1985 wrote:

DaveyH wrote:You've missed my point you nugget.
Mayweather would obviously fit into the category where the risk was worth it because of the money the fight would generate.

but do you really consider witter a genuine contender? he was good, but hatton is better.

Well, when you the World Title after ruling Britain the Commonwealth and Europe then win a World Title you are a Champion..

Did Hatton win the European? Oh forgive me , he won the WBU.

Hatton gets the opps because he brings cash!

Hatton has fought 97% of his opponents that were less than Witter.

Accept it, it will feel good!

MatthewS wrote:

NorthEastBoxingFan wrote: He practically adopted that disabled boy and must have given him a lot more fun in his life than he might have been able to otherwise expect.

That doesnt make him ready for a title on the back of beating Ted Bami

WTF!!!

sg1985 wrote:

but he couldn't have fought witter. witter had a mandatory and went on to lose his title, think it through

Get real.....

He could have fought Witter anytime in the last 10 years...

Witter had a mandatory? Yes he did but it was not duw until September at the earliest...and what about the 10 years nefore that?


Hatton dodged him and used every excuse under the son.


Amongst them.....


1) He was rude to me...

2) It's in likkle contract...

And a host of others!

I don't really judge fighters on what they are like outside the ring, just who they fight. Hatton frustrated the hell out of everyone for about two years before he fought Tszyu and then for another two and half years afterwards. He's fought to many guy's that no one really had any interest in seeing him fight.

That coupled with his hit and grab style is what turns. The man holds as much as John Ruiz used to, but a lot of British fans turn a blind eye to it. For me he completely ruins his fights by doing that, and is nowhere near to being the most exciting fighter in the world. Juan Diaz is the type of pressure fighter like Hatton who I like to watch. He fights much like Hatton, only there is no holding/wrestling in his game.

What consitutes a "real" boxing fan.

Its an arrogant way of looking at things.

And it appears to me the only people who dislike Hatton are the same names on various sites who cannot help themselves when it comes to a thread about Hatton. On this site you have DG who clearly cant stop thinking about Hatton and so much so he posts in every thread that gets started about him. Its almost scary.

DG admit it you are infatuated arent you!

HPI wrote:What consitutes a "real" boxing fan.

I've always wondered that myself but to me it seems the ones who call themselves "real" boxing fans are the dinosaurs who lived through a mythical era where fighters never ducked anybody and always fought for the glory and not the money.

sg1985 wrote:

DG. wrote:

sg1985 wrote:

but he couldn't have fought witter. witter had a mandatory and went on to lose his title, think it through

Get real.....

He could have fought Witter anytime in the last 10 years...

Witter had a mandatory? Yes he did but it was not duw until September at the earliest...and what about the 10 years nefore that?


Hatton dodged him and used every excuse under the son.


Amongst them....


1) He was rude to me...

2) It's in likkle contract...

And a host of others!

if you read the conversation we were talking about right after mayweather. witter had a mandatory and lost, why would hatton fight him after that. we weren't talking about pre mayweather, he said he could've fought him when he fought lazcano which isn't true.

Witter offered himself and said he would take training expenses.....

Hatton did not eant to fight him..

Witter had the WBC belt and said he would defend it against Hatton..

remember that Bradley was broiught forward from September when Hopkins pulled out and Castillo did not make weight...

If I remember rightly...

What a snobbish thread 'I'm a real boxing fan'. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and perhaps some less versed than others in terms of their insight and research, but the Hatton-Witter thing has been done to death. IMO Witter simply didn't ever press his case enough, didn't ever show consistently that he was a worthy fight. And some of the snobs on here like Witter cause they know how much potential he had, and they are frustrated as they think he'd probably have turned up and given Hatton a real fight.
Hatton doesn't owe Witter anything, and he never did. Witter had all the tools to make his own name, but it's always overlooked that in 70% of his fights he was boring, non-committal and unengaging. His own fault. And that's why he was avoidable. Everyone wanted to avoid him! He was too dangerous without offering any major reward; couldn't fill a venue in Doncaster fighting for a genuine world title.

My answer to the post is - Hatton is unpopular amongst real 'Witter' fans - cause they hold all Witter's own failings against Hatton, who had less potential but maximised it. Be that through weak matchmaking and strategic career planning, it's just tough. Time to get over it. I'll tell you one thing, Hatton doesn't lose to Bradley, full stop.

I doubt Hatton will ever be considered among the greats of British boxing. I don't think he'll be regarded as highly as names such as Lewis, Benn, Buchanan.

His fights pissed me off pre Tszyu and pre Castillo. But he's a very successful bloke and gets my respect for changing his style. He was becoming well repetitive in fighting style and personality, IMO. Needed reinventing and appeared to do so, making easy work of a potentially frustrating opponent in Malignaggi.

He is well known, has sold lots of PPVs and tickets, has a great Manchester following and is going to be in one of the biggest fights of the year.

If ppl buy enough tickets and PPVs, then I don't think he will care too much what hardcore fans think.

If he gets spanked by Pacquiao, things won't look half as rosy.

