Re: Hatton v Cotto@147-what do you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelie
I'm not changing the meanings. The boards full of threads going overboard after Miguels win...
What I wanna know is where were all the Cotto fans when he's was scraping past the likes of Bailey and Torres?
Did somebody say bandwagon..?
Well for one I've been here all this time, since the begining as soon as I have a chance I'll dig up ALL my Cotto posts. I started following his career since he fought Arturo Rodriguez.... Haven't missed a SINGLE fight since....
I'm telling YES! you are right Hatton does have a bigger name in his resume (Tszyu) thats about it ALL other names in both resumes are about the same....
Fact of the matter here is that 'We will never know cause, they are NEVER fighting eachother..... :)
Re: Hatton v Cotto@147-what do you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny_G
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelie
Quote:
I think you need to look up Cotto's resume....you either are a HUGE Hatton nut hugger and refuse to acknowledge Cotto's achievements or just plain out don't know much about Cotto's opponents,nearly all of whom have been good.
I think
you need to be honest about Cottos resume ;)
Care to pick any particular opponent that stands out?
Until Hatton can prove he is even remotely a force at 147 there is no need to go into resumes but since you want to go there,
Carlos Quintana knocked out Edwin Cassiani.
Edwin Cassiani TKO'ed Luis Collazo.
Miguel Cotto destroyed Carlos Quintana.
Hi, this is my first post, but can I just say that you're a fool.
X beat Y and Y beat Z therefore X is the best is a poor way of deciding who is better.
Re: Hatton v Cotto@147-what do you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelie
Quote:
CC, except I'd add that the old, injured Tszyu that Hatton beat wasn't of the prime Tszyu's caliber either. Hatton's never beaten a world class fighter in his prime, just like Cotto. But Cotto's beaten a lot more good, solid, young, up-and-comers than Hatton has. And after watching each of their last 6 fights or so, I don't see any way Hatton lasts more than 6 or 7 rounds with Cotto at 147. And I don't see him lasting 12 at 140 either. Cotto, unlike the Tszyu that Hatton fought, is at his prime. And he hits harder than even a prime Tszyu did--easily. He also--as someone else here pointed out--doesn't need the room to punch that Tszyu needed. And he's bigger and stronger than Hatton and couldn't be pushed around by him--even at 140.
Which 'solid up and comers' has he beaten exactly?
Basically everyone in his last 6 fights minus Branco. Corley, Abdulaev, Torres, Malignaggi and Quintana had a combined record of 101-4-1. They're all better than most of the competition Hatton's faced too. If Corley's too seasoned to be included, take away 3 of those losses and the draw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelie
Quote:
I'd love to see it--if only because so many people here are irrationally picking Hatton to win AT 147 (??!!!). Of course we won't ever see it, because Hatton's more realistic than a lot of these posters about his abilities at 147
What's irrational is people starting millions of threads declaring Miguel the next big thing when he's only beat Quintana ::**
Sure, but actually no one is starting a million threads declaring Miguel to be "the next big thing." Someone did start this thread about Miguel being able to beat Hatton at the weight that Collazo beat him at a couple months ago, preceding Hatton's high-tailing it back to 140.
Here's the situation:
Hatton comes to 147, fights a decent, slick, but completely feather-fisted (13 kos) fighter in Collazo. Looks considerably worse than at 140. Nearly gets stopped toward the end of the fight, gets a draw at best, but gets a small gift decision--then runs as fast as he can back to 140, shouting back over his shoulder that "140 is his real weight" and that "he's giving away too many advantages at 147."
Cotto comes to 147, fights a pretty good, undefeated, slick boxer with some KO power (18/23 kos), and destroys him in 5 rounds without getting scratched. Looks better than he did at 147.
And you're telling me that it's not irrational to nonetheless pick Hatton over Cotto at 147. You have a lot of explaining to do. And comparing Hatton's record fighting a past-his-prime Tszyu and a bunch of tomato cans in England at 140 pounds to Cotto's resume at 140 pounds doesn't even begin that conversation. Hatton is not like Floyd, who relies on speed and boxing ability so size doesn't matter all that much. Hatton relies on bullying opponents and running into them head-first, which doesn't work against bigger dudes.
Re: Hatton v Cotto@147-what do you think?
Hatton is tough so I think he will absorb the punishment and last to the later rounds or even perhaps the end. He will bleed heavily for his efforts.
