Who has the better resume, Mayweather or Cotto???

[IMDAZED]

Well, yeah, he didn't fight too many good fighters.

And the one's he did face he wasn't fantastic in. But I'd say that's more down to his lack of skill and fundementals etc.

His strength was always his best attribute. From domestic all the way to world level.

I think you're underrating his strength. I mean, he's doesn't have absolute animal, Jake Lamotta style strength. But, neither does Mayweather.

I don't think there's any question that if Mayweather was a mauler like Hatton is (clone of Hatton, with Floyd's body and strength) that Mayweather would be outhustled by Hatton. I'm just talking solely strength here.

Is he stronger than him in abundance? No. He proved that in their fight. But a huge part of being able to stand his ground in that fight was his inside ability and skills that were realms from Hatton.

Could Mayweather force him back at will? No. Not even close. He wasn't effectively forcing him back until the the mid rounds.

There's nothing that suggests Hatton had some incredible strength or was even that strong. He was simply a mauler. And he got worked on the inside in his two fights at welter.

[IronDanHamza]

There's nothing that suggests Hatton had some incredible strength or was even that strong. He was simply a mauler. And he got worked on the inside in his two fights at welter.

His mauling style relied on strength.

And I'm not claiming he had incredible strength. Despite the fact he was certainly a strong fighter.

Either way I don't really care. I just don't see why people discredit the Hatton fgiht at 147 and act like he was way better at 140.

[RubenSonny]

It's one weight class

7 Lbs.

Weight wasn't an issue, it was simply a case in which a fighter was grossly overrated.

[IMDAZED]

His mauling style relied on strength.

And I'm not claiming he had incredible strength. Despite the fact he was certainly a strong fighter.

Either way I don't really care. I just don't see why people discredit the Hatton fgiht at 147 and act like he was way better at 140.

Nah I'm not arguing that at all. It was a solid win. But you said he was stronger than Floyd. I'm arguing against that.

[bojangles1987]

His mauling style relied on strength.

And I'm not claiming he had incredible strength. Despite the fact he was certainly a strong fighter.

Either way I don't really care. I just don't see why people discredit the Hatton fgiht at 147 and act like he was way better at 140.

Hatton's style certainly worked better at 140 than at 147. It wouldn't make a difference in a Mayweather fight, which is why you can't really discredit Mayweather for that win, but Hatton was better at 140 simply because his style worked better at that weight, where he doesn't have to deal with as many big fighters.

[RubenSonny]

Hatton's style certainly worked better at 140 than at 147. It wouldn't make a difference in a Mayweather fight, which is why you can't really discredit Mayweather for that win, but Hatton was better at 140 simply because his style worked better at that weight, where he doesn't have to deal with as many big fighters.

Before Mayweather, the best fighter he faced was Collazo.

[IronDanHamza]

Nah I'm not arguing that at all. It was a solid win. But you said he was stronger than Floyd. I'm arguing against that.

Then we shall agree to disagree.

[IronDanHamza]

Weight wasn't an issue, it was simply a case in which a fighter was grossly overrated.

I agree, pretty much.

[elgaringo]

It's one weight class

7 Lbs.

7 pounds is a lot when your just 10 stone

[STREET CLEANER]

Most fighters go up in weight. The point is that Hatton went again to 147 and fought Floyd. Floyd handled him and got the win against a busy guy with a lot of stamina and enough punch output to make it a hard fight.

Floyd didn't struggle with him. Not saying here that Ricky was a ATG top fighter but it was a very decent win. Can't judge the guy towards the end of his career. I was never a Hatton fan in the first place.