Who Should Be Remembered As The Greater Fighter, Jeff Chandler Or Ricky Hatton?

[Southpaw16BF]

Well. Also give reason behind your answer.

[1SILVA]

Originally Posted by .SOUTHPAW16BF.

Well. Also give reason behind your answer.

No contest. Jeff Chandler was the best 118 pounder I ever saw. Great left jab, excellent right cross, with a ton of heart. Dominated the division for 4 years. Hatton is an overrated mugger who holds, with a china chin. Chandler lost his last fight and retired. Hatton will come back and take more punishment.

[sonnyboyx2]

no contest... Joltin Jeff

[mickey malone]

To be fair, Chandler was the better boxer, but not necessarily the greater fighter.. Jeff had to retire early with eye trouble, and in total (amateur & pro), fought for less than 10 years.. I'd say that this needs to be taken into consideration..

[BennyST]

I think Chandler. Very underrated, whereas Hatton really is, to me anyway, one of the most overrated fighters of this era.

If you really look at Hatton's record and resume closely it is pathetic in comparison to other champions, especially in this era of myriad titles.

He had, all up, only four years of title efforts and in that four years he had only nine title fights. In those nine fights, three were for the IBO title, which means literally nothing so you could even say he had six title fights all up.

Of those six, four were at 140. Only four! The first was his title winning effort against 36 year old, part time fighter Kostya Tszyu. By far his greatest win as it ended the old Tyszu's long reign. The other three were against Maussa, Urango and Castillo. Not exactly great stuff. Bradley, in his title winning fights has already done more than that, apart from Tyszu.

The other fights came against Collazo at WW and then he lost to Mayweather by KO. After that he moved back down to 140 and fought Lazcano, Malignaggi and then got blasted by Pac in two rounds.

I don't know if this is harsh but it just seems to me his whole career is one massive overblown piece of bollocks. If we're talking in normal terms, he was just a half decent champ. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

He didn't beat many champs and he didn't fight many champs and didn't have much of a run at 140 either. I don't think he was ever a very good 140 champ as he had been made out to be. He never fought any of the other major champs there apart from Tszyu. Maybe if he had started earlier he would have done so but he didn't and I think he would have lost earlier had he done so anyway. He was a great product of media sensation and a fantastically popular figure, but, as a great champion I think he was very lacking.

I hear him as a definite HOF entrant from lots of people and I just burst out laughing. A HOF guy is someone who was at the top for much longer than the majority of other champions and who beat many more champions and great fighters. They are the big stand out champions from each era. The guys who would have been great anywhere, at any time, in any era. Hatton was one of the most popular champs but that's it, that's where it ends. He wasn't someone who beat a lot of great fighters, and in fact he didn't really beat that many good fighters either. The one great fighter and definite HOF'er (the only other possible guy is Castillo) he did beat was Tszyu and that was a biased home-town job against a guy that was ripe to be taken by whoever he fought next as he was so injury ridden, inactive and not really enjoying it anymore anyway.

The other fighters he beat were, in my opinion, not very good at all. I mean, they were good of course, but if we're talking on levels of a great fighter they weren't. They were bad. Maussa? Lazcano? Castillo, Collazo and Malignaggi were ok but even they were just third tier guys and Castillo only that because of his name and previous years as a good LW champ.

It might sound like I'm being hateful toward him but it's not that. He was a good champion but never anything more than that. What gets me is that he is considered by many to be a great champion and he is not. He's just a good, decent champion. He was never P4P material, never cleaned out his division or made a great run similar with other great champs for that division, never beat any great, prime fighter and never really did anything to distinguish himself as being a HOF worthy fighter.

There are any number of fighters from 140 who were better in my opinion but didn't have the same backing and who consequently weren't considered as good because of the media hype.

For example: Sharmba Mitchell. He was a lot better than Hatton. Doesn't have the same recognition and most would probably laugh but he did a hell of a lot more over his career and beat many more champs and won more title fights than Hatton. Interesting what popularity does.

