Tweet
... I seem to find myself defending this guy on here a lot lately, largely because of what I see as irrational bias/prejudice against him, and I always like to challenge that kind of thing. There's a majority disparity between The Ring, which has him as their Fighter of the Year 2005, and here, where it seems only a minority of posters seem to give him any credit.
So let's talk about a few things here...
1. Class/Ability/"Dirty Fighter": For what's its worth, I DO think Hatton's a dirty fighter. And yes, he's not subtle. What does upset me is when I have to trawl through threads ascribing this to his nationality... Tyson, Holyfield and Hopkins are dirty fighters.... yet Hatton is always a "dirty Brit". There's no need (or room) for that kind of prejudice to be expressed on here. As for his class, then I still think we have to find that out. Since the Zoo fight he's relied more on an ugly, grappling style, but in the way he feints, cuts the ring off (not necessarily his last fight) he's a lot better boxer than some people give him credit. Sure, he doesn't look like Sugar Ray, but that's not his style. He's an inside pressure fighter, and for what he does, so far, he's been successful at it. Saying Floyd is the better boxer is both stating the obvious AND missing the point... don't blame the water for being wet.
2. The Collazo fight. This one is bugging me more than anything. If we're going to discuss a fighter, then let's discuss it sensibly. I've consistently read since the Collazo fight that Hatton looked like crap/lost the fight/would get KOed by anyone out there - even guys coming up from 130 - because he was rocked by a guy who wasn't even a puncher. What these posts NEVER acknowledge is that Collazo was a southpaw. Hatton's only KD came from a southpaw, and it's quite apparent that the guy has a MAJOR weakness from the southpaw stance, his only KD coming from one. Yeah, he was rocked by a guy who wasn't known as a big hitter in his division... but by flush shots from an angle where he couldn't see the punch coming, and he STILL didn't go down. Saying that "if Collazo was able to rock him, then X (name of orthodox fighter) would be able to..." is pretty much irrelevant and isn't looking objectively at the larger picture. Why not transplant this discussion to one where we talk about Hatton's much-touted future opponent - Mayweather - can switch to southpaw, and how that might factor in?
3. "All Brits like Hatton". I never used to rate the guy, still don't, hardly. Didn't like his style, didn't like his pasty complexion, didn't like his face, didn't like his mother sitting at ringside chewing gum. I know a lot of Brits on here seem to rate the guy, but I wonder how many don't? You know how, as an American, it's not actually the law that you have to like EVERY American boxer? You can actually like/dislike a boxer based on objective personal taste rather than what it says on their birth certificate? Well it works that way for other countries, too. So what bothers me most is that after reading all the Brit bashing tenuously linked in to discussion of Hatton, it's made kind of start defending the guy by association... and that ain't right.
I think what I'm saying is, let's have a bit more thought in discussion of him, rather than just saying he's a "bum" (he's not) or that Mayweather would do to him what he did to Gatti (he's no Gatti). It's okay not to like the guy, or even rate him, but let's have a bit more realistic reason behind why.
So let's talk about a few things here...
1. Class/Ability/"Dirty Fighter": For what's its worth, I DO think Hatton's a dirty fighter. And yes, he's not subtle. What does upset me is when I have to trawl through threads ascribing this to his nationality... Tyson, Holyfield and Hopkins are dirty fighters.... yet Hatton is always a "dirty Brit". There's no need (or room) for that kind of prejudice to be expressed on here. As for his class, then I still think we have to find that out. Since the Zoo fight he's relied more on an ugly, grappling style, but in the way he feints, cuts the ring off (not necessarily his last fight) he's a lot better boxer than some people give him credit. Sure, he doesn't look like Sugar Ray, but that's not his style. He's an inside pressure fighter, and for what he does, so far, he's been successful at it. Saying Floyd is the better boxer is both stating the obvious AND missing the point... don't blame the water for being wet.
2. The Collazo fight. This one is bugging me more than anything. If we're going to discuss a fighter, then let's discuss it sensibly. I've consistently read since the Collazo fight that Hatton looked like crap/lost the fight/would get KOed by anyone out there - even guys coming up from 130 - because he was rocked by a guy who wasn't even a puncher. What these posts NEVER acknowledge is that Collazo was a southpaw. Hatton's only KD came from a southpaw, and it's quite apparent that the guy has a MAJOR weakness from the southpaw stance, his only KD coming from one. Yeah, he was rocked by a guy who wasn't known as a big hitter in his division... but by flush shots from an angle where he couldn't see the punch coming, and he STILL didn't go down. Saying that "if Collazo was able to rock him, then X (name of orthodox fighter) would be able to..." is pretty much irrelevant and isn't looking objectively at the larger picture. Why not transplant this discussion to one where we talk about Hatton's much-touted future opponent - Mayweather - can switch to southpaw, and how that might factor in?
3. "All Brits like Hatton". I never used to rate the guy, still don't, hardly. Didn't like his style, didn't like his pasty complexion, didn't like his face, didn't like his mother sitting at ringside chewing gum. I know a lot of Brits on here seem to rate the guy, but I wonder how many don't? You know how, as an American, it's not actually the law that you have to like EVERY American boxer? You can actually like/dislike a boxer based on objective personal taste rather than what it says on their birth certificate? Well it works that way for other countries, too. So what bothers me most is that after reading all the Brit bashing tenuously linked in to discussion of Hatton, it's made kind of start defending the guy by association... and that ain't right.
I think what I'm saying is, let's have a bit more thought in discussion of him, rather than just saying he's a "bum" (he's not) or that Mayweather would do to him what he did to Gatti (he's no Gatti). It's okay not to like the guy, or even rate him, but let's have a bit more realistic reason behind why.
Comment