Tim Bradley is an alltime great !!...You agree ??

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 10:03 am

Six years at the top of the sport......Holmes had seven....

Three fighters he beat went on to win World titles after...........Alexander, Provo and Petersen (Holmes had 4)

Jmm and Manny were both alltime greats............and Manny is still a top p4p fighter......Sure it was contentious but so was Holmes-Witherspoon and that is Holmes best win !!

Three titles ...Two at different weights........

Kendall Holt, Witter and Casamayor are both good wins also....

Does he past the Eusebio Pedroza test..............Sure does for me......

Tim Bradley an all time great for me !!...Take a bow..

by Rodney Mon 17 Feb 2014, 10:08 am

Depends how we define ATG, he lost comprehensively to Pacquaio and I thought Marquez shaded him , but that's not his fault who the judges refer. As for the three guys winning a title doesn't hold much weight these days, most guys above average pick up a pointless strap.

A good honest fighter , but ATG depends on your definition.

Cheers Rodders

by Izzi Mon 17 Feb 2014, 10:12 am

Disagree. Is far too early to judge. The guy is still in his prime, he has big fights coming up and there's no guarantee he doesn't go 2-5 over the next couple of years.. Which would put a fairly big dent in that statement he's an ATG.

Has achieved a lot but still has it all to lose.

by hogey Mon 17 Feb 2014, 10:15 am

Rodney wrote:Depends how we define ATG, he lost comprehensively to Pacquaio and I thought Marquez shaded him , but that's not his fault who the judges refer. As for the three guys winning a title doesn't hold much weight these days, most guys above average pick up a pointless strap.

A good honest fighter , but ATG depends on your definition.

Cheers Rodders

Certainly was well beat by Pac, not sure how you could have him losing the Marquez fight though i had him winning by a mile and completely outboxing Maquez, still its all about opinions at the end of the day.
Bradley is a top fighter of his day, but in my view at this moment nowhere near an ATG.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 10:16 am

Rodney wrote:Depends how we define ATG, he lost comprehensively to Pacquaio and I thought Marquez shaded him , but that's not his fault who the judges refer. As for the three guys winning a title doesn't hold much weight these days, most guys above average pick up a pointless strap.

A good honest fighter , but ATG depends on your definition.

Cheers Rodders

My definition is Eusebio Pedroza.... Rod......He's accepted as an alltime great.....

As for Manny.............Walcott beat Louis comprehensively............and Witherspoon in my opinion beat Holmes comprehensively........

A win is a win as well you know Mate..............For me the two Walcott wins are Louis best victories and Witherspoon is Holmes............

If it's in the book It counts..........

by kingraf Mon 17 Feb 2014, 10:19 am

it's difficult, unless a fighter has had a ridiculous career to date, I.e Manny with his eight division titles, four of them as the lineal champ, Floyd being top 3 for at least 17 years... then I think it's best to wait a second before anointing them. I mean he might get demolished by Pac.

by hogey Mon 17 Feb 2014, 10:23 am

We are talking about Bradley, not any of the fighters you dont like Truss. Bradley is very very good, but ATG status would be meaningless if it is afforded to a fighter like him, if he was to roll Pac over legitimately and then Garcia and Floyd then he would have reached that kind of status for me.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 10:23 am

What If he does get demolished...........

Spinks not an alltime great because of Tyson ???

Three guys he beat have become world champions.........Two firther guys are p4pers and alltime greats....

and he's been a top fighter for 6 years.........

Isn't that a huge achievement...

Better record than Froch and Ward..

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 10:24 am

hogey wrote:We are talking about Bradley, not any of the fighters you dont like Truss. Bradley is very very good, but ATG status would be meaningless if it is afforded to a fighter like him, if he was to roll Pac over legitimately and then Garcia and Floyd then he would have reached that kind of status for me.

Who say's I like or dislike Bradley.......

Holmes got a better resume than Tim ??...Nope ...He's great........

