BoxRec

Just wondering what the outcome of this would be..

Calzaghe by far.

Hatton's no where near as talented or dominating.

Hardly that cut and dried.

Hatton has stopped Tszyu and Collazo, Calzaghe's best win thus far is against Lacy.

Calzaghe has a deeper body of work overall, but then he's been professional quite a lot longer than Ricky.

I'd say there's not a lot in it, I think Calzaghe is more talented, but I would possibly have ricky ahead marginally in the P4P stakes.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Hardly that cut and dried.

Hatton has stopped Tszyu and Collazo, Calzaghe's best win thus far is against Lacy.

I'm sure you meant Tszyu and 'Castillo'. He didn't stop Collazo

Furthermore, I think Calzaghe's best win was against Eubank and his second best win was against Lacy (and his best performance was against Lacy )

Tszyu and Castillo are potential future hall of famers. I can't see Lacy ever being a hall of famer, not sure if Eubank will be either (given that he didn't fight the best foreign fighters, such as RJJ and James Toney). Therefore I would put Hatton above Calzaghe. I can appreciate that Tszyu and Castillo were arguably past their best (..... so was Eubank) but they were still very dangerous opponents.

It's hard to split them. Calzaghe has longevity. Hatton has bigger wins. Calzaghe beat Lacy so badly that everyone has forgotten that Lacy was an intimidating powerful hitter...Hatton looks better schooled, Calzaghe more flamboyant and outright talented (i.e. the fast hands).

It seems Joe is cut off from the biggest fights by being a big fighter in the UK. When you get one big fighter in one country, another somewhere else etc it's harder to make the fights. Hatton deserves props for adjusting to fighting in America.

Obviously, they are both fighters at the highest level of boxing.

Tricky one to answer........ deciding a fighters P4P status can be confusing, do you base your opinion on what they have done or what they could potentially do, or a bit of both?

On what they have done, i'd say Hatton is better P4P, he beat the mighty Tyszu who in my opinion was very far from being a 'shot fighter'. He also moved up in weight and won a world title!

On what they could potentially do, i would definate'ly say Calzaghe would be better P4P. He could 'potentially' move up to light-heavy and dominate there, though he is getting on in years now! If Hatton was to move up to welter i would pick a handfull of fighters to beat him.

I don't understand how this lie that Tszyu was somehow 'past his best' when he fought Hatton has pervaded our collective consciousness enough to be accepted as fact. It clearly is not ‘a fact’.

There are several indicators of a fighter past his peak: slowing down of hand and foot speed, inability to finish opponents he would have previously dealt with easily, reduced level of performance, a look of weakness and lack of movement definition, taking more punches than in the past, and, after the fight in which they taste defeat, further convincing losses or poor performances. As far as I can see, Tszyu had fulfilled none of these perimeters.

Let’s not forget, Tszyu was in everybody’s top five pound for pound going into the Hatton fight. He was one of the most dominating champions of his time, and his punch power was revered and feared in roughly equal measure. Even after the Hatton defeat he will go down as one of the greatest 140lb fighters of all time; right up there but probably just below Cervantes, Pryor and Chavez in the modern era.

Before the Hatton fight, everybody knew this and that’s why Hatton was a big ‘dog going in, despite the inevitable patriotic hopeful betting. Although some wondered whether Tszyu would ever be the same again after all the injuries, his destruction of Mitchell – who, at the time, many, many tipped to beat Tszyu and was considered number 1 in the division, lest we forget in the face of his dramatic decline – dispelled all thoughts of Tszyu being past it.

I could understand if people said that Hatton beating Tszyu was a freak because he has the perfect style to negate Tszyu’s strengths (which Hatton did have). That’s a credible argument, but people seem to be basing these half baked theories on the idea the Tszyu can’t have been at his peak if Hatton beat him. In their minds, if Tszyu was at his peak, Hatton would have lost, and what follows from that piece of pot-analysis, is that because Hatton won, Tszyu must have been on the slide.

Well, I need slightly more than that, and, I think we saw exactly the same Tszyu fight Hatton as the Tszyu who beat Judah, Tackie, Leija, and Mitchell.

I challenge anyone to disagree with a logical argument.

Luckily for me, I'm in agrement with Carbo

Hatton has the bigger wins on his record, though i'm a fan of Joe his two biggest victories were an over-hyped Jeff Lacy and a fading Eubank.....