Re: Hatton v Cotto@147-what do you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CutMeMicK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelie
I'm not changing the meanings. The boards full of threads going overboard after Miguels win...
What I wanna know is where were all the Cotto fans when he's was scraping past the likes of Bailey and Torres?
Did somebody say bandwagon..?
Well for one I've been here all this time, since the begining as soon as I have a chance I'll dig up ALL my Cotto posts. I started following his career since he fought Arturo Rodriguez.... Haven't missed a SINGLE fight since....
I'm telling YES! you are right Hatton does have a bigger name in his resume (Tszyu) thats about it ALL other names in both resumes are about the same....
Fact of the matter here is that 'We will never know cause, they are NEVER fighting eachother..... :)
I'm not even trying to compare records CMM. It's a moot excersise...like I said, I'm happy to conceed that the vast majority of Hattons are less than stellar. I'd like to see the same honesty from the Cotto fans. Nobody Miguel has faced is world class and I honestly can't see how anyone can say otherwise
Quote:
Basically everyone in his last 6 fights minus Branco. Corley, Abdulaev, Torres, Malignaggi and Quintana had a combined record of 101-4-1.
I could go to the effort of checking thier records on Boxrec but I'll hazard a guess that there's enough tomato cans in there to keep Heinz going for the forseeable...
Quote:
And you're telling me that it's not irrational to nonetheless pick Hatton over Cotto at 147. You have a lot of explaining to do. And comparing Hatton's record fighting a past-his-prime Tszyu and a bunch of tomato cans in England at 140 pounds to Cotto's resume at 140 pounds doesn't even begin that conversation. Hatton is not like Floyd, who relies on speed and boxing ability so size doesn't matter all that much. Hatton relies on bullying opponents and running into them head-first, which doesn't work against bigger dudes.
I'm not comparing records. Hatton had his fair share of 'tune ups' so I'd be pretty hypocritical to level that at Miguel. I'm just trying to bring some clarity to Miguels actual standing. He's still learning and isn't a world beater based on the fact he's beat Quintana, albeit impressively.
Moving forward, As ardent Cotto fans you shouldn't be satisfied with the Malinaggis, Brancos and Quintanas of this world. If he's as good as you think he is then there's plenty of tests out there for him and I would kick off if any of these prospective fights fall through.
Re: Hatton v Cotto@147-what do you think?
violent demise it sounds that by your logic if mauser was shit, but harris was worse because he lost to mauser, then buster douglas was better than tyson! and zahir raheem was better than morales. harris is a much more dangerous fighter than Quintana, and in mauser it was a clasic case of a fighter losing a fight that he realy should have won had he prepared properly.
Re: Hatton v Cotto@147-what do you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbirdy
violent demise it sounds that by your logic if mauser was shit, but harris was worse because he lost to mauser, then buster douglas was better than tyson! and zahir raheem was better than morales. harris is a much more dangerous fighter than Quintana, and in mauser it was a clasic case of a fighter losing a fight that he realy should have won had he prepared properly.
Here's what I don't understand: Harris came into this when I asked the question (still unanswered really)
who would Cotto have moved up to fight that wasn't filler? Harris if I recall correctly was a Light Welter that never fought at welter.
And how can you compare Harris to Tyson or Morales?
Re: Hatton v Cotto@147-what do you think?
harris wasn't being compared to tyson or morales. his fight with mauser was being compared to tyson's with douglas and morales's with raheem. it was an example of fights when the guy who was the better fighter on the night won when that fighter was not necessarrily the best of the two fighters. in other words mate douglas beat tyson because of tyson's poor preperation and lack of training and just because douglas beat tyson does not by any means mean that he was a better fighter. the same example aplies to morales vs raheem and harris vs mauser and hundred of other fights before and since mate. just because mauser beat harris does not make him a better fighter and harris was a very under rated champ and is still an under rated fighter. as if i even had to explain myself for that post. un fuckin beleivable.
Re: Hatton v Cotto@147-what do you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbirdy
violent demise it sounds that by your logic if mauser was shit, but harris was worse because he lost to mauser, then buster douglas was better than tyson! and zahir raheem was better than morales. harris is a much more dangerous fighter than Quintana, and in mauser it was a clasic case of a fighter losing a fight that he realy should have won had he prepared properly.