Similar longevity and Bradley has fought better fighters..

by hogey Mon 17 Feb 2014, 10:26 am

Spinks is an ATG because of how good he was at Light Heavy and the fact he went up and took the Heavyweight strap, but he is not an ATG Heavyweight.
He is much better than Froch though i grant you, and i have him high in the P4P lists at the moment.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 10:29 am

Mate..........Why should Holmes be an all time great............Pedroza be an all time great........

and not Timmy ?

by hogey Mon 17 Feb 2014, 10:30 am

Yes i think he has Truss, but that does not matter or mean anything in relation to Bradley.
I think Holmes fought plenty of decent fighters who sadly for them Holmes was just too good for them so they get consigned to the ranks of being remembered as crap, Louis's opponents suffer the same thing.
Bradley is a top fighter, but who Holmes or Louis fought has bugger all to do with him or his future standing in the game mate.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 10:36 am

Which decent fighters did Holmes fight that were better than Bradley's ??

An old Norton..........An Ali beaten Shavers, Witherspoon and Weaver, Berbick were his best wins...

Six/seven years at the top...........Ducking Page and Thomas......

Bradley has six years at the top...........Manny, Jmm, Alexander, Holt, Witter, Provo , Petersen, Casamayor etc....

They more than match Larry...

I suggest Bradley suffers from modern syndrome..........

As for Eusebio..........He wasn't even the best feather of his day........and his record sucks in comparison..

I think If we analyse who is in the HOF and is considered great from the past we'd agree Bradley belongs....

Hogey I think you are taking the best alltimers and not considering the worst on the list....when comparing..

But your opinion is more than welcome...

by Izzi Mon 17 Feb 2014, 10:54 am

Truss, if he gets walloped by Pacquiao... Drops a return with JMM and then gets his arse kicked by someone like Prov where does that leave him?

Point is he's still in his prime, it's far far too early to judge as he's got a load more fights that could define his ATG status.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 10:57 am

Holmes was a great fighter before he lost to Spinks.............

Sanchez was a great fighter before he died........

Nelson was a great fighter before he retired..........Hagler was....

Why because people are judged on their records......His record is top quality now....For me he's a great fighter.......

by compelling and rich Mon 17 Feb 2014, 11:02 am

not sure about six years at the top truss your stretching the truth a bit there, everybody knows he was beat by manny. in the time of the alphabet belts has bradley really been considered the best welterweight champ out there considering manny held the belt 2 years ago until the bradley fight. maywethers held the wbc belt during that time.

he's probably been 3rd best welter in them 6 years, so not exactly six years at the top

by **88Chris05** Mon 17 Feb 2014, 11:03 am

I like Bradley a lot; his attitude, approach to the sport etc, and his fights against Provodnikov and Marquez showed me some parts to his game which I didn't think he had three or four years back.

But all-time great? More premature than Jim in his little rendezvous with Nadia in the first American Pie film, for me.

You're talking about Holmes and Pedroza, Truss, but those guys had twice the number of title fights that Bradley has had so far. In any case, is Pedroza really considered a legitimate all-time great? Great in the context of the Featherweight division, sure, but across all eras / weights? Holmes was awarded the Ring Magazine belt in 1980 after Weaver came back from the dead to drop Tate for the WBA belt (on the basis of him having already beaten Weaver previously) so was, despite not taking a clean sweep of belts, the consensus man to beat and de facto champion for a good while, right up until 1985. Bradley hasn't been this in any weight class so far (bit of a grey area, but I think we needed Khan-Bradley in 2011 at 140 lb to have a definitive top man at the time).

Incidentally, while the fact that four of Bradley's victims (you forgot Vazquez) have won titles since he beat them is impressive, they've all had more weight classes and more belts to shoot for than the likes of Weaver, Smith, Witherspoon and Berbick had to chase after they'd lost to Holmes. I know I'm nitpicking a bit, but still.

If Mayweather were surprisingly beaten by Maidana, or Hopkins were to be wiped out by someone like Kovalev, then for me it wouldn't really take anything away from their legacies and certainly wouldn't harm their right to be called all-time greats. That's the key for me - Bradley hasn't assured his legacy yet, not by a long way. Let's imagine for a second that Pacquiao beats him well in April; would you still be calling him an all-time great then?

His wins over Pacquiao and Provodnikov were either hotly disputed / panned (Pac) or pretty damn close (Prov) so I think he needs a couple more clear, dominant wins over some of the other leading Welters to relly cement great status. The Marquez performance was a step in the right direction in that regard, but the fact that he's not really outclassed or dominated anyone from the top plate doesn't help his claims for greatness.

