I'm taking Morales by late KO. Why? I'll get to that, but let me set out the background and format here.
Both in their primes - I take it that Nas' prime was in '95, when he still produced the blistering handspeed, soccer-player footwork, and was tremendously difficult to hit. When was Morales' prime? You can either say, back in '99, when he put on an incredible display against Mcullough, or 2003, when he KO'ed Espadas in the 3rd round.
Also, for the purposes of debate, I want to avoid "he said"'s, because Boxing is a rotten sport, and I don't trust the word of anyone in it. So please, no "Wayne said 'Morales is stronger'". I don't trust Wayne/Naseem/Arum/King/ etc, and I'd even say that Erik would tell a lie if he were pushed by Arum. Let's stick to what actually HAPPENED, not what came out of someones mouth.
Chin - Hamed was Knocked down by Alicea, Kelley and Sanchez. Morales hits MUCH harder than any of them. Most important of all in this fight is the fact that Morales, until the very twilight of his career with Pacquaio, had NEVER been punched to the floor in his entire 46 fight pro career. NEVER.
Power - Hamed was pushed the distance against Cesar Soto, Wayne Mcullough and Manuel Calvo. Like Calvo and Mcullough, Morales had never been stopped, and again hits much harder than either of them. Hamed's power has actually been overrated; No-one stopped Soto or Mcullough in their primes, and Hamed wasn't about to enter the record books for that honour. Let us also remember, it was the referee who yanked Medina out of his fight with Nas in 96'. One final point about POWER...Erik punched Barrera to the floor in their second fight. Hamed never did that.
Speed - Hamed slowed down considerably after the 4th round
Common opponents;
Barrera: Do I really need to comment here? Note that Morales fought both Barrera The Brawler, Barrera The Technician, and Barrera The Both, I trust you'll agree that WHOEVER you thought won which fight, he outperformed Hamed on all three occasions.
Kelley; Ah, yes. The 'Invasion of America' certainly began with an enormous blaze of publicity, didn't it? With massive images of his face glaring out over the huge display screens in NYC's Times Square, Hamed was touted as an all-conquering, all-destroying "Little Terminator" figure by many, determined to cut a massive swathe through the American Boxing scene. If you listened to the reports of this "British invasion", you'd think that the first wave of a British attack force had landed in Battery Park. What, did Hamed also think that he would succeed in reconquering the rebellious Colonies for the Crown, 210 years after Yorktown?!!? One thing was for sure, though.
The ego had landed.
Kelley, for his part, and despite his much better judgement, seemed equally intoxicated by the hype, misguidedly believing he was fighting to save his the honour of his hometown NYC in particular, and all of American Boxing in general, from this limey upstart who threatened to blow away any who stood before him. Even Kelley's GRANDMOTHER jumped onto the 'US Vs. UK' bandwagon, making her progeny promise to send Hamed back to limeyland on a stretcher.
At nearly 31, Kelley was already FIVE YEARS PAST HIS PRIME when he met Hamed, who he dropped 3 times. At 33, Kelley fought a MUCH smarter fight against Morales, yet the same punches didn't even alter Morales' hairstyle, who had Kelley pinned against the ropes and taking a merciless beating in the 7th. Leaving aside this debate for a moment, did you notice what a sloppy fight the MSG one was? I watched it with a toned-down commentary, and it didn't seem like the war it was made out. Exciting, yes. War, no. And I was AMAZED when Kelley, who was vertical on one knee, unsupported, didn't stand up until ALMOST the count of 10. And I'm not saying this for the argument...but he just seemed a little too clear-eyed. Ok, it was the ref who stopped Kelley against Morales, just so we're even on that point.
Mcullough; Nas was content to avoid Mcullough for most of the fight, choosing to hit-and-run for the duration. Morales, in true sportmans spirit, stood toe-to-toe and busted Mculloughs face to a bloodier mess. Boxing commentators are convinced that Morales outpointed Mcullough by a wider margin than Hamed did.
There you have it. In short; Prime Erik's chin was better than Prime Naz's punch; I think, just as Barrera was the first man to outbox Nas, Morales would have been the first to outbrawl him.
'Prime Vs Prime' matchup - Erik Morales Vs Naseem Hamed
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
This is a good one JayBee....and in based on documented facts, I don't think anyone can put up a great argument.
