BoxRec

Coning on here in the aftermath of Hatton/Pacquaio you would think Ricky has murdered someone or has committed some horrible crime or something like that.

Lets have a recap - Hatton went over to America last about 18 months ago to fight the then P4P no. 1 and lost, on Saturday he done the same and lost.

In between times he has fought and beaten some of the best fighters in and around his weight division for a long period of time (granted he didn't fight Witter). He has also raised the profile of the sport massively in the UK and lets face it since Naz no-one else has.

He seems a genuinely nice guy, he has provided night after night of entertainment and has filled arenas so why the shitty treatment now??

It always astounds me that in this country we treat our sporting greats shabbily, you only have to witness the treatment of Naz (I am talking about his sporting achievements only), Calzaghe, Bruno (the bonkers Bruno headline I am talking about) etc etc to see what I am talking about.

Kevin Pietersen is another case in point - when he is scoring a ton at the Oval in 2005 to win us the Ashes he is one of us, when he has the temerity to question a poor coach and is sacked the fall out is that he is a greedy South African.

Amir Khan - is derided for getting knocked out, yet has done more than most to try and bring together British Asians and the like in this country than most people.

I ask why do we do this???

Its also interesting that Haye and Froch are getting all the praise in the world (rightly so) - is this is because given the paths they have chosen more likely to lose therefore they become 'plucky British losers' and therefore 'one of us' agaim.

Do we as a country sit uneasily with winners??

Personally I can't and never will understand the rubbish that Hatton has had to put up with since Saturday - you even get someone like Ant Evans (a former journalist? apologies if I am wrong) saying that 'Hatton refused to give interviews on Sunday and was 'larking about' next to the pool on Sunday.

Well, Hatton for once may have thought 'you know what I have given interviews etc etc etc all throughout my career and for once I am not going to' - its hardly burn him at the stake type stuff is it?? - maybe Hatton is embarrassed by the nature of his loss and being a proud man may want to wait a bit before making himself available to the press. Yet Ant Evans sees this as wrong and suggests there will be a 'definite turning from the press' etc etc.

Its all wrong and I am for one am grateful for the likes of Hatton, Calzaghe and Hamed etc etc who have shown we can compete with the best and I am not going to turn on them because they wont fight Chad Dawson or Junior Witter etc etc

On a similar note I won't slag Haye and Froch off when they lose either like some on here who will invariably do so after praising them in previous posts.

It is sometimes hard to be British on here reading some of the rubbish that is posted.

Thanks Ricky for the good nights and thanks Ricky for having the balls to give it a go against 2 all time greats, for that you deserve credit not a slagging off

That is all

Wrists

PS - How long do you think before DG comes on here lol

The main problem is that people never find the middle ground, it's either, someone is great or he is crap. Iv'e seen both comments on here about Hatton, Haye and Froch, but the most vitriolic hatred is saved for Hamed. You can reference a fighter's ablility in many ways, but for me you get four tiers of class. The first is the fighter is can operate around the fringes of the world scene, some like a Robin Reid character. Then, secondly, you get the alphablet world title holders, who hav'ent fought the best, but have been managed well and won a world title (IBF, WBO, WBU) against an avergae to good fighter. The third tier, is the bona fida world champion (WBA, WBC) fighters that have fought quality opponents and have at one time been the best at what they do, an example of this could be someone like Gatti. The fourth tier, is the very height of boxing, the elite fighters, who are multiple world champions, who, at their primes transcended the mere status of "world champion". These fighters include names such as Hopkins, Jones, Mayweather, Pacquaio, De La Hoya, Duran, Whitacker, Hearns etc etc......

