Significance

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 06 Dec 2007, 10:15

Would Hatton beating Mayweather be more significant than Honeyghan-Curry or Benn-McClellan?

DavidPayne · Post by **DavidPayne** » 06 Dec 2007, 10:18

Yes. Curry and McClellan were still as much about potential as actuality, Mayweather, if the cold facts are taken at value has already delivered fully on his potential.

He's at the top, Curry and Gerald were en route.

However, that doesn't mean I think Mayweather is better or worse than either of the Americans you mention.

But the fight has more meaning.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 06 Dec 2007, 10:18

I think about the same as Honeygan-Curry (if not better) and more than Benn-Mclellan.

Some times you can only say what the historical significance is a few years down the line....

boxingchat · Post by **boxingchat** » 06 Dec 2007, 10:25

Ezzard wrote:Would Hatton beating Mayweather be more significant than Honeyghan-Curry or Benn-McClellan?

It will be on a par with David and Goliath.

Al Savani · Post by **Al Savani** » 06 Dec 2007, 10:52

Benn/Mcclellan changed the sport,for the wrong reasons.

Even though I don't think a 147pound Mayweather is as good as a 147 Curry was,to some it would be hilarious if Hatton won. Look at how bloody awful he's looked in his last four fights,how Magee knocked him down,Tackie and Phillips had him in cuckoo-land,a totally shot Luis Castillo winning the third and puffing his face up,and these are all supposed to be his besy performances. Collazo shaking him,Urango doubling him over. It would be funny if Rick pulled it off,but Mayweather would have to not be at his best and Hatton would have to perform better than he's ever done. Even so,the betting is strangely more even now. It wouldn't actually be as big an upset as Hatton/Tszyu,but it would be funny.

Significance

Significance

Re: Significance