But here's mine....let me lead off by saying I'd probably bet on Morales....I think it's the right bet. But I would hope that same night I had some insurance via another bet on the table.
Morales has all the tools to do what you describe. BUT....and it's a pretty wide but, you'd never find this big of a but on one of those orientals you mentioned on another thread....I'm talkin a BIG but.
Morales LIKED shootouts. Barrera was cerebral. THUS the risk is greater for Morales than Antonio IMHO. IF Morales decides to simply set the toolbox down and shoot it out he would run a big risk against the big banger. You can argue that if Naseem gets full leather on your head, your probably going to see a few stars. And there were times when Eric seemed to like to dare the devil that way. How many times could he get away with it? Enough to continue to outpoint or wear his opponent down? Maybe but it would not bet heavy on this one. Eric could INVITE the KO.
Once Eric invited Naseem in he might have a very difficult time turning him around and showing him the door.
Odds are on a Morales win but Morlales didn't always use his head, he really liked a shootout...and not staying with a plan in this case could lead to a very bad outcome.
But here's mine....let me lead off by saying I'd probably bet on Morales....I think it's the right bet. But I would hope that same night I had some insurance via another bet on the table.
Morales has all the tools to do what you describe. BUT....and it's a pretty wide but, you'd never find this big of a but on one of those orientals you mentioned on another thread....I'm talkin a BIG but.
Morales LIKED shootouts. Barrera was cerebral. THUS the risk is greater for Morales than Antonio IMHO. IF Morales decides to simply set the toolbox down and shoot it out he would run a big risk against the big banger. You can argue that if Naseem gets full leather on your head, your probably going to see a few stars. And there were times when Eric seemed to like to dare the devil that way. How many times could he get away with it? Enough to continue to outpoint or wear his opponent down? Maybe but it would not bet heavy on this one. Eric could INVITE the KO.
Once Eric invited Naseem in he might have a very difficult time turning him around and showing him the door.
Odds are on a Morales win but Morlales didn't always use his head, he really liked a shootout...and not staying with a plan in this case could lead to a very bad outcome.
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
excellent posts i must say. i do agree with the not taking into consideration of the "he said"...cus if you recall it wasnt too long ago that Vince Phillips said that Kosta Tyszu was not only the better boxer but better puncher than Hatton, and Tsyzu would easily tear Hatton a new one...the result? Hatton made Tsyzu quit on his stool, out worked him, out punched him.
Thats just an example, but you get my meaning, nobody can really say how fights would really go just based on ones mans critique of two men he had previously fought.
I think Morales would more than likely win a decision, but I know Naseem would be in the fight through and though and be as game as ever. It would be an excellent contest, but I dont think it would be as wide as some would believe it would be. It would be very competitive.
Thats just an example, but you get my meaning, nobody can really say how fights would really go just based on ones mans critique of two men he had previously fought.
I think Morales would more than likely win a decision, but I know Naseem would be in the fight through and though and be as game as ever. It would be an excellent contest, but I dont think it would be as wide as some would believe it would be. It would be very competitive.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
That's largely how I see it. A Morales victory is probable IMO, however if he came into the ring with the same attitude toward Hamed some people here have, there's a high chance he could be iced.BoxBuzz wrote:This is a good one JayBee....and in based on documented facts, I don't think anyone can put up a great argument.
But here's mine....let me lead off by saying I'd probably bet on Morales....I think it's the right bet. But I would hope that same night I had some insurance via another bet on the table.
Morales has all the tools to do what you describe. BUT....and it's a pretty wide but, you'd never find this big of a but on one of those orientals you mentioned on another thread....I'm talkin a BIG but.
Morales LIKED shootouts. Barrera was cerebral. THUS the risk is greater for Morales than Antonio IMHO. IF Morales decides to simply set the toolbox down and shoot it out he would run a big risk against the big banger. You can argue that if Naseem gets full leather on your head, your probably going to see a few stars. And there were times when Eric seemed to like to dare the devil that way. How many times could he get away with it? Enough to continue to outpoint or wear his opponent down? Maybe but it would not bet heavy on this one. Eric could INVITE the KO.
Once Eric invited Naseem in he might have a very difficult time turning him around and showing him the door.
