Who wud like 2 c ricky hatton vs floyd mayweather again?

Question

Who wud like 2 c ricky hatton vs floyd mayweather again?

Answer 1

Sure, But only to shut up crazed Hatton Fans who still believe that it was the ref's fault.

Answer 2

It would be the same result.

Floyd is:

- too big

- too strong

- too fast

- too long

- too good of a counter-puncher

for Ricky Hatton

Answer 3

it would be the same ending

Answer 4

Why bother?  There are at least half a dozen boxers I'd like to see Floyd face.  I'm sure most would agree with me.  As much as I didn't even want to see a DeLa Hoya rematch, I'd rather see that than another Hatton fight.  

Miguel Cotto is, BY FAR the most deserving challenger in the 147 division.  When we can talk names like Cotto, Margarito, Mosley than you have my interest.  Like I said,  I'm sure most would agree.

A Hatton-Mayweather fight is pointless.

Answer 5

nah! money may would beat him evertime. may should fight judah again or cotto. judah gave him the toughest fight. he knocked him down and didnt get credit for it. ( thanks to richard steele)!

Answer 6

people who don't like to watch boxing and only know about them b/c of the media coverage of that one fight would say they'd like to see it. probably even order and watch the first round and then turn it off

Answer 7

i would because too many hatton die hards falsely blame the defeat because there was a strong no nonsense ref in charge.dont think that i dont like hatton,as he is a very exciting 100mph fighter but he is so limited. and should still be keen to take on top fighters.

Answer 8

I suppose that if the fight was going to be fought at 140 and in England with a neutral ref i wouldnt mind seeing it again just to see if Floyd really is as good as he looked that night last December but i cant ever see that happening so i would say there is no point at all if its going to be under the same conditions that have already happened.

Answer 9

not me.  it would be more of the same.  1st fight wasn't competitive enough for a rematch.