Here's what I don't understand: Harris came into this when I asked the question (still unanswered really)
who would Cotto have moved up to fight that wasn't filler? Harris if I recall correctly was a Light Welter that never fought at welter.
Harris was an example of who else Miguel could of fought at lightwelter, let alone at 147.
If were talking about 147 and remember were talking about a certain point in history, then he could've fought any of the guys that Mayweather went on to fight - Mitchell, Gatti, Judah...yet they chose to keep him at 147 and fight Randell Bailey ::**
So, we can only summise that despite Miguel struggling with the weight that they knew he wasn't ready for that step up both literally and metaphorically.
Re: Hatton v Cotto@147-what do you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbirdy
harris wasn't being compared to tyson or morales. his fight with mauser was being compared to tyson's with douglas and morales's with raheem. it was an example of fights when the guy who was the better fighter on the night won when that fighter was not necessarrily the best of the two fighters. in other words mate douglas beat tyson because of tyson's poor preperation and lack of training and just because douglas beat tyson does not by any means mean that he was a better fighter. the same example aplies to morales vs raheem and harris vs mauser and hundred of other fights before and since mate. just because mauser beat harris does not make him a better fighter and harris was a very under rated champ and is still an under rated fighter. as if i even had to explain myself for that post. un fuckin beleivable.
But on those nights Buster and Zahir WERE the better fighters. Buster outboxed Tyson, en route to a victory, if tyson was ill-prepared, I can't give him any credit anyway, he had plenty of time to train. Part of being a good boxer is preparing for your fights, guess whose fault it is if you are unprepared. As for Zahir, he just plain beat Morales, and as such was the better fighter that night.
I am still waiting for someone to explain why Harris is better than Quintana.
Re: Hatton v Cotto@147-what do you think?
To determine who is better they would have to fight. Harris clearly has the better record though.
Re: Hatton v Cotto@147-what do you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelie
Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbirdy
violent demise it sounds that by your logic if mauser was shit, but harris was worse because he lost to mauser, then buster douglas was better than tyson! and zahir raheem was better than morales. harris is a much more dangerous fighter than Quintana, and in mauser it was a clasic case of a fighter losing a fight that he realy should have won had he prepared properly.
Here's what I don't understand: Harris came into this when I asked the question (still unanswered really)
who would Cotto have moved up to fight that wasn't filler? Harris if I recall correctly was a Light Welter that never fought at welter.
Harris was an example of who else Miguel could of fought at lightwelter, let alone at 147.
If were talking about 147 and remember were talking about a certain point in history, then he could've fought any of the guys that Mayweather went on to fight - Mitchell, Gatti, Judah...yet they chose to keep him at 147 and fight Randell Bailey ::**
So, we can only summise that despite Miguel struggling with the weight that they knew he wasn't ready for that step up both literally and metaphorically.
We are still talking about the last fight though right?
So maybe I am mistaken here, but you're saying that at this point in time, he would have done better to fight
Mitchell - Lost 3 of his last 5, and is now 36 years old.
Gatti - Lost 2 of his last 3, and is now 34 years old.
Judah - Lost his last 2, is currently on suspension.
Bottom line is this, Cotto took the best fight available to him at 147.
Re: Hatton v Cotto@147-what do you think?
No I'm saying at that for the past 2 years he's struggled with the weight and could've moved up to fight any of the aforementioned (prior to the losses you mention and whilst they still carried a lot of thier lustre) yet he didn't he stayed at 140 and fought tenuous fringe contenders...
Re: Hatton v Cotto@147-what do you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelie
No I'm saying at that for the past 2 years he's struggled with the weight and could've moved up to fight any of the aforementioned (prior to the losses you mention and whilst they still carried a lot of thier lustre) yet he didn't he stayed at 140 and fought tenuous fringe contenders...
Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelie
So why didn't he step up to 147 sooner?
I agree he should have stepped up earlier, I'll give you that.
But he didn't, spilled milk and what not, don't see the relevance of that to the topic of the thread though
Re: Hatton v Cotto@147-what do you think?
The cold truth is that you can never, with 100% accuracy, predict the outcome of a fair fight. Comparing opponents and who did what when and who did what better is all truly moot come fight night.
If it weren't, then there would be no such thing as an upset! The outcome of matches could be determined without the fighters in question ever stepping into a ring, thus eliminating a great number of bouts.
Sure, a lot of times it's easy to predict who's gonna win, but the great thing is - you never know until you get in the ring and find out.