The simple truth is that no British fighter has ever entered the hallowed fourth tier, where the elites operate and been successfull. Only Lennox Lewis operated at the third tier, with the likes of Calzaghe, Hatton, Hamed and Benn, skirting around it. We have had quite a few fighters who have been good at the third tier, such as Eubank, Woodhall, Ingle, McCulloch, Haye etc and many more at the very first tier. I see things this way, because essentially, the term "world champion" has been devalued in recent years, with all the various governing bodies having their own titles and so you have to deliniate between who is average, who is good and who is exceptional. Looking at the British boxing scene in this fashion concludes that we have done very well for the size of our country in producing a range of quality fighters and the likes of Hatton, Calzaghe, Hamed, Haye and Lewis are proof that we have progressed very well over recent years and that maybe we are'nt far off from producing a fighter that can be succesfull at that fourth tier and be remembered alongside the names of Jones, Hopkins, Mayweather, Pacquaio etc etc

Hatton has only been a "Failure" in some people's eyes, because he failed at the final hurdle, as did Hamed, but when you look at what they have achieved in comparison to the "average" british fighter, it was absolutley phenomenal and we should be very proud of that.

Take it easy, dont bust a blood vessel!

Us Brits do have a tendency to kick our fallen stars when they are down, but i think on this occassion, given the manner of the loss, people have the right to reasses their perspective of Hatton as a fighter and of Hatton's career as a whole. Lets be honest, he was piss poor, defenceless, and showed almost no punch resisitance. Hardly the makings of what many would argue as being Britains best ever boxer, period!

I think there are many reason's for Hatton fans to feel dissapointment towards him, if they so choose to. Its their perogative. Perhaps his boozing pisses some off, or this love for himself that he seems to have aquired over the last 5 years or more. Perhaps people want to blame some of this sh*t on him as being the reason he lost so emphatically last night, perhaps they feel cheated in some way. Thats all fair enough IMO! Its not my views, but in the aftermaths of such losses, to be expected IMO!

Personally, i think the Hatton of 2005 would have had a better go at the Pac-Man. I think had all those celebs not been around the ring, touching him and whispering in his ear right before the fight he might have kept focus better. Or, perhaps he learned how to loose in the Mayweather fight? I believe had he stayed with Billy Graham, or at least not employed Floyd Joy Mayweather Sr he may have faired better, i believe had he not got carried away with his own persona (playing that sh*te song about himself during the ringwalk being a prime example) he might have faired better. This list could go on forever. But ultimately, in the wake of Saturday's massacre, its hard to believe that Hatton could ever have coped with Pacquio's speed and accuracy and would ultimate'ly have lost whenever or whatever the circumstances. I think some people just cant come to terms with that though and thats where the anger is comming from!

I think sometimes as boxing fans we can be guilty of trying to redress the balance between the mainstream media/ general sports fan and the actual reality of a ring career, such as Hattons. We hear the average guy in the street or naive media publication telling us how Hatton is a ring legend and we seek to try and redress the balance by pointing out that his resume does not stand- up against the best. Problem is its easy to overstep the mark and loss all objectivity. I think Hatton has become the best example of that, where you see otherwise objective people giving excessive criticism of his record and trying to rubbish his career.

The fact is, I can understand why people who love the sport get irritated with a guy like Hatton beign able to command any fight or pay cheque based on huge ring popularity when other guys have had to struggle through their careers due to an unexciting style or poor managment. I can also understand those people who just can't stand the guy, or get sick of his press conference stand- up routines. But the truth is, when you stack the facts up, Hatton has operated at a level few in Britain ever have and no amount of revisionism will change the fact that Hattons ring career has been exceptional by the standards laid out by British fighters of the past. You don't beat as many reigning world champions as Hatton has by being a hype job. Sure, he's no Manny Pacquiao or Floyd Mayweather, but very few are and you only become a legend like Manny or Floyd when you can beat guys like Ricky.

What a daft idea for a thread!



If you tell me that

'If I beat Pacman I will be the best champion to ever draw breath' then you better back that shit up with a HOF career that shows many great prime names and not a bunch of past it mediocre smaller older or were never any good to begin with men.

He said it, he never backed it.

Hatton get the stick because he thinks people who like boxing will buy into this crap.