Odds are on a Morales win but Morlales didn't always use his head, he really liked a shootout...and not staying with a plan in this case could lead to a very bad outcome.
But surely the question is about prime for prime? Personally I think a prime Hamed would've beaten a prime BarreraI Feel Fine wrote:Yeah, Barrera out boxed Hamed, Morales would tear him apart.
.
.
.
.
....and while there are some fantastic points above, I also think Hamed would have beaten Morales.
best wishes
"T.M.K"
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
-
Jaybee From The Castle
- Heavyweight
.T.M.K wrote:But surely the question is about prime for prime? Personally I think a prime Hamed would've beaten a prime BarreraI Feel Fine wrote:Yeah, Barrera out boxed Hamed, Morales would tear him apart.
.
.
.
.
....and while there are some fantastic points above, I also think Hamed would have beaten Morales.
best wishes
"T.M.K"
Come on, you can't just leave it there!! Just hanging in the wind like that!!
DETAILS my boy, details!!
Good Points Jay.
Saying that though, i remember every opponent Nas Had to Fight Was Supposed the be "The one" to shut his mouth and end his "Bad Boy" Act.
The only loss Nas did have was Barrera, which he lost by desicion, even then, he took the Fight Too lightly, surprising he never got KO'd.
It Would be a good fight though
Saying that though, i remember every opponent Nas Had to Fight Was Supposed the be "The one" to shut his mouth and end his "Bad Boy" Act.
The only loss Nas did have was Barrera, which he lost by desicion, even then, he took the Fight Too lightly, surprising he never got KO'd.
It Would be a good fight though
re
If Naseem Hamed came in prepared to go twelve rounds and he had had a solid training camp in which he actually owrked on his skills instead of just working on one punch bombs, as he did for the Barrera fight, then I would chose Hamed to score a late round knockout in a very exciting fight.
It's too bad that so many people will just talk about Hamed's disaster bout with Barrera, but prior to fighting Barrera, Hamed had decent skills to go with the dynamite that he carried in both fists and as such if he did not score a clean, one punch knockout, he did break down opponents working in each round and throwing more than just one, big bomb at a time. He fell in love with his power and it takes more than just power to beat fighters like Barrera and Morales. As far punching power...Hamed was one of the hardest hitting featherweights in history and when he worked in a bout he was able to eventually set an opponent up for a big bomb.
Against Barrera he went in thinking he was going to score a quick knockout and all he did in that fight was throw one big punch at a time and Barrera just ate him up and embarrassed Hamed giving him a solid beating. Not to take anything away from Barrera, but that was not the best Hamed.
Hamed at his very best would likely go down a few times against Morales, but I believe that he would eventually wear down Morales with hard shots to the head with occasional body shots. Hamed screwed up by thinking he could just knockout anyone and it is really wrong that typically when Hamed is mentioned nowadays it is someone talking about his poor performance against Barrera, but Hamed fought and beat the very best in the featherweight division for several years and he was one of the first fighters, in a long time, to unify, in the ring, the WBO, WBC, IBF belts and he also beat the WBA belt holder, which that belt was not on the line, but Hamed was one of the true unified world champions!
It's too bad that so many people will just talk about Hamed's disaster bout with Barrera, but prior to fighting Barrera, Hamed had decent skills to go with the dynamite that he carried in both fists and as such if he did not score a clean, one punch knockout, he did break down opponents working in each round and throwing more than just one, big bomb at a time. He fell in love with his power and it takes more than just power to beat fighters like Barrera and Morales. As far punching power...Hamed was one of the hardest hitting featherweights in history and when he worked in a bout he was able to eventually set an opponent up for a big bomb.
Against Barrera he went in thinking he was going to score a quick knockout and all he did in that fight was throw one big punch at a time and Barrera just ate him up and embarrassed Hamed giving him a solid beating. Not to take anything away from Barrera, but that was not the best Hamed.
Hamed at his very best would likely go down a few times against Morales, but I believe that he would eventually wear down Morales with hard shots to the head with occasional body shots. Hamed screwed up by thinking he could just knockout anyone and it is really wrong that typically when Hamed is mentioned nowadays it is someone talking about his poor performance against Barrera, but Hamed fought and beat the very best in the featherweight division for several years and he was one of the first fighters, in a long time, to unify, in the ring, the WBO, WBC, IBF belts and he also beat the WBA belt holder, which that belt was not on the line, but Hamed was one of the true unified world champions!