Both great fights though..

Oooo look at Mr ego.

Why wasn't Tszyu never a very active fighter? Most of the time he only fought once a year.

Calzaghe far superior and, if they wre the same weight, would easily beat Hatton

Twisted Transistor wrote:Oooo look at Mr ego.

Why wasn't Tszyu never a very active fighter? Most of the time he only fought once a year.

You talking to me?

Whether you are or not I fail to see what activity has to do with it. He was out for a long time with some bad injuries, then came back and destroyed Mitchell -- and six months later he was steamrollered by Hatton.

If he'd have come back from the post Leija layoff, then you might have an argument, but he took Mitchell, who was ranked well ahead of Hatton by most at the time.

I thnk I'm right in saying that Tszyu was only an every-six-months type of fighter anyway.

Maybe Tszyu wasn't past his best because of his fighting once a year schedule. Even before the Injuries he was only fighting once a year.

Fighting once a year could say he wasn't as beat up so thats why he didn't look past his best also.

So I do have an argument.

So because most ranked Mitchell past Hatton that justifies It? Mitchell seemed an average title holder.

You can;t always use opposition to solely judge a fighter, when Calzaghe has stepped up he's still won, so I would put him ahead of Hatton.

If Hatton can beat Mayweather, and if Calzaghe can go and beat Kessler to clear out his division, then you can make a case for either being p4p #1.

Twisted Transistor wrote:Maybe Tszyu wasn't past his best because of his fighting once a year schedule. Even before the Injuries he was only fighting once a year.

Fighting once a year could say he wasn't as beat up so thats why he didn't look past his best also.

So I do have an argument.

So because most ranked Mitchell past Hatton that justifies It? Mitchell seemed an average title holder.

You can;t always use opposition to solely judge a fighter, when Calzaghe has stepped up he's still won, so I would put him ahead of Hatton.

What on Earth are you rambling on about? Fighting once a year means he wasn't beat up, so he didn't look past his best, and therefore you have an argument? EH? Am I missing something?

You know, if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a fekking duck. Does the fact that Tszyu didn't look shot at any stage before of during the Hatton fight up until the 9th or 10th not make you think, 'jeez, he doesn't look shot, or even on the slide, so maybe he's not.'

Car to enlighten us by telling the whole class from which evidence or logical deduction you plucked this argument you have from?

And what do you mean when you say, 'you can;t always use opposition to solely judge a fighter, when Calzaghe has stepped up he's still won, so I would put him ahead of Hatton'?

Has Hatton not won when he's stepped up, too?

I just don't get any of your points. They make no sense at all to me.

Autobarn wrote:If Hatton can beat Mayweather, and if Calzaghe can go and beat Kessler to clear out his division, then you can make a case for either being p4p #1.

Hatton Yes, Calzaghe? IMO BHOPS needs beating up for Calzaghe to claim the spot..... Hatton beating the no1 - well of course that would be enough

~ MIKEE ~ wrote:

Autobarn wrote:If Hatton can beat Mayweather, and if Calzaghe can go and beat Kessler to clear out his division, then you can make a case for either being p4p #1.

Hatton Yes, Calzaghe? IMO BHOPS needs beating up for Calzaghe to claim the spot..... Hatton beating the no1 - well of course that would be enough

I'm not sure Hatton would be guaranteed number 1 P4P by beating Mayweather. He'd have a fair argument, but with Paquiao slicing through his opposition like a buzz saw, I think Hatton would have to be resigned to number 2.

Have to say - I'm shocked with the outcome of this so far, with Hatton twice as many votes, i though it would go to Calzaghe by about the same margin.

But i agree with what seems to be the basic view - Calzaghes better, Hattons done more - So you have to guy with the guy whose actually done it i suppose.

Depends on what you think derserves more recognition.

In beating Tszyu & Castillo, Hatton has beaten P4P ranked fighters. Calzaghe has dominated for a long time, which you have to give him credit for, but his best win is by far & away, Jeff Lacy.

I don't think Lacy was P4P ranked? I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong!

Personally, I think Hatton ranks higher P4P. Think the Ring magazine will take this view aswell.