Not I!

bores me all this media talk,we love a loser hate a winner etc.or we just build them up to drag them down..YAWN.
there wasnt anuone pleased too see hatton go out like that.
i think its fair to say he blew it,runnintg in the vegas sun in sweat gear the day b4.thats not proffesional.

Hatton isn't a star, he's a paper champion.

It's not just avoid Junior Witter, and being a pudendum about it, it is the fact that the vast majorioty of his opponents were not world class, that he spent a long time defending the pointless and degrading WBU belt, and that he simply isn't nearly as good as people like to think he is.

Got to say - I agree with the title of the thread.

I will also say I am guilty of having a downer on some stars and there is no need for it.

Constructive comment yes - abuse no!!!

whicker wrote:Hatton isn't a star, he's a paper champion.

It's not just avoid Junior Witter, and being a pudendum about it, it is the fact that the vast majorioty of his opponents were not world class, that he spent a long time defending the pointless and degrading WBU belt, and that he simply isn't nearly as good as people like to think he is.

And in your opinion who isn't a paper champion and a star in British boxing today?

Quixall wrote:The main problem is that people never find the middle ground, it's either, someone is great or he is crap. Iv'e seen both comments on here about Hatton, Haye and Froch, but the most vitriolic hatred is saved for Hamed. You can reference a fighter's ablility in many ways, but for me you get four tiers of class. The first is the fighter is can operate around the fringes of the world scene, some like a Robin Reid character. Then, secondly, you get the alphablet world title holders, who hav'ent fought the best, but have been managed well and won a world title (IBF, WBO, WBU) against an avergae to good fighter. The third tier, is the bona fida world champion (WBA, WBC) fighters that have fought quality opponents and have at one time been the best at what they do, an example of this could be someone like Gatti. The fourth tier, is the very height of boxing, the elite fighters, who are multiple world champions, who, at their primes transcended the mere status of "world champion". These fighters include names such as Hopkins, Jones, Mayweather, Pacquaio, De La Hoya, Duran, Whitacker, Hearns etc etc......

The simple truth is that no British fighter has ever entered the hallowed fourth tier, where the elites operate and been successfull. Only Lennox Lewis operated at the third tier, with the likes of Calzaghe, Hatton, Hamed and Benn, skirting around it. We have had quite a few fighters who have been good at the third tier, such as Eubank, Woodhall, Ingle, McCulloch, Haye etc and many more at the very first tier. I see things this way, because essentially, the term "world champion" has been devalued in recent years, with all the various governing bodies having their own titles and so you have to deliniate between who is average, who is good and who is exceptional. Looking at the British boxing scene in this fashion concludes that we have done very well for the size of our country in producing a range of quality fighters and the likes of Hatton, Calzaghe, Hamed, Haye and Lewis are proof that we have progressed very well over recent years and that maybe we are'nt far off from producing a fighter that can be succesfull at that fourth tier and be remembered alongside the names of Jones, Hopkins, Mayweather, Pacquaio etc etc

Hatton has only been a "Failure" in some people's eyes, because he failed at the final hurdle, as did Hamed, but when you look at what they have achieved in comparison to the "average" british fighter, it was absolutley phenomenal and we should be very proud of that.

this is an odd post, you say that Robin Reid was 'first tier' but then you say Woodhall, McCullough and Arturo Gatti are third tier? And you group the WBU with the IBF and seem to believe WBC and WBA title holders are one step above? And that Lewis wasn't fourth tier? Lewis was a top 10 all-time heavyweight, top 15 at absolute worst. If that doesn't make him top tier I don't know what does.

Also guys like Jimmy Wilde were probably elite level in the context of their era.

Media in this country is purely about building stars up as high as they can so that they can smash them right back down..What I can't understand though is that this country used to love a LOSER and hate a WINNER BUT in the case of Ricky it seems to have changed?? ??

whicker wrote:Hatton isn't a star, he's a paper champion.

