Record Slating

[0james0]

Hatton did fantastic with the skills he had, he learnt a stye that troubled most opponents and worked well for him. His style also earnt him many, many fans. You can't really argue with that.

I don't think anyone is saying Hatton is a hall of famer, but he did pretty well and looking back on his record he has nothing to be ashamed of.

But even the very best fighters ever can have their records picked apart, Ali etc are all pickapartable.

[killersheep]

I signed up on this forum 4 and a half years ago, guess what was being discussed?

The quality of Hatton's resume.

He was an exciting fighter, fought everyone he could, and left it all in the ring, at the end of the day that's all that matters.
Using p4p lists for factual backup are like using boxrec's ratings for backup, it's just debatable at best.
The fact that they are on the lists is the only factual thing about them, because the formula is opinion to begin with.

Back to the actual topic EVERY fighter has their resume picked apart by someone at some time, it's the nature of boxing. Noone has a perfect career that fought all their opponents in their primes.

However, the P4P list represents the very best fighters at that time. The Ring's opinion, which is regarded as gospel, because it's compiled by so-called "experts," will almost certainly mirror the current view of fans.

Therefore any win over a fighter rated amongst the P4P elite should always be praised, respected and never downplayed. That should be a fact.

Serious question, what did Tszyu do to get on the p4p list?

[Fenster]

I signed up on this forum 4 and a half years ago, guess what was being discussed?

The quality of Hatton's resume.

He was an exciting fighter, fought everyone he could, and left it all in the ring, at the end of the day that's all that matters.
Using p4p lists for factual backup are like using boxrec's ratings for backup, it's just debatable at best.
The fact that they are on the lists is the only factual thing about them, because the formula is opinion to begin with.

Back to the actual topic EVERY fighter has their resume picked apart by someone at some time, it's the nature of boxing. Noone has a perfect career that fought all their opponents in their primes.

However, the P4P list represents the very best fighters at that time. The Ring's opinion, which is regarded as gospel, because it's compiled by so-called "experts," will almost certainly mirror the current view of fans.

Therefore any win over a fighter rated amongst the P4P elite should always be praised, respected and never downplayed. That should be a fact.

Serious question, what did Tszyu do to get on the p4p list?

Ask the "experts"

You have to judge his worth at that time against all the other fighters in the world.

Personally I think P4P is utter nonsense but start analysing any fighters career and I guarantee - "what P4P fighters did he beat" will be asked

[killersheep]

I signed up on this forum 4 and a half years ago, guess what was being discussed?

The quality of Hatton's resume.

He was an exciting fighter, fought everyone he could, and left it all in the ring, at the end of the day that's all that matters.
Using p4p lists for factual backup are like using boxrec's ratings for backup, it's just debatable at best.
The fact that they are on the lists is the only factual thing about them, because the formula is opinion to begin with.

Back to the actual topic EVERY fighter has their resume picked apart by someone at some time, it's the nature of boxing. Noone has a perfect career that fought all their opponents in their primes.

However, the P4P list represents the very best fighters at that time. The Ring's opinion, which is regarded as gospel, because it's compiled by so-called "experts," will almost certainly mirror the current view of fans.

Therefore any win over a fighter rated amongst the P4P elite should always be praised, respected and never downplayed. That should be a fact.

Serious question, what did Tszyu do to get on the p4p list?

Ask the "experts"

You have to judge his worth at that time against all the other fighters in the world.

Personally I think P4P is utter nonsense but start analysing any fighters career and I guarantee - "what P4P fighters did he beat" will be asked

Exactly my point.

I'm with you on this, and I understand the weight that beating a p4p fighter gets in career recognition, hell I've used it in debates myself. But honestly the longer I follow boxing the more I recognize the "experts" are not necessarily on point, my opinion of course.

[Fenster]

I signed up on this forum 4 and a half years ago, guess what was being discussed?

The quality of Hatton's resume.

He was an exciting fighter, fought everyone he could, and left it all in the ring, at the end of the day that's all that matters.
Using p4p lists for factual backup are like using boxrec's ratings for backup, it's just debatable at best.
The fact that they are on the lists is the only factual thing about them, because the formula is opinion to begin with.