Carbo wrote:I don't understand how this lie that Tszyu was somehow 'past his best' when he fought Hatton has pervaded our collective consciousness enough to be accepted as fact. It clearly is not ‘a fact’.

There are several indicators of a fighter past his peak: slowing down of hand and foot speed, inability to finish opponents he would have previously dealt with easily, reduced level of performance, a look of weakness and lack of movement definition, taking more punches than in the past, and, after the fight in which they taste defeat, further convincing losses or poor performances. As far as I can see, Tszyu had fulfilled none of these perimeters.

Let’s not forget, Tszyu was in everybody’s top five pound for pound going into the Hatton fight. He was one of the most dominating champions of his time, and his punch power was revered and feared in roughly equal measure. Even after the Hatton defeat he will go down as one of the greatest 140lb fighters of all time; right up there but probably just below Cervantes, Pryor and Chavez in the modern era.

Before the Hatton fight, everybody knew this and that’s why Hatton was a big ‘dog going in, despite the inevitable patriotic hopeful betting. Although some wondered whether Tszyu would ever be the same again after all the injuries, his destruction of Mitchell – who, at the time, many, many tipped to beat Tszyu and was considered number 1 in the division, lest we forget in the face of his dramatic decline – dispelled all thoughts of Tszyu being past it.

I could understand if people said that Hatton beating Tszyu was a freak because he has the perfect style to negate Tszyu’s strengths (which Hatton did have). That’s a credible argument, but people seem to be basing these half baked theories on the idea the Tszyu can’t have been at his peak if Hatton beat him. In their minds, if Tszyu was at his peak, Hatton would have lost, and what follows from that piece of pot-analysis, is that because Hatton won, Tszyu must have been on the slide.

Well, I need slightly more than that, and, I think we saw exactly the same Tszyu fight Hatton as the Tszyu who beat Judah, Tackie, Leija, and Mitchell.

I challenge anyone to disagree with a logical argument.

Tyszu had fought 3 rounds in 2 and a half years. He had suffered countless injurys that hampered his training during this excile. He was 35 (correct me if Im wrong). He had just impressively ko'd a B Class Mitchell - Tyson and Trinidad looked impressive on their comebacks ko'ing B Class opponents before not quite been able to handle an A Class opponent for 12 rounds.

Factors Tyszu hadn't shown in years - ability to fight for 12 rounds, ability to fight at a fast pace, ability to beat the top contenders - Mitchell wasn't because most had him losing to Ndou.

None of these factors would indicate Tyszu was in his prime, he wasn't shot to pieces by any means but in his prime and at his best for a 12round fight at 2am in a hostile Manchester? I would say NO

Back to the question I'd definately go with Calazage - 10years of dominance, clearing out his division, has many very good opponents, BEAT HIS DOMESTIC RIVALS, 2 career defining fights in Eubank and Lacy and completely dominating in style

Autobarn wrote:It's hard to split them. Calzaghe has longevity. Hatton has bigger wins. Calzaghe beat Lacy so badly that everyone has forgotten that Lacy was an intimidating powerful hitter...Hatton looks better schooled, Calzaghe more flamboyant and outright talented (i.e. the fast hands).

It seems Joe is cut off from the biggest fights by being a big fighter in the UK. When you get one big fighter in one country, another somewhere else etc it's harder to make the fights. Hatton deserves props for adjusting to fighting in America.

Obviously, they are both fighters at the highest level of boxing.

With you entirely there AB.

Longevity is one of my major criteria for judging a fighter. Unless someone faces utter palookas, it is very hard to stay on top for as long as Calzaghe has, and although some of his opponents were piss poor, enough of them were decent enough to suggest Calzaghe is a special fighter.

Hatton, with a lesser body of work, but some more impressive signature wins against very well regarded opponents, is on a very even footing.

The ring magazine have Hatton and Calzaghe both in the top 10, one at 9 and one at 8, there's not a lot in it.

Isn't it a completely facile debate? P4P is nonsense generally, but comparing 2 fighters side by side solely because they are British seems daft.

Loynesy wrote:Isn't it a completely facile debate? P4P is nonsense generally, but comparing 2 fighters side by side solely because they are British seems daft.

facile or futile

I meant "facile" as in ignoring the complexities of an issue and being unduly superficial, but "futile" is an equally good adjective to describe the debate.

The context of your statement would imply you meant futile.