Bradley has set some excellent foundations and great status could potentially be within his grasp over the coming years, but if he packed it in now, or got derailed by someone else, then I think what we've seen from him so far falls a fair bit short of real all-time greatness.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 11:10 am

So beating Lorenzo Zanon, Tex Cobb, Ossie Ocasio, Renaldo Snipes, David Bey , Scott ledoux, Lucien Rodrigues, and Leroy what's his name makes all the difference does it...

Utter bollox Chris...

Love your stuff............But give me Bradley's competition in 6 years to Holmes in 7...

Any day....

Plus two p4pers........What p4pers did Holmes beat...........

by **88Chris05** Mon 17 Feb 2014, 11:33 am

Easy to point out the less impressive names on Holmes' record, but any fighter who remains a champion for long enough and has enough title fights will have them. So too will Bradley if he holds his WBO Welterweight belt for the next few years.

My point was simply that Holmes turned back challengers with a frequency and consistency that Bradley hasn't done as of yet. Not the only reason I'd have him higher in the all-time stakes either, as I've said above.

In fairness to Big Pants, it's a rarity to see more than one Heavyweight at a time in a pound for pound list, and with only one weight class to pick from they do tend to have less options in terms of opposition than a Welter like Bradley, so naturally a Heavyweight's longevity is going to count for a little bit more. Might be better to look at comparisons further down the weights.

As an example, is Starling an all-time great? More an all-time very good for me, but I'd say he's comparable to Bradley as of 2014.

by TopHat24/7 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 11:39 am

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN....................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Rolling Eyes

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 11:40 am

TopHat24/7 wrote:YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN....................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do we need this ??

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 11:43 am

88Chris05 wrote:Easy to point out the less impressive names on Holmes' record, but any fighter who remains a champion for long enough and has enough title fights will have them. So too will Bradley if he holds his WBO Welterweight belt for the next few years.

My point was simply that Holmes turned back challengers with a frequency and consistency that Bradley hasn't done as of yet. Not the only reason I'd have him higher in the all-time stakes either, as I've said above.

In fairness to Big Pants, it's a rarity to see more than one Heavyweight at a time in a pound for pound list, and with only one weight class to pick from they do tend to have less options in terms of opposition than a Welter like Bradley, so naturally a Heavyweight's longevity is going to count for a little bit more. Might be better to look at comparisons further down the weights.

As an example, is Starling an all-time great? More an all-time very good for me, but I'd say he's comparable to Bradley as of 2014.

But chris ..........Bradley has been champion for nearly the same length of time as Holmes.......

You not think Salvador Sanchez is great ??..............He was champion for three years.......Gomez, Nelson and Lopez.........

People say nelson was green...Gomez was moving up in weight...Was Lopez better than JMM..

by TopHat24/7 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 11:43 am

Whooped from here to next Sunday by Manny, would've lost to Prov if the ref hadn't screwed up calling the kd's correctly. Good win v JMM and then wins over druggie-LP and 'my eyes my eyes' Ortiz-style bottler Alexander. Does nothing exciting or impressive, but isn't an ATG in a month of Sundays.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 11:44 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
88Chris05 wrote:Easy to point out the less impressive names on Holmes' record, but any fighter who remains a champion for long enough and has enough title fights will have them. So too will Bradley if he holds his WBO Welterweight belt for the next few years.

My point was simply that Holmes turned back challengers with a frequency and consistency that Bradley hasn't done as of yet. Not the only reason I'd have him higher in the all-time stakes either, as I've said above.

In fairness to Big Pants, it's a rarity to see more than one Heavyweight at a time in a pound for pound list, and with only one weight class to pick from they do tend to have less options in terms of opposition than a Welter like Bradley, so naturally a Heavyweight's longevity is going to count for a little bit more. Might be better to look at comparisons further down the weights.

As an example, is Starling an all-time great? More an all-time very good for me, but I'd say he's comparable to Bradley as of 2014.

But chris ..........Bradley has been champion for nearly the same length of time as Holmes.......

You not think Salvador Sanchez is great ??..............He was champion for three years.......Gomez, Nelson and Lopez.........

People say nelson was green...Gomez was moving up in weight...Was Lopez better than JMM..

by TopHat24/7 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 11:44 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN....................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do we need this ??

Do we need another fawning repetitive article regurgitating the same old crap as you blow smoke up the backside of anything/one half decent that's American?