Back to the actual topic EVERY fighter has their resume picked apart by someone at some time, it's the nature of boxing. Noone has a perfect career that fought all their opponents in their primes.

However, the P4P list represents the very best fighters at that time. The Ring's opinion, which is regarded as gospel, because it's compiled by so-called "experts," will almost certainly mirror the current view of fans.

Therefore any win over a fighter rated amongst the P4P elite should always be praised, respected and never downplayed. That should be a fact.

Serious question, what did Tszyu do to get on the p4p list?

Ask the "experts"

You have to judge his worth at that time against all the other fighters in the world.

Personally I think P4P is utter nonsense but start analysing any fighters career and I guarantee - "what P4P fighters did he beat" will be asked

Exactly my point.

I'm with you on this, and I understand the weight that beating a p4p fighter gets in career recognition, hell I've used it in debates myself. But honestly the longer I follow boxing the more I recognize the "experts" are not necessarily on point, my opinion of course.

Well that's exactly what happened to me. Not only did I realise the "experts" are inconsistent hypocrites but boxing rankings are nothing but a popularity contest.

I'll gladly stop using P4P when everyone else does

[killersheep]

I signed up on this forum 4 and a half years ago, guess what was being discussed?

The quality of Hatton's resume.

He was an exciting fighter, fought everyone he could, and left it all in the ring, at the end of the day that's all that matters.
Using p4p lists for factual backup are like using boxrec's ratings for backup, it's just debatable at best.
The fact that they are on the lists is the only factual thing about them, because the formula is opinion to begin with.

Back to the actual topic EVERY fighter has their resume picked apart by someone at some time, it's the nature of boxing. Noone has a perfect career that fought all their opponents in their primes.

However, the P4P list represents the very best fighters at that time. The Ring's opinion, which is regarded as gospel, because it's compiled by so-called "experts," will almost certainly mirror the current view of fans.

Therefore any win over a fighter rated amongst the P4P elite should always be praised, respected and never downplayed. That should be a fact.

Serious question, what did Tszyu do to get on the p4p list?

Ask the "experts"

You have to judge his worth at that time against all the other fighters in the world.

Personally I think P4P is utter nonsense but start analysing any fighters career and I guarantee - "what P4P fighters did he beat" will be asked

Exactly my point.

I'm with you on this, and I understand the weight that beating a p4p fighter gets in career recognition, hell I've used it in debates myself. But honestly the longer I follow boxing the more I recognize the "experts" are not necessarily on point, my opinion of course.

Well that's exactly what happened to me. Not only did I realise the "experts" are inconsistent hypocrites but boxing rankings are nothing but a popularity contest.

I'll gladly stop using P4P when everyone else does

They are much more than that now............................................... ................................................. they are also a great promotional tool for GBP

[:::PSL:::]

Its hard to pick holes in Kid Thunders record , there really is not need to , he is total shit period !!!!

Lol!

CC

[erics44]

That's right, it was only hot for a moment and then Floyd and Cotto (the 2 biggest names at 140) went up to 147. And at 147 you had Floyd, Cotto, Margarito, Judah, Williams, Clottey, CIntron, etc.

Much better than Hatton, Malignaggi, Castillo, Witter, Harris, Corley, Ndou, etc.

Ring ratings for 2006. The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 2006 - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia

Ring Ratings for 2007. The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 2007 - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia

Ring Ratings for 2008. The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 2008 - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia

So when Hatton reigned it was only hot for a moment, and then the other 3 years he reigned it was so much inferior talent wise to 147. As I've said 147 has been historically the strongest division below HW, and throughout boxing history it has given the most biggest fights below HW. Fact.

you are moving away from the discussion point

2 or 3 years ago for about a year or 2 lww was better than ww, then for 2 or 3 years ww has been better than lww, now lww is better than ww and probly will be for a couple of years, and then it probly wont be for a couple of years, and then it probly will be

you made a ridiculous comment that hattons record is shit because he fought at light welterweight

its a ridiculous comment dude soz

Alright I'll entertain this post.

I'm moving away from the discussion point? This is your exact quote, "for a time when hatton was at his peak in the LWW division it was considered to have a lot more depth than the WW division."