It's not just avoid Junior Witter, and being a pudendum about it, it is the fact that the vast majorioty of his opponents were not world class, that he spent a long time defending the pointless and degrading WBU belt, and that he simply isn't nearly as good as people like to think he is.

HOW DOES HATTON TREAT US?

He sells tickets to his fans at a mark up for himself!

'Its cheaper for the fans if I fight here(choose US city) instead of here (choose US City)' Its cheaper in Manchester!

He repays the fans by making us pay £15.00 PPV for Lazcano.

He has a fight in a stadium with over 57000 people and makes the prices cheap! THANKS!

He refused to give us the WITTER fight after teasing for a decade!!

His fans actually thought he had a chance against PBF and PACMAN, he took the PBF fights for the cash and I doubt he thouhgt he would beat PBF, he thought he might beat MANNY.. WRONG!!!

Hatton gets stick and he deserves it.

40 ODD PLUS FIGHTS
25000 Travelled over,
100 Defences of the WBU,
Only fought two Prime elite fighter and got your ass knocked OUT twice without landing a decent punch..

Priceless!

Riddick Blowe wrote:

Quixall wrote:The main problem is that people never find the middle ground, it's either, someone is great or he is crap. Iv'e seen both comments on here about Hatton, Haye and Froch, but the most vitriolic hatred is saved for Hamed. You can reference a fighter's ablility in many ways, but for me you get four tiers of class. The first is the fighter is can operate around the fringes of the world scene, some like a Robin Reid character. Then, secondly, you get the alphablet world title holders, who hav'ent fought the best, but have been managed well and won a world title (IBF, WBO, WBU) against an avergae to good fighter. The third tier, is the bona fida world champion (WBA, WBC) fighters that have fought quality opponents and have at one time been the best at what they do, an example of this could be someone like Gatti. The fourth tier, is the very height of boxing, the elite fighters, who are multiple world champions, who, at their primes transcended the mere status of "world champion". These fighters include names such as Hopkins, Jones, Mayweather, Pacquaio, De La Hoya, Duran, Whitacker, Hearns etc etc......

The simple truth is that no British fighter has ever entered the hallowed fourth tier, where the elites operate and been successfull. Only Lennox Lewis operated at the third tier, with the likes of Calzaghe, Hatton, Hamed and Benn, skirting around it. We have had quite a few fighters who have been good at the third tier, such as Eubank, Woodhall, Ingle, McCulloch, Haye etc and many more at the very first tier. I see things this way, because essentially, the term "world champion" has been devalued in recent years, with all the various governing bodies having their own titles and so you have to deliniate between who is average, who is good and who is exceptional. Looking at the British boxing scene in this fashion concludes that we have done very well for the size of our country in producing a range of quality fighters and the likes of Hatton, Calzaghe, Hamed, Haye and Lewis are proof that we have progressed very well over recent years and that maybe we are'nt far off from producing a fighter that can be succesfull at that fourth tier and be remembered alongside the names of Jones, Hopkins, Mayweather, Pacquaio etc etc

Hatton has only been a "Failure" in some people's eyes, because he failed at the final hurdle, as did Hamed, but when you look at what they have achieved in comparison to the "average" british fighter, it was absolutley phenomenal and we should be very proud of that.

this is an odd post, you say that Robin Reid was 'first tier' but then you say Woodhall, McCullough and Arturo Gatti are third tier? And you group the WBU with the IBF and seem to believe WBC and WBA title holders are one step above? And that Lewis wasn't fourth tier? Lewis was a top 10 all-time heavyweight, top 15 at absolute worst. If that doesn't make him top tier I don't know what does.

Also guys like Jimmy Wilde were probably elite level in the context of their era.