-
Jaybee From The Castle
- Heavyweight
Re: re
Belts are there to hold up your trousers. I'm judging him by the calibre of the guys he fought and his performance against them, not by some piece of leather.barry wrote: Hamed at his very best would likely go down a few times against Morales, but I believe that he would eventually wear down Morales with hard shots to the head with occasional body shots. Hamed screwed up by thinking he could just knockout anyone and it is really wrong that typically when Hamed is mentioned nowadays it is someone talking about his poor performance against Barrera, but Hamed fought and beat the very best in the featherweight division for several years and he was one of the first fighters, in a long time, to unify, in the ring, the WBO, WBC, IBF belts and he also beat the WBA belt holder, which that belt was not on the line, but Hamed was one of the true unified world champions!
You said he fought "the best in the Featherweights", but sorry - I don't recall a fight with Alejandro Gonzalez in '95, Derrick Gainer in '96, Marquez in '99, or Norwood in '00.
re
----Morales knew how to fight southpaws. He wins an easy decision.-----
I guess you came to that decision based on how easily Morales handled Pacquiao...right? Or was it his dominating performance over David Diaz...another southpaw? He beat Kevin Kelly and Paulie Ayala, but what other top rated southpaw did he beat? Seem to me that he is 2-2 against top southpaws, so an easy decision...maybe if Hamed did not hit a lot harder, but Morales trying to show heart against a puncher like Hamed would be the end for him! Fact is...aside from Pacquiao...Morales never fought anyone who hit nearly as hard as Hamed...and we all know what Pacquiao did to the ballsy Morales...same thing would likely happen against Hamed...especially a Hamed who took the bout seriously!
I guess you came to that decision based on how easily Morales handled Pacquiao...right? Or was it his dominating performance over David Diaz...another southpaw? He beat Kevin Kelly and Paulie Ayala, but what other top rated southpaw did he beat? Seem to me that he is 2-2 against top southpaws, so an easy decision...maybe if Hamed did not hit a lot harder, but Morales trying to show heart against a puncher like Hamed would be the end for him! Fact is...aside from Pacquiao...Morales never fought anyone who hit nearly as hard as Hamed...and we all know what Pacquiao did to the ballsy Morales...same thing would likely happen against Hamed...especially a Hamed who took the bout seriously!
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
Its hard to degrade Kevin Kelley as an opponent when Hamed went life and death with him. Morales hunted after Kelley like a crazed animal chasing a frightened deer, as opposed to Hamed getting knocked down or rocked by every punch Kelley managed to land. Morales did in fact handle Pacquiao well (Pacquiao being a much better fighter than Hamed, by the way) in their first two fights where Pac was at his peak while Morales was coming to an end as a great fighter. Bringing up David Diaz is ludircrous.
Last edited by I Feel Fine on 18 Feb 2008, 00:03, edited 1 time in total.
re
----Belts are there to hold up your trousers. I'm judging him by the calibre of the guys he fought and his performance against them, not by some piece of leather. ---
Well it's a bit different when a fighter unifies all the belts...thats what determines a real champion nowadays!
Y----ou said he fought "the best in the Featherweights", but sorry - I don't recall a fight with Alejandro Gonzalez in '95, Derrick Gainer in '96, Marquez in '99, or Norwood in '00.----
For starters...Marquez was not even ranked when Hamed was champion...
Alejandro Gonzalez...well Hamed would have fought him, but unfortunately for Gonzalez...Manuel Medina beat Gonzalez, so Hamed fought Medina...which nis what happens in boxing...you lose against another fighter and that fighter gets the shot!!!
Derrick Gainer...well if you consider Gainer a top ratewd fighter then...well, I'll just leave it at that, but speaking of Gainer...well Gainer was knocked out by Kevin Kelley and guess what...Hamed then fought Kevin Kelley...you see the pattern here?
Lets not forget how easily Marquez was beaten by the less than great Norwood...and for the record...Norwood wouldn't get in the ring with Hamed...go back during those years and check out all the writings!
But speaking of quality...Hamed beat every current belt holder at 126...a lot better than what most other fighters do...like Norwood, who won an abc belt and defended against fighters barely even ranked in a top 20.