[BennyST]

Originally Posted by mickey malone

To be fair, Chandler was the better boxer, but not necessarily the greater fighter.. Jeff had to retire early with eye trouble, and in total (amateur & pro), fought for less than 10 years.. I'd say that this needs to be taken into consideration..

While Hatton may have fought for more years overall, they both had the same number of years in championship fighting and during those years Chandler made a lot more defenses at about eleven or something while Hatton only made about three along with the other couple of his IBO thing.

[sonnyboyx2]

Originally Posted by BennyST

I think Chandler. Very underrated, whereas Hatton really is, to me anyway, one of the most overrated fighters of this era.

If you really look at Hatton's record and resume closely it is pathetic in comparison to other champions, especially in this era of myriad titles.

He had, all up, only four years of title efforts and in that four years he had only nine title fights. In those nine fights, three were for the IBO title, which means literally nothing so you could even say he had six title fights all up.

Of those six, four were at 140. Only four! The first was his title winning effort against 36 year old, part time fighter Kostya Tszyu. By far his greatest win as it ended the old Tyszu's long reign. The other three were against Maussa, Urango and Castillo. Not exactly great stuff. Bradley, in his title winning fights has already done more than that, apart from Tyszu.

The other fights came against Collazo at WW and then he lost to Mayweather by KO. After that he moved back down to 140 and fought Lazcano, Malignaggi and then got blasted by Pac in two rounds.

I don't know if this is harsh but it just seems to me his whole career is one massive overblown piece of bollocks. If we're talking in normal terms, he was just a half decent champ. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

He didn't beat many champs and he didn't fight many champs and didn't have much of a run at 140 either. I don't think he was ever a very good 140 champ as he had been made out to be. He never fought any of the other major champs there apart from Tszyu. Maybe if he had started earlier he would have done so but he didn't and I think he would have lost earlier had he done so anyway. He was a great product of media sensation and a fantastically popular figure, but, as a great champion I think he was very lacking.

I hear him as a definite HOF entrant from lots of people and I just burst out laughing. A HOF guy is someone who was at the top for much longer than the majority of other champions and who beat many more champions and great fighters. They are the big stand out champions from each era. The guys who would have been great anywhere, at any time, in any era. Hatton was one of the most popular champs but that's it, that's where it ends. He wasn't someone who beat a lot of great fighters, and in fact he didn't really beat that many good fighters either. The one great fighter and definite HOF'er (the only other possible guy is Castillo) he did beat was Tszyu and that was a biased home-town job against a guy that was ripe to be taken by whoever he fought next as he was so injury ridden, inactive and not really enjoying it anymore anyway.

The other fighters he beat were, in my opinion, not very good at all. I mean, they were good of course, but if we're talking on levels of a great fighter they weren't. They were bad. Maussa? Lazcano? Castillo, Collazo and Malignaggi were ok but even they were just third tier guys and Castillo only that because of his name and previous years as a good LW champ.

It might sound like I'm being hateful toward him but it's not that. He was a good champion but never anything more than that. What gets me is that he is considered by many to be a great champion and he is not. He's just a good, decent champion. He was never P4P material, never cleaned out his division or made a great run similar with other great champs for that division, never beat any great, prime fighter and never really did anything to distinguish himself as being a HOF worthy fighter.

There are any number of fighters from 140 who were better in my opinion but didn't have the same backing and who consequently weren't considered as good because of the media hype.

For example: Sharmba Mitchell. He was a lot better than Hatton. Doesn't have the same recognition and most would probably laugh but he did a hell of a lot more over his career and beat many more champs and won more title fights than Hatton. Interesting what popularity does.

very nice piece which i agree with.

[1SILVA]

Originally Posted by BennyST

I think Chandler. Very underrated, whereas Hatton really is, to me anyway, one of the most overrated fighters of this era.

If you really look at Hatton's record and resume closely it is pathetic in comparison to other champions, especially in this era of myriad titles.

He had, all up, only four years of title efforts and in that four years he had only nine title fights. In those nine fights, three were for the IBO title, which means literally nothing so you could even say he had six title fights all up.