I made a mistake in the text. I mean't that Reid was a first tier fighter and Gatti was a third tier fighter and Eubanks a second ete etc. My main theme was that boxing is'nt black and white, good or crap and that there are many different layers between someone who can operate on the fringes on the world scene and some one who is above the status of a world champion, ie, Pacquaio and Mayweather. I was just pointing out that Hatton skirted around the area of a world champion who took on the next step and lost, as was the case with Hamed. So, to me, that means that in the general scheme of things Hatton should be regarded very highly and does'nt deserve to be denounced as " ordinary" simply because he lost to two exceptional "elite" fighters, who can successfully operate at a level above him......

Forget all the other names i used, i got mixed up a bit

Riddick Blowe wrote:

Quixall wrote:The main problem is that people never find the middle ground, it's either, someone is great or he is crap. Iv'e seen both comments on here about Hatton, Haye and Froch, but the most vitriolic hatred is saved for Hamed. You can reference a fighter's ablility in many ways, but for me you get four tiers of class. The first is the fighter is can operate around the fringes of the world scene, some like a Robin Reid character. Then, secondly, you get the alphablet world title holders, who hav'ent fought the best, but have been managed well and won a world title (IBF, WBO, WBU) against an avergae to good fighter. The third tier, is the bona fida world champion (WBA, WBC) fighters that have fought quality opponents and have at one time been the best at what they do, an example of this could be someone like Gatti. The fourth tier, is the very height of boxing, the elite fighters, who are multiple world champions, who, at their primes transcended the mere status of "world champion". These fighters include names such as Hopkins, Jones, Mayweather, Pacquaio, De La Hoya, Duran, Whitacker, Hearns etc etc......

The simple truth is that no British fighter has ever entered the hallowed fourth tier, where the elites operate and been successfull. Only Lennox Lewis operated at the third tier, with the likes of Calzaghe, Hatton, Hamed and Benn, skirting around it. We have had quite a few fighters who have been good at the third tier, such as Eubank, Woodhall, Ingle, McCulloch, Haye etc and many more at the very first tier. I see things this way, because essentially, the term "world champion" has been devalued in recent years, with all the various governing bodies having their own titles and so you have to deliniate between who is average, who is good and who is exceptional. Looking at the British boxing scene in this fashion concludes that we have done very well for the size of our country in producing a range of quality fighters and the likes of Hatton, Calzaghe, Hamed, Haye and Lewis are proof that we have progressed very well over recent years and that maybe we are'nt far off from producing a fighter that can be succesfull at that fourth tier and be remembered alongside the names of Jones, Hopkins, Mayweather, Pacquaio etc etc

Hatton has only been a "Failure" in some people's eyes, because he failed at the final hurdle, as did Hamed, but when you look at what they have achieved in comparison to the "average" british fighter, it was absolutley phenomenal and we should be very proud of that.

this is an odd post, you say that Robin Reid was 'first tier' but then you say Woodhall, McCullough and Arturo Gatti are third tier? And you group the WBU with the IBF and seem to believe WBC and WBA title holders are one step above? And that Lewis wasn't fourth tier? Lewis was a top 10 all-time heavyweight, top 15 at absolute worst. If that doesn't make him top tier I don't know what does.

Also guys like Jimmy Wilde were probably elite level in the context of their era.

Lewis did'nt fight anyone of real note, apart from Holyfield, where those two fights were too close to call in my opinion and a washed up Mike Tyson. I said that he was a third tier fighter, ie, a solid globally recognised world champion, but he was never considered a p4p fighter through out his career. The rest of Lewis' opponenets were very ordinary to decent fighters, Bruno, Mercer, Tua, Botha, Rahman, Grant, Briggs, Galota, Akinwande, McCall etc etc. None of these fighters p4p, could be set agaisnt the likes of Jones, Hopkins, Whitacker, Mayweather, Pacquaio, Duran, Leonard, Hearns, De La Hoya.

Quixall wrote:The main problem is that people never find the middle ground, it's either, someone is great or he is crap.

Without getting massively involved in this thread I agree this is the nub of it.

It's very infantile all this "If you don't hate him you love him" attitude that goes on.