So Hatton's peak would be from mid 2005 (when he beat Tszyu) to the end of 2007 when he got ko by Floyd. Except for a few months in 2005, the 140 pound division was much weaker than the 147 division in 2006, 2007, and even when he was top dog at 140 in 2008, it was still much weaker than the welterweight dvision. The ring ratings that I posted proved that.

And again your claim that the 140 pound division 2 or 3 years ago in your latest post is absurd. 2 or 3 years ago would be 2007 and 2008 and again the ring ratings proved that the 147 pound division was head and shoulders above the 140 division. And no, 140 now is not better than 147, not with Floyd and Manny being there, along with Mosley and Cotto who are both still ranked there, and now even Bradley has made the top 10 of WWs.

Class dismissed son.

cummon man you are taking this a bit far now, maybe i was a month or two out with my timescales but tha fact remains that your post saying hattons record is rubbish because he was a LWW was ridiculous, posibly the most ridiculous post I have read on this forum

ok there was the one where icb recconned he could go 3 rounds with pac, so maybe it is the joint most ridiculous post

we should have a most ridiculous post thread, i would start with those two

[Mattyhitman]

I signed up on this forum 4 and a half years ago, guess what was being discussed?

The quality of Hatton's resume.

He was an exciting fighter, fought everyone he could, and left it all in the ring, at the end of the day that's all that matters.
Using p4p lists for factual backup are like using boxrec's ratings for backup, it's just debatable at best.
The fact that they are on the lists is the only factual thing about them, because the formula is opinion to begin with.

Back to the actual topic EVERY fighter has their resume picked apart by someone at some time, it's the nature of boxing. Noone has a perfect career that fought all their opponents in their primes.

Just goes to show how great a man he was/is that peeps are STILL talking about his career

[killersheep]

I signed up on this forum 4 and a half years ago, guess what was being discussed?

The quality of Hatton's resume.

He was an exciting fighter, fought everyone he could, and left it all in the ring, at the end of the day that's all that matters.
Using p4p lists for factual backup are like using boxrec's ratings for backup, it's just debatable at best.
The fact that they are on the lists is the only factual thing about them, because the formula is opinion to begin with.

Back to the actual topic EVERY fighter has their resume picked apart by someone at some time, it's the nature of boxing. Noone has a perfect career that fought all their opponents in their primes.

Just goes to show how great a man he was/is that peeps are STILL talking about his career

I don't think anyone has ever doubted his popularity. Apparently being a blue collar alcoholic that's related to a soccer family is pretty much THE formula for success in the UK boxing world.

[erics44]

I signed up on this forum 4 and a half years ago, guess what was being discussed?

The quality of Hatton's resume.

He was an exciting fighter, fought everyone he could, and left it all in the ring, at the end of the day that's all that matters.
Using p4p lists for factual backup are like using boxrec's ratings for backup, it's just debatable at best.
The fact that they are on the lists is the only factual thing about them, because the formula is opinion to begin with.

Back to the actual topic EVERY fighter has their resume picked apart by someone at some time, it's the nature of boxing. Noone has a perfect career that fought all their opponents in their primes.

Just goes to show how great a man he was/is that peeps are STILL talking about his career

I don't think anyone has ever doubted his popularity. Apparently being a blue collar alcoholic that's related to a soccer family is pretty much THE formula for success in the UK boxing world.

whats soccer?

[killersheep]

I signed up on this forum 4 and a half years ago, guess what was being discussed?

The quality of Hatton's resume.

He was an exciting fighter, fought everyone he could, and left it all in the ring, at the end of the day that's all that matters.
Using p4p lists for factual backup are like using boxrec's ratings for backup, it's just debatable at best.
The fact that they are on the lists is the only factual thing about them, because the formula is opinion to begin with.

Back to the actual topic EVERY fighter has their resume picked apart by someone at some time, it's the nature of boxing. Noone has a perfect career that fought all their opponents in their primes.

Just goes to show how great a man he was/is that peeps are STILL talking about his career

I don't think anyone has ever doubted his popularity. Apparently being a blue collar alcoholic that's related to a soccer family is pretty much THE formula for success in the UK boxing world.

whats soccer?