By Glenn Wilson

One of the greatest things about being a sports fan is the ability to debate the greatness of teams, players, fighters or events. Growing up a diehard baseball fan, I would read stories comparing the '27 Yankees to the team of '72 or to the '74 Oakland A's. Now people compare those teams to the '98 or year 2000 version  of the Yankees.

Fight fans are given the added task of comparing not just fighters from different eras, but also present day fighters in different weight classes. Is this fighter better than that fighter or more appropriately, is this fighter more deserving than that fighter? So call this point/counterpoint if you will. It is my take on why I believe Dr. Peter Edwards is my polar opposite when it comes to Ring Magazine's Fighter Of The Year.

First let me start off by saying that, yes I am a Ricky Hatton fan, but I am in no way to be confused with a Ricky Hatton fanatic. Hatton is my favorite active fighter, but if he was awarded a gift decision or was unjustly given a win that he didn't deserve, I would be the first to write how his opposition had been robbed.

If my fighter commits a flagrant foul I am the first person in the room to say that the ref should take a point away from him. What I'm trying to say is that I will pull for my fighter with my dying breath, but I will not defend him if any shenanigans, that's right I used the word shenanigans, are involved.

Secondly, I have read Dr. Edwards articles and really enjoy them. I have never met the man and have no ill will towards him. I read his article on Hatton and thought, well maybe someone I overlooked was more deserving, but I did not believe that that someone was Jermain Taylor.

When I read the reviews to Dr. Edwards article I found that quite a few people felt as I did, only they were, how should I say this, a little more outspoken than I like to be.

So with apologies and a deep respect for Dr. Edwards, here I go, giving my opinion as to why Ricky Hatton should be Fighter Of The Year and why others, including Jermain Taylor, should not have been.

First we will remove those that The Ring felt were worthy of an honorable mention status.

Jeff Lacy won three fights in 2005, two against fringe, although very tough, contenders, and one over former titleholder Robin Reid. He was impressive, but did what most experts had expected him to do in those fights.

Winky Wright had one of the greatest individual performances a fighter could ever have when he frustrated and shutout Felix Trinidad.

Unfortunately, he followed that up with a not so great performance against a very game Sam Soliman.

Zab Judah beat Cory Spinks for the Welterweight title and then knocked out Cosme Rivera. The Rivera fight should have never taken place, but it did and the results were what most expected.

Flyweight king Lorenzo Parra defended his WBA crown three times, winning a unanimous decision in each stanza. We will just call this the curse of the lower weight fighters. Most fans don't know who these guys are and they don't get the exposure they deserve here in the U.S.

Antonio Tarver regained the Light Heavyweight belt by beating Glen Johnson in a very good fight. His next fight was a rather dull rematch with Roy Jones, Jr., taking a bit of the luster off of his year.

Diego Corrales and Jose Luis Castillo split their two fights, but the fights were so incredible that it would have been easy to see these two share the award.

Then there is Hatton and Taylor, both world champions at their respected weight classes.

Let's start with Ricky Hatton, but in reverse. He beat Carlos Maussa, who Dr. Edwards referred to as a B-level fighter at best, and no I wont debate that fact. I was actually disappointed that Hatton completely forgot about his great body punching ability, he often seemed anxious, but was able to finally get to the praying mantis that called himself Carlos.

Jermain Taylor's first opponent of 2005 was also a B-level fighter at best, Daniel Edouard, and B-level might be a generous statement.

So let us say that it comes down to Taylor-Hopkins 1 and 2, and Tszyu-Hatton.

Hatton did in fact impose his will on Tszyu. Being a Hatton fan I figured that he would win the first five or six rounds, but I thought that eventually Tszyu would catch him with his potent right hand. Hatton fought a smart fight and Tszyu fought the wrong fight.

But people keep bringing up Tszyu's inactivity, which was abundantly clear when he beat everyone's number one contender, Sharmba Mitchell. Tszyu completely destroyed Mitchell, showing just as Felix Trinidad had done earlier, layoffs don't always affect great fighters.

Tszyu, older or inactive or whatever, was and is known for being physically stronger than anyone else in the division, so to see Hatton push him around the ring like that was absolutely amazing. The fight was not a classic, nor a thing of beauty, but it did have action and it was a very impressive performance by Ricky Hatton.

Now in my mind a fighter has to beat a name fighter impressively, not just beat a name. And I believe, no disrespect to Mr. Taylor, but he won one fight and should have had a draw in the other.

In their first fight Taylor won the early rounds in an explosive (insert yawn here) fight. If judge Duane Ford had scored round twelve correctly then the fight would have been a draw. Evidently judge Ford awarded the last round to Taylor on the basis that he was breathing, which appears to be a requirement for some judges today.

Taylor had every opprotunity to win rounds big, but fought scared. Some rounds were uneventful and even Taylor-Hopkins fans will admit - boring as hell.

Taylor had a chance to change people's perceptions of himself in the rematch, but he failed to do it. Once again we were treated to snore-a-palooza 2005. This time Taylor won by two points on all of the judges scorecards.

To confirm how underwhelming these fights were, one need look no further than the compubox numbers.

Fight one, Taylor was 86 of 453, Hopkins was 96 of 326, this breaks down to Taylor landing only 7 punches a round while throwing only 37. Hopkins landed only 8 per round while throwing only 27 per round.

Fight two was not much better, Taylor was 124 of 391 and Hopkins was 130 of 317. This averages out to Taylor connecting on 10 of 32 punches a round and Hopkins landing 10 of 26 punches a round.

Scintillating numbers aren't they, and they tell the story of how boring these fights were, which is exactly why no one is calling for a third fight. Although I might actually call for a third fight, you see I like to pop in a tape of either fight whenever I can't sleep, works like a charm, I'm usually out before the end of the first round.

I will debate Dr. Edwards claim of Hopkins vastly superior opponents during his career and of all of the fighters that Nard supposedly vanquished to different weight classes. While it is agreed that Hopkins has had a Hall of Fame career, let's not get too carried away.

Since his career defining win over Trinidad, Hopkins has beat a virtual list of future hall of famers (here comes the sarcasm). He stopped Carl Daniels in 10, was finally able to catch the tremendous Morrade Hakkar, beat a used up William Joppy, slept walked through Robert Allen again (again, a good sleeping aid), took nine rounds to stop a blown up Oscar De La Hoya, beat a fighter who got knocked out last week, Howard Eastman and then had his two thrillers with Taylor.

Hopkins, while a sure Hall of Famer, hadn't fought anything more than B-level fighters, if that, in almost four years.

So the debate will rage on, I am sure that there are just as many people ready to call for one of the other fighters as I have done for Hatton, debate is good.

I believe a lot of consideration has to go into the actual fight itself because without action fighters like Hatton we would have more fights like, dare I say it, Taylor and Hopkins.

But considering all the facts, Ricky Hatton was the right man.