Hatton, Khan, & Brook

[p4pking]

Naz fought at 126 and Hatton 140-147, Khan from 135-160, Brook from 147-160.....having seen Pacquiao, Erik Morales, etc move WAAAAAAY up in weight I was just saying that IF Naz went up to say 140 if he would have had any success at all or if his individual achievements outshined everyone elses. Naz was 5'4 1/2, Hatton 5'7, Khan 5'8 1/2, Brook 5'9 so yes there would be a serious size advantage but Naz was also a lot more unorthodox of a fighter than all those guys.


Just asking, I mean if you think Naz would get the shit hammered out of him due to his lack of size then by all means just say so.

Did I not? I also don’t feel Roman Gonzalez would have had a good chance against jermell Charlo.

[TitoFan]

As for who had the better career well if you go strictly by fan support I'd have to say Hatton. I also believe he was overrated, and buoyed mainly by his work rate. Like Canelo against Floyd, Ricky had his moment in the sun blotted out not just by Floyd.... but by Pacquiao. Yes... Khan is extremely gifted, but has showed the penchant for failing in the crucial moments. I also think his ill-advised fight vs Canelo was a potential career buster. Of the three mentioned I sympathize with Brook the most. Much less mouthy than Khan, yet extremely gifted in his own right. Unfortunately he went and did a Khan, getting into the ring with GGG. Must've been an outbreak of "stupid" right about that time.

[p4pking]

As for who had the better career well if you go strictly by fan support I'd have to say Hatton. I also believe he was overrated, and buoyed mainly by his work rate. Like Canelo against Floyd, Ricky had his moment in the sun blotted out not just by Floyd.... but by Pacquiao. Yes... Khan is extremely gifted, but has showed the penchant for failing in the crucial moments. I also think his ill-advised fight vs Canelo was a potential career buster. Of the three mentioned I sympathize with Brook the most. Much less mouthy than Khan, yet extremely gifted in his own right. Unfortunately he went and did a Khan, getting into the ring with GGG. Must've been an outbreak of "stupid" right about that time.

How can you go by fan support though? It means nothing. Agree on the Brook thing, I think it was a ballsier and better showing by him, although that’s debatable I guess, he and Khan both went in and stuck with the only real game plan that gave them a chance to win. Both of those fights were actually quite stupid when you think of it...

[TitoFan]

As for who had the better career well if you go strictly by fan support I'd have to say Hatton. I also believe he was overrated, and buoyed mainly by his work rate. Like Canelo against Floyd, Ricky had his moment in the sun blotted out not just by Floyd.... but by Pacquiao. Yes... Khan is extremely gifted, but has showed the penchant for failing in the crucial moments. I also think his ill-advised fight vs Canelo was a potential career buster. Of the three mentioned I sympathize with Brook the most. Much less mouthy than Khan, yet extremely gifted in his own right. Unfortunately he went and did a Khan, getting into the ring with GGG. Must've been an outbreak of "stupid" right about that time.

How can you go by fan support though? It means nothing. Agree on the Brook thing, I think it was a ballsier and better showing by him, although that’s debatable I guess, he and Khan both went in and stuck with the only real game plan that gave them a chance to win. Both of those fights were actually quite stupid when you think of it...

Ok I was reaching. But one of the questions was who had the better career. It depends on the measuring stick you use. Agreed fan support is a weak one, but it's the only one I could find on Ricky. Admired his work rate, but he came up woefully short in his two real tests. I especially take points away when the person in question has claimed to be fighting for the mythical p4p, which was of course Hatton's case.

[p4pking]

As for who had the better career well if you go strictly by fan support I'd have to say Hatton. I also believe he was overrated, and buoyed mainly by his work rate. Like Canelo against Floyd, Ricky had his moment in the sun blotted out not just by Floyd.... but by Pacquiao. Yes... Khan is extremely gifted, but has showed the penchant for failing in the crucial moments. I also think his ill-advised fight vs Canelo was a potential career buster. Of the three mentioned I sympathize with Brook the most. Much less mouthy than Khan, yet extremely gifted in his own right. Unfortunately he went and did a Khan, getting into the ring with GGG. Must've been an outbreak of "stupid" right about that time.

How can you go by fan support though? It means nothing. Agree on the Brook thing, I think it was a ballsier and better showing by him, although that’s debatable I guess, he and Khan both went in and stuck with the only real game plan that gave them a chance to win. Both of those fights were actually quite stupid when you think of it...

Ok I was reaching. But one of the questions was who had the better career. It depends on the measuring stick you use. Agreed fan support is a weak one, but it's the only one I could find on Ricky. Admired his work rate, but he came up woefully short in his two real tests. I especially take points away when the person in question has claimed to be fighting for the mythical p4p, which was of course Hatton's case.

Yeah think we have the same take. Hatton was a lot more popular/regarded than his ability merited, that was clear as soon as he fought Collazo.

[Alpha]

It all depends on Khan's chin, if he can avoid getting caught, I could see him out boxing the other 2. Otherwise Brook beats the others.

Hatton had a huge following and was right at the pinnacle of the sport against Mayweather, unfortunately he was not elite.

[Master]

Hatton has had the better career out of these three. He has the Tszyu moment in Manchester and nothing the other 2 have could out do that.

Hatton was never a world class welterweight and Brook would beat him. I do not think Hatton could beat Porter or lived with Spence.

Hatton could beat Khan at light welter and that would be the best fight out of the 3 as that was their best and prime weights.

Naz was too small for these fighters but p4p wipes them out.

[Ron Swanson]

It all depends on Khan's chin, if he can avoid getting caught, I could see him out boxing the other 2. Otherwise Brook beats the others.

Hatton had a huge following and was right at the pinnacle of the sport against Mayweather, unfortunately he was not elite.

The problem is he can’t avoid getting caught because he has terrible defensive instincts. Watch where his hands are when he gets KOed, no boxer that has ANY coaching should move his hands how he does. He’s like the guy that can throw punches well enough but when something comes back at him he sticks a hand out and turns his head away. That guy is always going to get clipped.

[Primo Carnera]

I get the point about Hatton being overrated, and it’s a fair one. Caught Tsyu at the right time, exposed by Floyd and Pac, etc.
But what I liked was that he went out and tested himself to the full. He fought the best 2 fighters on the planet , and came short, but he wasn’t afraid to find his level.
Some other ATG Brits can’t say the same. As much as I like him , JC Spirngs to mind immediately, Eubank and Benn for whatever reasons didn’t take on the Nunn’s , Toney’s , Jones Jr’s of this World. Although I have massive admiration and respect for what Benn put himself through against McLellan in a tragic fight.