Printable View
No offense to Ricky, but he wasn't well rounded as a fighter and if he couldn't hurt his opponent then he was at a disadvantage, Ricky was a hard worker but could be countered and anyone that moved away constantly and avoided the clinch would be hard for Ricky to outwork as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulk
Hatton had a fun style to watch....when he fought the right opponents.
I think if Ricky was in his prime right now, a fight with Tim Bradley would have been amazing.
I think if the question was and 0-52 non ranked journeyman vs Ricky Hatton I think most on here still wouldn't pick Ricky Hatton.
Comes down to footwork for me. Really these two are on different universes there. Camacho could stink out an arena and was labeled a runner at times but the lateral movement combined with those combinations would see Ricky in a bad way late, he wouldnt be able to trap and pounce on Camacho, and Camachos beard was solid. Think Ricky would be more Pazienza then a Haugen, who was a tricky boxer at times and not just a mauler.
Right now maybe, but a prime Hatton was a very good fighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornfinger
I just think the style matchup would have been a poor one for him. Look at Hatton's biggest wins: Tszyu, Castillo, Lazcano, etc. And look at his toughest fights Collazo (slick boxer, southpaw, decent chin), Mayweather (slick boxer, counter puncher), Pacquiao (counter puncher, southpaw)....a fight vs Camacho doesn't seem like a good matchup considering what Ricky brings to the table.
I think Zab Judah and Carlos Quintana would be better matches for him (though Zab had good power and was slick at times). Zab has a weaker chin and doesn't like pressure, Quintana had an ok chin, but got lazy at times during a fight much like Collazo and was hurt to the body at times.
Obviously I think the late Diego Corrales and Arturo Gatti would have been great fights for Ricky, better styles for his game plan.
IMO Ricky Hatton will never get his due from the boxing world as a whole.
I hope he does stay retired, he has nothing to prove.
I think Hatton had great footwork. Very quick feet. I think he'd be able to catch up to Camacho fairly easily. Just not sure what sort of plan he'd have once he'd done that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
He caught up to Mayweather much easier than most anticipated, but he had no idea what to do once he got there.
He gave Floyd a tough fight, but never had him in any trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornfinger
Personally I rate Ricky maybe a smidge above Calzaghe as Ricky took on the toughest opponents (Floyd and Manny) in their primes. He also beat one of the greatest Jr. Welterweights ever in Kostya Tszyu although he had faded quite a bit.
Its the fights Ricky COULD have had and won that he didn't take that I think hurts people's opinion of him. Hatton-Torres would have been a cracker! Hatton-Cotto (though I gave Ricky 0 chance of winning that fight) would have been awesome. Hatton-Gatti, Hatton-Corrales, Hatton-Morales, Hatton-JMM. But oddly enough its the Witter fight that I think would have rounded out his career quite nicely.
agree with you there, but IMO if Hatton couldn't clinch you he really wasn't that effective, and we know how "crafty" Camacho could be, he'd avoid the clinch and get Hatton with flurries than hold on to himQuote:
Originally Posted by onoI think Hatton had great footwork. Very quick feet. I think he'd be able to catch up to Camacho fairly easily. Just not sure what sort of plan he'd have once he'd done that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
He caught up to Mayweather much easier than most anticipated, but he had no idea what to do once he got there.
Yeah Hatton had trouble if he couldn't clinch. That was his problem with Mayweather. He couldn't deal with Mayweather's movement up close. He could match his footwork and get up close, but he couldn't get anything off once he got there. Same thing would probably happen with Camacho.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMoralesagree with you there, but IMO if Hatton couldn't clinch you he really wasn't that effective, and we know how "crafty" Camacho could be, he'd avoid the clinch and get Hatton with flurries than hold on to himQuote:
Originally Posted by onoI think Hatton had great footwork. Very quick feet. I think he'd be able to catch up to Camacho fairly easily. Just not sure what sort of plan he'd have once he'd done that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
He caught up to Mayweather much easier than most anticipated, but he had no idea what to do once he got there.
Oh agreed he could move them well but thats just it, he'd be in a hurry to get where Camacho wouldn't be and while Camacho wasn't to concerned with power, he'd most likely leave a willing Hatton running into propellers off that pesky rapid jab he had when Ricky planted the longer it went. Stiffle his attack. I'm thinking peak for peak ala the Tony Baltazar, Pazienza bouts for Camacho.Quote:
Originally Posted by onoI think Hatton had great footwork. Very quick feet. I think he'd be able to catch up to Camacho fairly easily. Just not sure what sort of plan he'd have once he'd done that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
He caught up to Mayweather much easier than most anticipated, but he had no idea what to do once he got there.
Very good analysis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
I like Paz and Haugen a lot. Though their fights never lived up to the hype.
Haugen gets a bad rap all because he mouthed off about Mexicans and got hammered by Chavez. BUT Haugen was a pretty damn good fighter.
Haugen PICKED HIS SHOTS. He knew how to box, to slip, and to counter. He was a very fundamentally sound little fighter.
Always thought Paz was a better fighter than Haugen, although he got a victory over Comacho.Quote:
Originally Posted by HulkVery good analysis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
I like Paz and Haugen a lot. Though their fights never lived up to the hype.
Haugen gets a bad rap all because he mouthed off about Mexicans and got hammered by Chavez. BUT Haugen was a pretty damn good fighter.
Haugen PICKED HIS SHOTS. He knew how to box, to slip, and to counter. He was a very fundamentally sound little fighter.
Vinny Paz was better and more entertaining.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterAlways thought Paz was a better fighter than Haugen, although he got a victory over Comacho.Quote:
Originally Posted by HulkVery good analysis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
I like Paz and Haugen a lot. Though their fights never lived up to the hype.
Haugen gets a bad rap all because he mouthed off about Mexicans and got hammered by Chavez. BUT Haugen was a pretty damn good fighter.
Haugen PICKED HIS SHOTS. He knew how to box, to slip, and to counter. He was a very fundamentally sound little fighter.
Ya know. Gotta side with Haugen being the better boxer. Paz was a showman, fast and hectic, better boxing early in career but the fights between them aside I say Haugen better fundamentals, off the top brainstorming it....biggest capable 'name' Paz ever beat pre and maybe post near life ending car accident was, well, Haugen???
Camacho may have been dumb outside the ring, but inside the ring was a different story, he was only ever genuinely beaten by true champions Chavez, Trinidad and DLH...all by decision. He was crafty and extremely fast, stylisitcally he would have been a nightmare for Hatton. I could never understand why he never fought Whitaker? Hatton would have to go for the balls in this one!