Of those six, four were at 140. Only four! The first was his title winning effort against 36 year old, part time fighter Kostya Tszyu. By far his greatest win as it ended the old Tyszu's long reign. The other three were against Maussa, Urango and Castillo. Not exactly great stuff. Bradley, in his title winning fights has already done more than that, apart from Tyszu.

The other fights came against Collazo at WW and then he lost to Mayweather by KO. After that he moved back down to 140 and fought Lazcano, Malignaggi and then got blasted by Pac in two rounds.

I don't know if this is harsh but it just seems to me his whole career is one massive overblown piece of bollocks. If we're talking in normal terms, he was just a half decent champ. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

He didn't beat many champs and he didn't fight many champs and didn't have much of a run at 140 either. I don't think he was ever a very good 140 champ as he had been made out to be. He never fought any of the other major champs there apart from Tszyu. Maybe if he had started earlier he would have done so but he didn't and I think he would have lost earlier had he done so anyway. He was a great product of media sensation and a fantastically popular figure, but, as a great champion I think he was very lacking.

I hear him as a definite HOF entrant from lots of people and I just burst out laughing. A HOF guy is someone who was at the top for much longer than the majority of other champions and who beat many more champions and great fighters. They are the big stand out champions from each era. The guys who would have been great anywhere, at any time, in any era. Hatton was one of the most popular champs but that's it, that's where it ends. He wasn't someone who beat a lot of great fighters, and in fact he didn't really beat that many good fighters either. The one great fighter and definite HOF'er (the only other possible guy is Castillo) he did beat was Tszyu and that was a biased home-town job against a guy that was ripe to be taken by whoever he fought next as he was so injury ridden, inactive and not really enjoying it anymore anyway.

The other fighters he beat were, in my opinion, not very good at all. I mean, they were good of course, but if we're talking on levels of a great fighter they weren't. They were bad. Maussa? Lazcano? Castillo, Collazo and Malignaggi were ok but even they were just third tier guys and Castillo only that because of his name and previous years as a good LW champ.

It might sound like I'm being hateful toward him but it's not that. He was a good champion but never anything more than that. What gets me is that he is considered by many to be a great champion and he is not. He's just a good, decent champion. He was never P4P material, never cleaned out his division or made a great run similar with other great champs for that division, never beat any great, prime fighter and never really did anything to distinguish himself as being a HOF worthy fighter.

There are any number of fighters from 140 who were better in my opinion but didn't have the same backing and who consequently weren't considered as good because of the media hype.

For example: Sharmba Mitchell. He was a lot better than Hatton. Doesn't have the same recognition and most would probably laugh but he did a hell of a lot more over his career and beat many more champs and won more title fights than Hatton. Interesting what popularity does.

In a word-EXCELLENT!!!!!! Hatton is no HOF'er. Chandler is.

[mickey malone]

Originally Posted by BennyST

While Hatton may have fought for more years overall, they both had the same number of years in championship fighting and during those years Chandler made a lot more defenses at about eleven or something while Hatton only made about three along with the other couple of his IBO thing.

I like Hatton, but it's an ever decreasing market with regard to his credibility since the Pac fight, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to make an argument for him.. There's some top names on his resume, but the one's he beat were past their prime, and the only 2 that wer'nt, beat him..
Good lad though, won titles in 2 divs but it seems like he's gonna be remembered about as much as John H Stracey is..
However, i take into consideration the 15 rounders, and you're right, Chandler does have the better championship resume..

[donkim]

I don't see what was a "biased home-town job" against Tszyu when he fought Hatton,both went low and from what I recall it was actually Tszyu who threw the first low blow.


Tszyu was rusty and past his prime against Hatton,but he was coming off one of the greatest performances of his career against one of the greatest opponents of his career in Sharmba Mitchell.



Tszyu was never a great fighter to begin with either.I know alot of Australians rate him and Jeff fenech thought he was the greatest fighter who ever lived,but his resume isn't good,he never fought the top fighters of his era and he had very few impressive perormances.



Going by what others have said,you would have swore that Tszyu was this great puncher too,Tszyu wasn't a devestating puncher and his power was good at best.


Vince Phillips took Tszyu's best on the chin with no problem and threw it back at Tszyu who couldn't take Phillip's best.