Ricky Hatton deserves the utmost respect.....

There's a qualitative difference between how proven (even a welter) Duran and Lacy are. Lacy was a hype job man, his best win was a 1 punch, come-from-behind win against Syd Vanderpool.

 

I'll fight this to the death people! :: I'll sit here til 5am answering every single point with a frothing mouth if I must!

 

Nah seriously, Im away to eat and do some chin ups. Down with Clown Rings and Warren-careers!

 

Well you're asking me not to reference subjective opinion, when your stance was listing rounds he lost in the opinion of judges (I presume), who are giving subjective opinions. First off, you missed Collazo, which was a fight Hatton lost a fair few rounds in. Secondly, Calzaghe-Hopkins was a clear, uncomfortable yes, but clear win for Joe. I couldn't care less what Adelaide Byrd says because she was clearly looking the wrong way or forgot to put her contact lenses in. Starie was a whitewash, a horrible fight, but I can't recall him losing rounds, maybe one, I'm not going to rewatch it though ::.

I'm not going to go through their whole careers either but I just think Joe had a style which would pose many more problems for an all-time great than anything Hattons approach would be able to offer. It's just clear to look at in my opinion.

 

He fought a lot of guys at the right time, meaning after other guys had fought and beaten them. Still, he tried his best against Mayweather and went out on his shield.

I do wonder how he would have done against a younger Tszyu.

 

Wisdom of the herd mate. One judge can be awful (I dont think Byrd was there, especially, i scored it similarly, live) but averaged over 3 judges it's usually very close to the truth (7-5 Calzaghe vs Hops,to take the example at hand) and taken over the course of careers it transcends subjective conjecture.

But really, 'subjectivity' isn't even really what I wanna eliminate here, I chose the wrong term - it's abstraction. 'Calzaghe is better because he's more adaptable', 'because he just is, he's just got more strings to his bow, his style is more difficult to deal with', etc.

Really, I'd just love somebody to bring it back down to a joined up case based on concrete fights and career paths for why Calzaghe was a better fighter in his weight class than Hatton was. And especially for why the notion is so obvious. Show that he beat a higher calibre of fighter or beat the same calibre in a much more impressive fashion.....you know the things guys usually actually DO to SHOW THAT their styles are just more adaptable and that they have more strings in their bow, and so on.

 

BTW, I left out the Collazo fight because Hatton was fighting a >160lb man, it didn't have any relevance to the rest of his career (including the Floyd fight) or to anything Calzaaghe did (Hopkins weighed less than most supermiddleweights).

 

I'm gonna leave this one alone, I think. Take home message - Hut*Hut doesn't like Joe Calzaghe and thinks he's overrated.:boring:

 

Hut Hut has been right all thread, IMO.

 

One of these days, you should watch a Duran fight.

Do it with someone who knows something about boxing, so they can explain what's going on to you.

 

where do you get this shit from?

What, Leonard's people didn't see what Duran did to Palomino, winning every second of 10 rounds against a guy that was at worst the 5th best welter in the world at a time when the top 4 had the names Leonard, Benitez, Hearns, Cuevas??? you are such a bullshit artist with this revisionist CRAP, it's sickening... Duran was a proven commodity at 147 at that point... that fight (Duran/Leonard) was Leonard's "PACQUIAO" ... the winner was going to be the p4p king... it was a HUGE fight

 

I love it when I create a thread that brings everyone together

:Lok:

 

::

 

Calzaghe:Boxing::Tumour:Brain

 

The thing is though, I don't argue that Hatton pursued tougher fights, I don't even argue that he should maybe considered as greater. I just don't think he's better, his biggest win is against a guy who he matches up well with stylistically. I always thought he could beat Tszyu. He took on the best two fighters of his generation, Calzaghe didn't, and Joe certainly takes all the blame for the RJJ showdown not happening (when it should have). If you personally rate Hatton over him or whatever on that basis alone, I can't argue with it.

Now for me, I look at it this way, if I was a world class boxer and I had the option of taking on either Joe or Ricky (in a p4p sense), I'd pick Ricky every time, because I'd feel more confident of winning. I've always felt Joe was better, even when they were both taking on bums.

Now if you want to break it down on a name by name basis, then of course, Joes CV won't match up to Rickys. However, whilst Kessler is not Tszyu, and Hopkins isn't Mayweather, they're of a more than good enough standard to expose any glaring flaws in Calzaghes game, which they didn't.

 

:Hanzkiller::Hanzkiller:
It has to be spam. You're the Sartorially-Challenged Saskatchewan who spent good money to watch Bernard Hopkins "make history" 3 years after he turned in a cheating, negative, stinking performance against Calzaghe?????

 

Did he move up from 168 to 175 or not??? Joe Calzaghe relied on being loosey-goosey and very active.... Hopkins relies on being Bay-Area/Grey-Area. Vitali relies on fighting in the worst heavyweight division of all time ever ever more amen all-time. As for Lewis, he was a gay Brit. It says so in Ring.

 

I went to that fight because I really like boxing.

 

Who the hell brought Calzaghe's name up into a Hatton thread? There are no similarities between them :stir:

 

Dunno, but probably me, since I can never think of one without the other, basically as ying/yang mirrors of each other, career-trajectory wise.

 

Oh, but there are...they are White-Brits-Only-Having-Success-In-An-Era-Where-Everyone-Else-Is-Doing-Something-Else.

 

You went to the fight because you wanted a piece of Hopkins.

 

I know this much....anyone mocking Joe Calzaghe and diminishing him......and then fucking off to a Bernard Hopkins fight...not watching him, BUT ACTUALLY PAYING TO ATTEND....on the grounds that they "like boxing"....is either on the wind-up or sorely deluded.

 

it's a shame Floyd didn't fight Hatton at 140

 

Its a shame a lot of things didn't happen. Floyd likes to hold all the aces, and, in fairness, its a superior alternative to being knocked near-senseless in a Vegas car-park in baking heat.

 

Indeed. Shame on me for living a dream and sitting ringside for a title fight.

I must have imagined openly cheering for Pascal too.

 

Wow. Thats your dream. I have overrated your ambition, Sir.

 

'a' dream. As I said, I really like boxing. Have for a long time.

Don't hate me because I'm capable of going out and enjoying myself.

 

Not at all. I hate you because if Vitali was in town you would avoid him, and then come on here to tell us all how you avoided him, and love boxing.:Hanzkiller:

 

Voices, man.

If Vitali was fighting nearby there's no question I'd go.