Seems a few cages have been rattled on this thread.

First off regarding the mandatory. Yes Witter did have a mandatory against Bradley but I'm pretty sure they could have worked around that. Witter seemed to think they could, didn't he offer to fight Hatton in manchester on a "winner takes all" basis? I might be mistaken about that but either way the mandatory issue shouldn't have been the big stumbling block that it is now being touted as. However, I fully take sg1985's point that once Witter lost his title, he lost his chance. But I did say that elsewhere in the thread.

Second, I'm not a Witter fan. I actually prefer Hatton and should they have fought I would be rooting for Hatton. But I just thought it became almost cringeworthy the excuses that the Hatton camp would come out with for not taking the fight. To me it was just a natural fight that would have made good money, regardless of what Hatton says. It would have been a good battle of Britain fight that would have sold better than Hatton-Lazcano.

Third, regarding the term 'real' boxing fan. I don't think it's a snobbish phrase at all, all I mean when I think of a real boxing fan is someone who follows boxing in general. Someone who is not a 'real' boxing fan would be people like half the blokes I work with, they'll go to the pub to watch the Hatton, Calzaghe and Khan fights and then ask questions like "so when is Calzaghe gonna fight Hatton and decide who's best once and for all?" or "why won't Amir Khan fight Barry McGuigan?" Their only exposure to boxing is the odd column in the Sun and the odd big name fight thats on in the pub. They wouldn't have a clue who Ryan Rhodes is despite the fact he trains just around the corner from where we work and has been a quality fighter for more than a decade.

You get fans like that in any sport, they take an interest when something big is happening but are generally clueless the rest of the time. (I wouldn't be offended if someone accused me of not being a 'real' Rugby fan but I enjoy the Six Nations and the World Cup)

DaveyH wrote:Seems a few cages have been rattled on this thread.

First off regarding the mandatory. Yes Witter did have a mandatory against Bradley but I'm pretty sure they could have worked around that. Witter seemed to think they could, didn't he offer to fight Hatton in manchester on a "winner takes all" basis? I might be mistaken about that but either way the mandatory issue shouldn't have been the big stumbling block that it is now being touted as. However, I fully take sg1985's point that once Witter lost his title, he lost his chance. But I did say that elsewhere in the thread.

Second, I'm not a Witter fan. I actually prefer Hatton and should they have fought I would be rooting for Hatton. But I just thought it became almost cringeworthy the excuses that the Hatton camp would come out with for not taking the fight. To me it was just a natural fight that would have made good money, regardless of what Hatton says. It would have been a good battle of Britain fight that would have sold better than Hatton-Lazcano.

Third, regarding the term 'real' boxing fan. I don't think it's a snobbish phrase at all, all I mean when I think of a real boxing fan is someone who follows boxing in general. Someone who is not a 'real' boxing fan would be people like half the blokes I work with, they'll go to the pub to watch the Hatton, Calzaghe and Khan fights and then ask questions like "so when is Calzaghe gonna fight Hatton and decide who's best once and for all?" or "why won't Amir Khan fight Barry McGuigan?" Their only exposure to boxing is the odd column in the Sun and the odd big name fight thats on in the pub. They wouldn't have a clue who Ryan Rhodes is despite the fact he trains just around the corner from where we work and has been a quality fighter for more than a decade.

You get fans like that in any sport, they take an interest when something big is happening but are generally clueless the rest of the time. (I wouldn't be offended if someone accused me of not being a 'real' Rugby fan but I enjoy the Six Nations and the World Cup)

Hatton - Witter was just a no-go for me, it's the old risk vs Reward scenario. Witter is such a cagey, awkward fighter who could turn any fight into a cagey battle/snoozefest. On his good days he's very good on his bad days it's hard to keep watching. I don't blame Hatton for taking someone like Lazcano as a bit of a confidence builder in his first fight back after a knockout defeat. It filled out the COMS so it hardly didn't sell well did it.

Then in the meantime Witter lost his belt anyways on an undercard fight let's not forget that, he just doesn;t bring anything to the table in terms of money, but in terms of boxing brings awkwardness and some KO power. I can see why he's been so avoided, it doesn't make it necessarily right and good, but I can see all the reasons for many fighters avoiding Witter.

Autobarn wrote:I doubt Hatton will ever be considered among the greats of British boxing. I don't think he'll be regarded as highly as names such as Lewis, Benn, Buchanan.

His fights pissed me off pre Tszyu and pre Castillo. But he's a very successful bloke and gets my respect for changing his style. He was becoming well repetitive in fighting style and personality, IMO. Needed reinventing and appeared to do so, making easy work of a potentially frustrating opponent in Malignaggi.

He is well known, has sold lots of PPVs and tickets, has a great Manchester following and is going to be in one of the biggest fights of the year.

If ppl buy enough tickets and PPVs, then I don't think he will care too much what hardcore fans think.

If he gets spanked by Pacquiao, things won't look half as rosy.

dont understand you??the man has got his second p4p fighter facing him....who would satisfy you tim bradley??