Quote Originally Posted by Violent Bob
Quote Originally Posted by berttrauttman
They're solid fighters. No boxer in history has a resume made up entirely of all-time-greats and Hatton's only been in three world title fights.
This is all true. My question is, given these facts, why is Ricky Hatton entitled to high p4p status? I'm not here to say he's S*** or any such nonsense, but if we can all agree that he's fought a few "solid" fighters, one great fighter who was coming off a long layoff at the end of his career, and only three title fights, why do fans get so belligerant when anyone questions whether maybe he hasn't shown enough to be talked about as some kind of p4p king? He may well prove himself to belong there at some point, and I'm not ready to dismiss him out of hand based on his very close fight with Collazo, but I just don't see him being there now.
The reason he has to be in the p4p is because he DID beat one of the best fighters in the world, he's undefeated, he's won three major world titles and moved up in weight to win the last one. I don't think you have to beat ten hall of famers before you can be considered one of the best in the world, at the present moment. If I was arguing for him to be an all time great then yes, you do. But the way I see it his status has risen thus:

38 fights against steadily improving opponents, winning domestic and minor world honors made him a top contender in what was widely recognised as the strongest weight division. So already this must put him in the top 20 or so. Then beat the best guy in the best division to become the linear champ > top ten, as long as he proved it wasn't a fluke. Two more fights, two more major titles > top ten. Stick on.