Give Hatton His Due.
 © Mike Cleary |
Now that the furor over Ricky Hatton’s triumph over Kostya Tszyu has begun to die down somewhat, it is time to stand back and take a measured look at the aftermath of what was an unforgettable night of boxing. The chief point I would like to address is the notion that Kostya Tszyu grew old over night. It is a tired, old cliche and, frankly, |
I am sick of hearing it every time a respected thirty-plus-year-old fighter loses. It matters not that there is currently a forty-year-old middleweight sitting atop everyone and their dog’s pound-for-pound list. Although, if Hopkins loses to Taylor, you can bet your average boxing “expert†will use that very excuse when asked to expound on the loss. On a side note, I see the forty-year-old Hopkins beating Taylor quite handily.
Upon reading one of the Hatton-Tszyu post fight articles straight from the conveyor belt (yes, I am aware of the irony), I immediately loaded up MS Word, so tired was I of seeing so-called boxing experts discredit “The Hitman.†The way I see it is that these writers, rather than spitting out excuse after excuse to exonerate Tszyu of his, as they see it, flat-as-a-pancake performance, are actually attempting to justify why their woeful prediction’s were so far off the mark. One article, whose author shall remain nameless, states on one line that he never imagined Hatton being a legitimate threat. In the very next sentence, there is no attempt to elaborate on his thoughts, no hint of the author contemplating that he may simply have underestimated Hatton. “Tszyu grew old overnight,†he states, as though already proven as fact. To my mind, this sums up the majority of the online boxing journalist’s fraternity. It’s not pride, it’s ego. It is a means of saving face, because an admission of being wrong somehow means you are not as knowledgeable as you first thought.
Would I be regurgitating similarly tired excuses if Hatton had lost? I would hope not. It may sound a touch corny, but the boxing world could learn a thing or two from Tszyu. His graciousness after the fight could, quite literally, have brought a tear to the eye. In a sport dominated by ego, it was so refreshing to hear a fighter give his opponent the respect and credit due to him and to have it reciprocated.
The fight itself was an extremely close affair. In fact, up until round nine, you it was difficult to separate the two fighters. Tszyu’s subtle counter-punching had ensured that the fight was close. Hatton’s constant pressure was more eye-catching. If you had watched the fight after twelve cans of Stella, you might have thought that Hatton had won every single round, such was the subtlety of Tszyu’s work. Tszyu was not poor. Hatton was that good. His tactics were spot on. It would not have mattered if Tszyu was twenty-five, as the pressure Hatton applied would have worn any fighter out. That is what leads me to believe that Tszyu is far from a shot fighter. He lost a close fight to a young, talented, Trojan-like fighter. Is there any shame in losing to Ricky Hatton? No. And it is ignorant to suggest otherwise. Tszyu is a great fighter, but hardly infallible. Hatton demonstrated that last Sunday.
I must apologize for the whiney tone of the article. Maybe I am just tired of seeing every fight that I, and many others, have predicted correctly labeled as an upset by fellow writers: Morales-Pacquiao, Wright-Trinidad and Hatton-Tszyu, to name but a few. Maybe I am just tired of all the excuses. I really can’t put my finger on it. As with most of my articles, this has probably been torture for you readers. It has been a little bit of therapy for me, however.
James MacDonald can be reached at ac009b5460@blueyonder.co.uk