Quixall wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:

Quixall wrote:The main problem is that people never find the middle ground, it's either, someone is great or he is crap. Iv'e seen both comments on here about Hatton, Haye and Froch, but the most vitriolic hatred is saved for Hamed. You can reference a fighter's ablility in many ways, but for me you get four tiers of class. The first is the fighter is can operate around the fringes of the world scene, some like a Robin Reid character. Then, secondly, you get the alphablet world title holders, who hav'ent fought the best, but have been managed well and won a world title (IBF, WBO, WBU) against an avergae to good fighter. The third tier, is the bona fida world champion (WBA, WBC) fighters that have fought quality opponents and have at one time been the best at what they do, an example of this could be someone like Gatti. The fourth tier, is the very height of boxing, the elite fighters, who are multiple world champions, who, at their primes transcended the mere status of "world champion". These fighters include names such as Hopkins, Jones, Mayweather, Pacquaio, De La Hoya, Duran, Whitacker, Hearns etc etc......

The simple truth is that no British fighter has ever entered the hallowed fourth tier, where the elites operate and been successfull. Only Lennox Lewis operated at the third tier, with the likes of Calzaghe, Hatton, Hamed and Benn, skirting around it. We have had quite a few fighters who have been good at the third tier, such as Eubank, Woodhall, Ingle, McCulloch, Haye etc and many more at the very first tier. I see things this way, because essentially, the term "world champion" has been devalued in recent years, with all the various governing bodies having their own titles and so you have to deliniate between who is average, who is good and who is exceptional. Looking at the British boxing scene in this fashion concludes that we have done very well for the size of our country in producing a range of quality fighters and the likes of Hatton, Calzaghe, Hamed, Haye and Lewis are proof that we have progressed very well over recent years and that maybe we are'nt far off from producing a fighter that can be succesfull at that fourth tier and be remembered alongside the names of Jones, Hopkins, Mayweather, Pacquaio etc etc

Hatton has only been a "Failure" in some people's eyes, because he failed at the final hurdle, as did Hamed, but when you look at what they have achieved in comparison to the "average" british fighter, it was absolutley phenomenal and we should be very proud of that.

this is an odd post, you say that Robin Reid was 'first tier' but then you say Woodhall, McCullough and Arturo Gatti are third tier? And you group the WBU with the IBF and seem to believe WBC and WBA title holders are one step above? And that Lewis wasn't fourth tier? Lewis was a top 10 all-time heavyweight, top 15 at absolute worst. If that doesn't make him top tier I don't know what does.

Also guys like Jimmy Wilde were probably elite level in the context of their era.

Lewis did'nt fight anyone of real note, apart from Holyfield, where those two fights were too close to call in my opinion and a washed up Mike Tyson. I said that he was a third tier fighter, ie, a solid globally recognised world champion, but he was never considered a p4p fighter through out his career. The rest of Lewis' opponenets were very ordinary to decent fighters, Bruno, Mercer, Tua, Botha, Rahman, Grant, Briggs, Galota, Akinwande, McCall etc etc. None of these fighters p4p, could be set agaisnt the likes of Jones, Hopkins, Whitacker, Mayweather, Pacquaio, Duran, Leonard, Hearns, De La Hoya.

there are other ways to gauge greatness. for instance longevity. as larry holmes did in a relatively dreary era.

many of lewis' KOs were devastating and he beat many good world class fighters. tau, grant, golota were well hyped and lewis punched holes in all that hype. vitali isn't ordinary and lewis beat him in a give and take war

not sure if you know this, but heavyweight champs are never rated as p4p ers. p4p is a way of rating excellence in divisions smaller than the big boys. being the heavyweight champ - as lewis was - is as god as being the p4p top dog.

hopkins and jones went for massive stretches fighting nobodies at worst, average mandatories at best, during their prime years

Quixall wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:

Quixall wrote:The main problem is that people never find the middle ground, it's either, someone is great or he is crap. Iv'e seen both comments on here about Hatton, Haye and Froch, but the most vitriolic hatred is saved for Hamed. You can reference a fighter's ablility in many ways, but for me you get four tiers of class. The first is the fighter is can operate around the fringes of the world scene, some like a Robin Reid character. Then, secondly, you get the alphablet world title holders, who hav'ent fought the best, but have been managed well and won a world title (IBF, WBO, WBU) against an avergae to good fighter. The third tier, is the bona fida world champion (WBA, WBC) fighters that have fought quality opponents and have at one time been the best at what they do, an example of this could be someone like Gatti. The fourth tier, is the very height of boxing, the elite fighters, who are multiple world champions, who, at their primes transcended the mere status of "world champion". These fighters include names such as Hopkins, Jones, Mayweather, Pacquaio, De La Hoya, Duran, Whitacker, Hearns etc etc......

The simple truth is that no British fighter has ever entered the hallowed fourth tier, where the elites operate and been successfull. Only Lennox Lewis operated at the third tier, with the likes of Calzaghe, Hatton, Hamed and Benn, skirting around it. We have had quite a few fighters who have been good at the third tier, such as Eubank, Woodhall, Ingle, McCulloch, Haye etc and many more at the very first tier. I see things this way, because essentially, the term "world champion" has been devalued in recent years, with all the various governing bodies having their own titles and so you have to deliniate between who is average, who is good and who is exceptional. Looking at the British boxing scene in this fashion concludes that we have done very well for the size of our country in producing a range of quality fighters and the likes of Hatton, Calzaghe, Hamed, Haye and Lewis are proof that we have progressed very well over recent years and that maybe we are'nt far off from producing a fighter that can be succesfull at that fourth tier and be remembered alongside the names of Jones, Hopkins, Mayweather, Pacquaio etc etc

Hatton has only been a "Failure" in some people's eyes, because he failed at the final hurdle, as did Hamed, but when you look at what they have achieved in comparison to the "average" british fighter, it was absolutley phenomenal and we should be very proud of that.

this is an odd post, you say that Robin Reid was 'first tier' but then you say Woodhall, McCullough and Arturo Gatti are third tier? And you group the WBU with the IBF and seem to believe WBC and WBA title holders are one step above? And that Lewis wasn't fourth tier? Lewis was a top 10 all-time heavyweight, top 15 at absolute worst. If that doesn't make him top tier I don't know what does.

Also guys like Jimmy Wilde were probably elite level in the context of their era.

Lewis did'nt fight anyone of real note, apart from Holyfield, where those two fights were too close to call in my opinion and a washed up Mike Tyson. I said that he was a third tier fighter, ie, a solid globally recognised world champion, but he was never considered a p4p fighter through out his career. The rest of Lewis' opponenets were very ordinary to decent fighters, Bruno, Mercer, Tua, Botha, Rahman, Grant, Briggs, Galota, Akinwande, McCall etc etc. None of these fighters p4p, could be set agaisnt the likes of Jones, Hopkins, Whitacker, Mayweather, Pacquaio, Duran, Leonard, Hearns, De La Hoya.

The thing is Lennox FOUGHT EVERYONE!

this is an odd post, you say that Robin Reid was 'first tier' but then you say Woodhall, McCullough and Arturo Gatti are third tier? And you group the WBU with the IBF and seem to believe WBC and WBA title holders are one step above? And that Lewis wasn't fourth tier? Lewis was a top 10 all-time heavyweight, top 15 at absolute worst. If that doesn't make him top tier I don't know what does.

