Hatton and wasted talent

[Andre]

He stopped Technical improvement at 20.

Hatton just chose the wrong comeback fight. He should have taken a 10 rounder against a Mexican or a Columbian, or something like that- maybe even another Eastern European, without such a background behind him.

Hatton very well may have fought a future champion, peaking. Wrong fight for him. He was doing well, but faded. Wrong comeback fight!

I agree fully with you, but that has nothing to do with the other fact stated.

Scraps right in that Ricky is one dimensional regarding technique he has always been a kill or be killed fighter more than a boxer who can adjust to an opponent.

At 18 He had very good Lateral movement, with Depth and Distance.

I remember, he looked like a crab going after his prey.

[Fenster]

You can basically argue that every fighter in history underachieved. There's always an excuse for losses, bad perfomances and dips in form.

Hatton's out of ring activities is just another bog standard excuse when we're trying to find meaning in something. He could have spent his career living like a monk and still have lost against Floyd and Pac.

Everyone is different. He could booze and live "bad" and yet still have a great career. Some people embarrass themselves after drinking two pints of beer, others act perfectly sober after ten.

I doubt there's ever been a human that didn't wish they had a chance to do things different. It doesn't mean it would have been right though.

[Greig]

Thanks a lot for the feedback guys.

Thanks Andre, hope you are well mate, how's life on the Peninsula? I ran the Melbourne Marathon this year - nearly killed me

I think Scrap makes a very good point about how Hatton stopped his technical development at 20. I always hark back to the Kelly Pavlik/Bernard Hopkins fight, where afterward Hopkins told him that all he needs to do is to develop some slickness, 'like a black fighter' I believe were Hopkins words...

So, my question is, is it that easy? To develop skills like Hopkins and Mayweather have? Or is there something in Hatton and Pavlik's genetics that does not allow them to fight in this way?

If Hatton had grown up in Philadelphia, and had Bouie Fisher training him from day dot, would he fight like Bernard Hopkins? We're getting into some serious questions about human nature here, but how much is behaviour learned or genetic?

[beenKOed]

You can basically argue that every fighter in history underachieved. There's always an excuse for losses, bad perfomances and dips in form.

Hatton's out of ring activities is just another bog standard excuse when we're trying to find meaning in something. He could have spent his career living like a monk and still have lost against Floyd and Pac.

Everyone is different. He could booze and live "bad" and yet still have a great career. Some people embarrass themselves after drinking two pints of beer, others act perfectly sober after ten.

I doubt there's ever been a human that didn't wish they had a chance to do things different. It doesn't mean it would have been right though.

Every stinking one of us have underachieved. I would not want to meet the person who has always performed at their top level. That person would be a scary SOB, not a person I'd want to hang out with or one who would want to hang out with me.

[bestjabwins]

Hard to believe, but I had never seen Ricky Hatton fight until he took on Mayweather. Before that fight I had a look on you tube and I thought his chin was wide open to left hooks and this would be his undoing at the top level.

There were other flaws that I didn't pick up on, but the crux of hatton's problem was that he had serious flaws and bad habits that were ingrained too early in his career. Flaws are extremely difficult for any fighter to get rid off. They're ingrained in motor memory. He was right to fire billy graham, as his trainer should have addressed this, but he should have had a better trainer way earlier than this. By the time he fought Mayweather it was too late.

I really respect Ricky Hatton for his attitude, tenacity, and courage. He took on the best and very few top fighters are willing to do this. He had some great attributes as a boxer - speed of hand and foot, great workrate BUT he was overly aggressive, impatient, leapt in too much, and was either unable or unwilling to exercise smarter tactics and pressure.

So yes, it was a talent wasted - by bad training, bad trainers, and a bad diet. He achieved a lot in spite of this, and he can hardly be considered a waster though.

[ykdadamaja]

He stopped Technical improvement at 20.

Hatton just chose the wrong comeback fight. He should have taken a 10 rounder against a Mexican or a Columbian, or something like that- maybe even another Eastern European, without such a background behind him.

Hatton very well may have fought a future champion, peaking. Wrong fight for him. He was doing well, but faded. Wrong comeback fight!

I agree fully with you, but that has nothing to do with the other fact stated.

Scraps right in that Ricky is one dimensional regarding technique he has always been a kill or be killed fighter more than a boxer who can adjust to an opponent.

At 18 He had very good Lateral movement, with Depth and Distance.

I remember, he looked like a crab going after his prey.

He came back wrong. I thought he had great movement for the first 4 rounds or so. He was also slipping punches better than I have ever seen him- he just faded at about the 9th, then it was all she wrote!