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 11:48 am

compelling and rich wrote:not sure about six years at the top truss your stretching the truth a bit there, everybody knows he was beat by manny. in the time of the alphabet belts has bradley really been considered the best welterweight champ out there considering manny held the belt 2 years ago until the bradley fight. maywethers held the wbc belt during that time.

he's probably been 3rd best welter in them 6 years, so not exactly six years at the top

Everybody knows Walcott beat Louis............Everybody knows Norton beat Ali twice..

Doesn't stop those wins counting towards legacy..

I thought Oscar beat Mosley twice..............I credit Mosley with the wins...

Bradley beat Manny...........Just like Manny beat JMM 3/4........

six years is more than enough...Sanchez was three..

by TopHat24/7 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 11:51 am

compelling and rich wrote:not sure about six years at the top truss your stretching the truth a bit there, everybody knows he was beat by manny. in the time of the alphabet belts has bradley really been considered the best welterweight champ out there considering manny held the belt 2 years ago until the bradley fight. maywethers held the wbc belt during that time.

he's probably been 3rd best welter in them 6 years, so not exactly six years at the top

Have you not met Truss before?

What are we on now, 17 yrs at the top for Floyd? Or is it 18?

Just because he'd won a single belt in 1 fight. Rolling Eyes

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 11:52 am

TopHat24/7 wrote:
compelling and rich wrote:not sure about six years at the top truss your stretching the truth a bit there, everybody knows he was beat by manny. in the time of the alphabet belts has bradley really been considered the best welterweight champ out there considering manny held the belt 2 years ago until the bradley fight. maywethers held the wbc belt during that time.

he's probably been 3rd best welter in them 6 years, so not exactly six years at the top

Have you not met Truss before?

What are we on now, 17 yrs at the top for Floyd? Or is it 18?

Just because he'd won a single belt in 1 fight.

Stop following me around the board........and stop posting your dross on here....

Some people are interested in Boxing my friend..

by Rodney Mon 17 Feb 2014, 11:53 am

Truss how on earth can you give Oscar the nod over Mosley the first time ? If you haven't watched it recently rewatch it , it's a competitive but considerable margin win for Mosley, even CJ Ross might even get that one right.

Cheers Rodders

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 11:57 am

I thought Oscar nicked it Rod...........Then again I'm an Oscar fan and you're not...So maybe i was slightly biased...

Don't agree with considerable either way..

Bit like Hagler v Leonard.........We all see different things...

But have no qualms If you see it differently...Two out of three judges agreed with you..

Probably the consensus too......

by milkyboy Mon 17 Feb 2014, 12:37 pm

You were never a fan of Bradley truss. I recall being laughed out of town (one of many occasions, granted) for suggesting, after the witter fight,that Bradley would give hatton real trouble. Good to see you coming round on him.

I've always thought he was a very good fighter. He has a record that maybe flatters him a bit, and his status will be judged when his career is over.

But this isn't really about Tim, it's more about Holmes and pedrosa, a couple of pet hates, and the challenges of comparing eras. Will say I can understand the thrust of your argument on this one beefy. It gets harder and harder to compare era's when our current one has alpha belts and countless multi weight world champions.

Anyway. Bradley v hatton (primes) who wins? Bradley comfortable points for me but in a tough encounter

by TopHat24/7 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 12:39 pm

milkyboy wrote:You were never a fan of Bradley truss. I recall being laughed out of town (one of many occasions, granted) for suggesting, after the witter fight,that Bradley would give hatton real trouble. Good to see you coming round on him.

More like coming all over a signed photo of him.

by Lumbering_Jack Mon 17 Feb 2014, 12:43 pm

He is an ATG based on the rather low criteria for being called on these days. But he really isn't anything special.

Soundly beaten by Manny
Contentious vs Prov who is a pretty crude slugger
Decent win over Marquez but he's never really been as effective above SFW.
Couple more decent (ish) wins over Alexander and Peterson.

So yes he is an ATG which highlights how poor the standards are, rather than the talent he has.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 1:18 pm

milkyboy wrote:You were never a fan of Bradley truss. I recall being laughed out of town (one of many occasions, granted) for suggesting, after the witter fight,that Bradley would give hatton real trouble. Good to see you coming round on him.

I've always thought he was a very good fighter. He has a record that maybe flatters him a bit, and his status will be judged when his career is over.

But this isn't really about Tim, it's more about Holmes and pedrosa, a couple of pet hates, and the challenges of comparing eras. Will say I can understand the thrust of your argument on this one beefy. It gets harder and harder to compare era's when our current one has alpha belts and countless multi weight world champions.