In terms of quality of opposition...look it up...Hamed's record against Top 50 opposition is a lot better than most...actually, probably the only fighters of the era who may have fought overall better competition was maybe Barerra, or Morales!
Morales was 20-2-2 against top 50 opposition...Barrera I can't find, but his is probably the best overall...Marquez is 16-2-1...and I cannot find the ratings for when Hamed was fighting in 2001!
Well it's a bit different when a fighter unifies all the belts...thats what determines a real champion nowadays!
Y----ou said he fought "the best in the Featherweights", but sorry - I don't recall a fight with Alejandro Gonzalez in '95, Derrick Gainer in '96, Marquez in '99, or Norwood in '00.----
For starters...Marquez was not even ranked when Hamed was champion...
Alejandro Gonzalez...well Hamed would have fought him, but unfortunately for Gonzalez...Manuel Medina beat Gonzalez, so Hamed fought Medina...which nis what happens in boxing...you lose against another fighter and that fighter gets the shot!!!
Derrick Gainer...well if you consider Gainer a top ratewd fighter then...well, I'll just leave it at that, but speaking of Gainer...well Gainer was knocked out by Kevin Kelley and guess what...Hamed then fought Kevin Kelley...you see the pattern here?
Lets not forget how easily Marquez was beaten by the less than great Norwood...and for the record...Norwood wouldn't get in the ring with Hamed...go back during those years and check out all the writings!
But speaking of quality...Hamed beat every current belt holder at 126...a lot better than what most other fighters do...like Norwood, who won an abc belt and defended against fighters barely even ranked in a top 20.
In terms of quality of opposition...look it up...Hamed's record against Top 50 opposition is a lot better than most...actually, probably the only fighters of the era who may have fought overall better competition was maybe Barerra, or Morales!
Morales was 20-2-2 against top 50 opposition...Barrera I can't find, but his is probably the best overall...Marquez is 16-2-1...and I cannot find the ratings for when Hamed was fighting in 2001!
re
But lets name the top ten rated fighters that Hamed fought!
Steve Robinson was top 5 when Hamed fought him and the WBO 126 belt holder.
Manuel Medina had just beaten Alejandro Gonzalez and lost to Luisito Espinosa and was top ten and before you start mentioning Espinosa...he lost his WBC 126 pound belt to Cesar Soto and then Hamed beat Soto, who was top 5.
Tom Johnson was the IBF belt holder and universally recognized by most all top boxing writers as the number one featherweight in the world...Hamed beat him.
Kevin Kelley was of course a top 5 featherweight.
Wilfredo Vazquez was top 5 and the WBA 126 belt holder...though the WBA did not sanction the bout and instead stripped the belt and I imagine that the WBA then put that bogus belt up for someone who did not deserve a title shot, but I don't feel like looking back to see was given the title shot for that belt...but regardless...Hamed beat the reigning belt holder, who had won the belt in the ring and who had beat the lineal title holder Eloy Rojas, who had beat Yong-Kyun Park, so Hamed's claim was really validated with this win against Vazquez!
Wayne McCullough was top 5, or 10...as was Paul Ingle...Vuyani Bungu was the number one rated Jr. Featherweight in the world and Augie Sanchez had just beaten Luisito Espinosa and then Hamed fought Barrera.
Actually...every fighter that Hamed had fought since around middle 1994 were all top 50, but don't take my words...do the research on your own and you'll see for yourself!
As far as going through a fighters career and cherry-picking a few names of fighters that someone did not fight...well...you can do that with every single fighter in boxing history...so it is not something rare and only in the case of Naseem Hamed...it's the same way for every fighter.
And for the record...all of those fighters that you mentioned who Hamed never fought...well...I don't think that Barrera, or Morales every fought any of those guys either (are you going to hold them in contempt for the exact same thing)...which is exactly what I am saying...missing a lower ranked opponent here and there is as common as a jab. And also for the record...of the fighters you mentioned that Hamed never fought, of which neither did Barrera, or Morales, but exactly which one of those fighters were ever rated number one during Hamed's reign? If you can provide some proof that any of the fighters mentioned were number one rated opponents who were dodged and ducked then I welcome it and would even champion that data, but it doesn't exist because fact is...none of those fighters were ever number one rated.