Also guys like Jimmy Wilde were probably elite level in the context of their era.[/quote]

Lewis did'nt fight anyone of real note, apart from Holyfield, where those two fights were too close to call in my opinion and a washed up Mike Tyson. I said that he was a third tier fighter, ie, a solid globally recognised world champion, but he was never considered a p4p fighter through out his career. The rest of Lewis' opponenets were very ordinary to decent fighters, Bruno, Mercer, Tua, Botha, Rahman, Grant, Briggs, Galota, Akinwande, McCall etc etc. None of these fighters p4p, could be set agaisnt the likes of Jones, Hopkins, Whitacker, Mayweather, Pacquaio, Duran, Leonard, Hearns, De La Hoya.[/quote]there are other ways to gauge greatness. for instance longevity. as larry holmes did in a relatively dreary era.

many of lewis' KOs were devastating and he beat many good world class fighters. tau, grant, golota were well hyped and lewis punched holes in all that hype. vitali isn't ordinary and lewis beat him in a give and take war

not sure if you know this, but heavyweight champs are never rated as p4p ers. p4p is a way of rating excellence in divisions smaller than the big boys. being the heavyweight champ - as lewis was - is as god as being the p4p top dog.

hopkins and jones went for massive stretches fighting nobodies at worst, average mandatories at best, during their prime years[/quote]

Yes, it's true, heavyweight fighters are never given the accolade of p4p, but i don't think that Lewis fought real quality opponents, as is the case with the other fighters i have mentioned. Lewis was in a dull era, Tyson and Holyfield aside and that's not his fault, but i don't think that he belongs in that Duran, Hearns, leonard catagory. I appreciate that not everyone judges things the same and some would say that Hopkins and Jones did'nt fight quality opponents in their primes or even Mayweather for that matter, but it also has to be said that Lewis falls outside of a lot of people's top ten heavyweight list.

Quixall wrote:


not sure if you know this, but heavyweight champs are never rated as p4p ers.

p4p is a way of rating excellence in divisions smaller than the big boys. being the heavyweight champ - as lewis was - is as god as being the p4p top dog.

Yes they are!

Holyfield was Number 3 once upon a time!

Heavies are rated!

(Quix messing up the quotes,again!)

It can be summed up in one line:

Ricky Hatton does not deserve all of this sh*t going on!!

I am surprised people are not stating what a credit he is to the sport - no matter what you critics say - he did an awful lot when the sport was on its knees looking for a star to celebrate!!

Spud wrote:It can be summed up in one line:

Ricky Hatton does not deserve all of this sh*t going on!!

I am surprised people are not stating what a credit he is to the sport - no matter what you critics say - he did an awful lot when the sport was on its knees looking for a star to celebrate!!

2 elite prime fighter he fought and he got stretched both times.


Sht happens.

He is a hardworking lad, but not the elite fighter he makes out, no shame in it , just admit it!

Not my kind of fighter, but he has done well.

DG. wrote:

Spud wrote:It can be summed up in one line:

Ricky Hatton does not deserve all of this sh*t going on!!

I am surprised people are not stating what a credit he is to the sport - no matter what you critics say - he did an awful lot when the sport was on its knees looking for a star to celebrate!!

2 elite prime fighter he fought and he got stretched both times.

Sht happens.

He is a hardworking lad, but not the elite fighter he makes out, no shame in it , just admit it!

Not my kind of fighter, but he has done well.

Whether you are correct or not!!!

He still did an immense amount for British Boxing - IMMENSE!!!

Spud wrote:

DG. wrote:

Spud wrote:It can be summed up in one line:

Ricky Hatton does not deserve all of this sh*t going on!!

I am surprised people are not stating what a credit he is to the sport - no matter what you critics say - he did an awful lot when the sport was on its knees looking for a star to celebrate!!

2 elite prime fighter he fought and he got stretched both times.

Sht happens.

He is a hardworking lad, but not the elite fighter he makes out, no shame in it , just admit it!

Not my kind of fighter, but he has done well.

Whether you are correct or not!!!

He still did an immense amount for British Boxing - IMMENSE!!!

I am correct,

He fought two little guys and got STRETCHED - 2 foights and knocked down 5 times.

Also, charging people a fortune to watch him fight crap for the WBU! Thanks!

Foolish of me to think you were ever wrong!!!

Please accept my most humble apologies!!