Anyway. Bradley v hatton (primes) who wins? Bradley comfortable points for me but in a tough encounter

Good post............I have warmed to Tim........Bit of an ugly duckling like Hagler......

I'm saying If Pedrosa and canizales are the accepted standard as well as some of the old B/W guys who are "Great".......

Then Tim fits the bill..........

Not saying he's top 20 or anything..

he's great for me.....

by Sam_London Mon 17 Feb 2014, 1:33 pm

If Tim beats Manny again, without the judges' assistance, I think he can claim to be one of the best his generation.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 1:39 pm

Without a doubt Sam and I echo your comments on the Galloway thread by the way...

However there will be those on here that no doubt don't see that as enough....

Certainly great for me now..Considering the guys at the lower end of the scale who have that label.

by hazharrison Mon 17 Feb 2014, 1:46 pm

A fighter who has yet to establish himself as the best at a single weight. Lost to Pacquiao and went life-and-death with Provodnikov.

Yup, that's what ATGs are made of.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 1:53 pm

Sam_London wrote:If Tim beats Manny again, without the judges' assistance, I think he can claim to be one of the best his generation.

Think he is one of the best of his generation now...............Three in the latest list for what it's worth...

Only Ward and the king higher.......

Spinks highest position was three.. so he's in good company mate..

by TopHat24/7 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 1:57 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Sam_London wrote:If Tim beats Manny again, without the judges' assistance, I think he can claim to be one of the best his generation.

Think he is one of the best of his generation now...............Three in the latest list for what it's worth...

Only Ward and the king higher.......

Spinks highest position was three.. so he's in good company mate..

I.e. sod all.

A list compiled by one man, owned by a promoter and used to inflate the standing of a certain somebody's opponents.

by TopHat24/7 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 1:57 pm

hazharrison wrote:A fighter who has yet to establish himself as the best at a single weight. Lost to Pacquiao and went life-and-death with Provodnikov.

Yup, that's what ATGs are made of.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 1:58 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Without a doubt Sam and I echo your comments on the Galloway thread by the way...

However there will be those on here that no doubt don't see that as enough....

Certainly great for me now..Considering the guys at the lower end of the scale who have that label.

by hazharrison Mon 17 Feb 2014, 1:59 pm

Danny Garcia = ATG
Amir Khan = ATG
Canelo Alvarez = ATG
Facelube Ortiz = ATG

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 1:59 pm

Pedroza was the man at 126 wasn't he !! Rolling Eyes

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 2:03 pm

Don't take anything from Toppy agreeing with you..

If I said Bradley wasn't great he'd argue he was..

It's what he does......If he can't exchange insults he can't get involved..

Sad really...

by TopHat24/7 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 2:12 pm

Chad Dawson must be an ATG.

3 years not just 'at the top' by Trussy's usual limp definition, but as much if not more claim than Bradley ever has/had to being 'the man' at the weight. Adamek, Johnsonx2, Tarverx2 as good a CV as Tim's, all things considered, especially with one blip aside he also adds a couple of Hoppo wins into the mix.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 2:16 pm

hogey wrote:
Rodney wrote:Depends how we define ATG, he lost comprehensively to Pacquaio and I thought Marquez shaded him , but that's not his fault who the judges refer. As for the three guys winning a title doesn't hold much weight these days, most guys above average pick up a pointless strap.

A good honest fighter , but ATG depends on your definition.

Cheers Rodders

Certainly was well beat by Pac, not sure how you could have him losing the Marquez fight though i had him winning by a mile and completely outboxing Maquez, still its all about opinions at the end of the day.
Bradley is a top fighter of his day, but in my view at this moment nowhere near an ATG.

Ignore the wum.......

Part of Manny's legacy will be the two wins over Jmm......Part of Louis is the two wins over walcott....Holmes v witherspoon

You can't pick and choose who you are going to mark down over questionable decisions...

contentious not a robbery anyway.

by **88Chris05** Mon 17 Feb 2014, 2:19 pm

milkyboy wrote:I recall being laughed out of town (one of many occasions, granted) for suggesting, after the witter fight,that Bradley would give hatton real trouble.

Anyway. Bradley v hatton (primes) who wins? Bradley comfortable points for me but in a tough encounter

Forgive us, milky, we knew not what we did!