Steve Robinson was top 5 when Hamed fought him and the WBO 126 belt holder.
Manuel Medina had just beaten Alejandro Gonzalez and lost to Luisito Espinosa and was top ten and before you start mentioning Espinosa...he lost his WBC 126 pound belt to Cesar Soto and then Hamed beat Soto, who was top 5.
Tom Johnson was the IBF belt holder and universally recognized by most all top boxing writers as the number one featherweight in the world...Hamed beat him.
Kevin Kelley was of course a top 5 featherweight.
Wilfredo Vazquez was top 5 and the WBA 126 belt holder...though the WBA did not sanction the bout and instead stripped the belt and I imagine that the WBA then put that bogus belt up for someone who did not deserve a title shot, but I don't feel like looking back to see was given the title shot for that belt...but regardless...Hamed beat the reigning belt holder, who had won the belt in the ring and who had beat the lineal title holder Eloy Rojas, who had beat Yong-Kyun Park, so Hamed's claim was really validated with this win against Vazquez!
Wayne McCullough was top 5, or 10...as was Paul Ingle...Vuyani Bungu was the number one rated Jr. Featherweight in the world and Augie Sanchez had just beaten Luisito Espinosa and then Hamed fought Barrera.
Actually...every fighter that Hamed had fought since around middle 1994 were all top 50, but don't take my words...do the research on your own and you'll see for yourself!
As far as going through a fighters career and cherry-picking a few names of fighters that someone did not fight...well...you can do that with every single fighter in boxing history...so it is not something rare and only in the case of Naseem Hamed...it's the same way for every fighter.
And for the record...all of those fighters that you mentioned who Hamed never fought...well...I don't think that Barrera, or Morales every fought any of those guys either (are you going to hold them in contempt for the exact same thing)...which is exactly what I am saying...missing a lower ranked opponent here and there is as common as a jab. And also for the record...of the fighters you mentioned that Hamed never fought, of which neither did Barrera, or Morales, but exactly which one of those fighters were ever rated number one during Hamed's reign? If you can provide some proof that any of the fighters mentioned were number one rated opponents who were dodged and ducked then I welcome it and would even champion that data, but it doesn't exist because fact is...none of those fighters were ever number one rated.
-
ringsider
- Heavyweight
Re: re
First comes the BS.........
Then the excuses.........
Then the fight fan fantasy vs Morales......Hamed would not get up, he had no heart.
Anyone who knew anything about boxing could see the Barrera beating coming a mile away!
barry wrote: As far punching power...Hamed was one of the hardest hitting featherweights in history.........
Then the excuses.........
Not to take anything away from Barrera, but that was not the best Hamed.
Then the fight fan fantasy vs Morales......Hamed would not get up, he had no heart.
Then the reality bites one in the ass.....Hamed was a clown and exposed as one.Hamed at his very best would likely go down a few times against Morales, but I believe that he would eventually wear down Morales with hard shots to the head with occasional body shots.
Anyone who knew anything about boxing could see the Barrera beating coming a mile away!
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
Re: re
ringsider wrote:First comes the BS.........
barry wrote: As far punching power...Hamed was one of the hardest hitting featherweights in history.........
Then the excuses.........Not to take anything away from Barrera, but that was not the best Hamed.
Then the fight fan fantasy vs Morales......Hamed would not get up, he had no heart.
Then the reality bites one in the ass.....Hamed was a clown and exposed as one.Hamed at his very best would likely go down a few times against Morales, but I believe that he would eventually wear down Morales with hard shots to the head with occasional body shots.
Anyone who knew anything about boxing could see the Barrera beating coming a mile away!
re
Ringsider---We do have rules on this forum and like it, or not, anytime anyone does not post like an adult and starts throwing insults then I am going to delete it if I see it. Disagreeing...I could care less what you think, or what you think about my views, but if you start out a post with insults, or in a manner which is surely to start a flame war, which is exactly how you started the thread that I deleted, then it is going to be deleted every time. It does not take much effort to debate boxing in a decent and productive manner without insulting, or trying to get another poster started. People can debate without insults...well...most people can!