I was in the crowd in Nottingham when Bradley beat Witter and was impressed with him, but in May 2008 Ricky was still the darling of British boxing who attracted a lot of passionate (sometimes blindly loyal / deluded) support as well as a lot of casuals, of which there were a lot more on the old BBC board than here. There were still probably a few you duelled with on this issue who thought that Hatton was robbed by Cortez against Floyd, or that he was winning on points before the stoppage, two arguments which I seem to recall surfacing every now and then on the Beeb in the months right after the fight.

Hatton still had the aura of a huge-name, big time fighter at this stage so I’m not surprised that you were on the end of some searing replies when you suggested that this little, unknown American who couldn’t sell out his own living room might have had the beating of him! Also, if you were a die-hard Hattonite, then Witter was a joke who was no good to begin with, so it wouldn’t take much for anyone to take a split decision over him.

In fairness, I’d have gone with Hatton in 2008, too (would likely have been proven wrong even at that stage in light of how quickly Hatton was falling apart both in and out the ring, mind you) but definitely wouldn’t have dismissed the idea out of hand – as I said, I thought Bradley showed a lot of promise in beating Witter, and I’d like to think I was never too blind to Ricky’s faults!

With what we’ve seen since, I imagine most would agree with you that Bradley would win a healthy majority of the time but if Bradley fought with his heart instead of his head too much (as he did whenever he got tagged heavily by Pacquiao and Provodnikov) then it might be interesting. But yeah, on top form you’d expect Bradley’s good footwork, defence and toughness to be too much for Hatton.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 2:22 pm

Good post and I would have backed Hatton back then....

Bradley is a bit like old Archie when you watch the films you don't see what is so special...

Yet he gets the job done...

Guess that's what it is all about......

by hazharrison Mon 17 Feb 2014, 2:32 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:Chad Dawson must be an ATG.

3 years not just 'at the top' by Trussy's usual limp definition, but as much if not more claim than Bradley ever has/had to being 'the man' at the weight. Adamek, Johnsonx2, Tarverx2 as good a CV as Tim's, all things considered, especially with one blip aside he also adds a couple of Hoppo wins into the mix.

Yep.

If Pacquiao defeats this ATG then I guess he ranks above Floyd all-time? That'd be four ATGs he'd defeated -- six if you include Mosely and Oscar (who pretty much must be ATGs if Bradley is?).

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 17 Feb 2014, 2:37 pm

88Chris05 wrote:
milkyboy wrote:I recall being laughed out of town (one of many occasions, granted) for suggesting, after the witter fight,that Bradley would give hatton real trouble.

Anyway. Bradley v hatton (primes) who wins? Bradley comfortable points for me but in a tough encounter

Forgive us, milky, we knew not what we did!

I was in the crowd in Nottingham when Bradley beat Witter and was impressed with him, but in May 2008 Ricky was still the darling of British boxing who attracted a lot of passionate (sometimes blindly loyal / deluded) support as well as a lot of casuals, of which there were a lot more on the old BBC board than here. There were still probably a few you duelled with on this issue who thought that Hatton was robbed by Cortez against Floyd, or that he was winning on points before the stoppage, two arguments which I seem to recall surfacing every now and then on the Beeb in the months right after the fight.

Hatton still had the aura of a huge-name, big time fighter at this stage so I’m not surprised that you were on the end of some searing replies when you suggested that this little, unknown American who couldn’t sell out his own living room might have had the beating of him! Also, if you were a die-hard Hattonite, then Witter was a joke who was no good to begin with, so it wouldn’t take much for anyone to take a split decision over him.

In fairness, I’d have gone with Hatton in 2008, too (would likely have been proven wrong even at that stage in light of how quickly Hatton was falling apart both in and out the ring, mind you) but definitely wouldn’t have dismissed the idea out of hand – as I said, I thought Bradley showed a lot of promise in beating Witter, and I’d like to think I was never too blind to Ricky’s faults!

With what we’ve seen since, I imagine most would agree with you that Bradley would win a healthy majority of the time but if Bradley fought with his heart instead of his head too much (as he did whenever he got tagged heavily by Pacquiao and Provodnikov) then it might be interesting. But yeah, on top form you’d expect Bradley’s good footwork, defence and toughness to be too much for Hatton.

Hatton must be close to being great himself...........Judging on the criteria.....

Pedroza and canizales two HOFers ...........

by Sponsored content