But speaking of BS...looks like you might need to look at the actual facts of the issue, which is hard for some people who cannot look over their anomosity toward a certain fighter. You don't have to like Hamed...I don't like him, but he earned his place inside the ring and as such...he and any other fighter deserves the proper respect...especially from people claiming to be boxing fans. If he was a "fake" who never accomplished anything, well that is different, but obvious facts about Hamed's ring career are there for anyone who can actually read, but then again...a lot of people don't know enough about fighters like Steve Robinson, Tom Johnson, Manuel Medina and many others to give a solid and accurate depiction of who they fought!
No wonder boxing is dying out..."supposed" boxing fans cannot quit disrespecting fighters that tye do not like long enough to do anything positive for the sport...sad...really sad! I would keep quite if I just didn't like a fighter, but trying to pretend that the obvious does not exist just makes a person look silly because everyone else, who can actually look at a fighters career in a non-bias manner and who actually knows something about the sport, can plainly see what Hamed accomplished in his career. I'm not saying that anyone has to like him, but he truly did earn everything in the ring and he should be respected for that...I don't think true, really true boxing fans will just disrespect a former fighter plainly on the basis of just not liking the fighter! Again...it's no wonder the sport is dying out!
----Anyone who knew anything about boxing could see the Barrera beating coming a mile away!-----
No doubt!!! That must have been the reasoning when around 90% of all boxing people were picking Hamed to win fairly easy! Sorry, but hindsight predictions is as easy as adding and subtracking!
But speaking of BS...looks like you might need to look at the actual facts of the issue, which is hard for some people who cannot look over their anomosity toward a certain fighter. You don't have to like Hamed...I don't like him, but he earned his place inside the ring and as such...he and any other fighter deserves the proper respect...especially from people claiming to be boxing fans. If he was a "fake" who never accomplished anything, well that is different, but obvious facts about Hamed's ring career are there for anyone who can actually read, but then again...a lot of people don't know enough about fighters like Steve Robinson, Tom Johnson, Manuel Medina and many others to give a solid and accurate depiction of who they fought!
No wonder boxing is dying out..."supposed" boxing fans cannot quit disrespecting fighters that tye do not like long enough to do anything positive for the sport...sad...really sad! I would keep quite if I just didn't like a fighter, but trying to pretend that the obvious does not exist just makes a person look silly because everyone else, who can actually look at a fighters career in a non-bias manner and who actually knows something about the sport, can plainly see what Hamed accomplished in his career. I'm not saying that anyone has to like him, but he truly did earn everything in the ring and he should be respected for that...I don't think true, really true boxing fans will just disrespect a former fighter plainly on the basis of just not liking the fighter! Again...it's no wonder the sport is dying out!
----Anyone who knew anything about boxing could see the Barrera beating coming a mile away!-----
No doubt!!! That must have been the reasoning when around 90% of all boxing people were picking Hamed to win fairly easy! Sorry, but hindsight predictions is as easy as adding and subtracking!
-
Jaybee From The Castle
- Heavyweight
Barry,
What part(s) of my analysis did you not bother to read? If you want to delete that guys insults, fine, so you should - just don't then insult ME with a lengthy advertisement that completely disregards my considered analysis, because amongst other things, it makes you appear to be a hypocrite. And I make it a policy never to waste my time engaging a hypocrite in any kind of discussion.
I don't have time right now, but I'll delineate the errors you've made in your replies tomorrow, I trust by then your attitude will have improved and you'll actually READ it.
For the record, I predicted a Draw in the MAB fight. Maybe the only bloke on the planet who did....:)
Jaybee.
What part(s) of my analysis did you not bother to read? If you want to delete that guys insults, fine, so you should - just don't then insult ME with a lengthy advertisement that completely disregards my considered analysis, because amongst other things, it makes you appear to be a hypocrite. And I make it a policy never to waste my time engaging a hypocrite in any kind of discussion.
I don't have time right now, but I'll delineate the errors you've made in your replies tomorrow, I trust by then your attitude will have improved and you'll actually READ it.
For the record, I predicted a Draw in the MAB fight. Maybe the only bloke on the planet who did....:)
Jaybee.
re
Jaybee--I didn't insult you and wasn't trying to...I just responded to your statements to me...I did not read your first post, nor was that what I was responding to, so it is completely irrelevant in this and my last response...I was responding directly to your response to me and nothing more!