How good was Naseem Hamed ?

[Quixall]

How good was Naseem Hamed ?

I'm sure that this question has been discussed many times and on various Forums, but i am new to the Boxrec forum and the British section and so please indulge me, because i want to know your views.

Perhaps the two questions that get asked, with regard to Naseem Hamed, are whether he was a truely world class fighter, who deserved to be considered an "elite" fighter and secondly, whether or not his split with Brendan Ingle adversely effected his career. There are those that say that Hamed was a world class fighter, who derserves to be viewed in the same light as his contempories, most notably Barrera, Marquez and Morales. There are also many critics, who suggest that Hamed fell short of being an "elite" fighter and should'nt be held in the same esteem as the three names mentioned above.

Was it the case that Hamed was more hype then reality and when he came to step up in class, he was found wanting. Is it reasonable to assert, that Hamed's flash style, a combination of quick reflexes, lightening speed, unusual punch range and raw punch power, could only take him so far and that he only looked affective against lesser quality opposition. Was it the case that Hamed started to abandon the style that had brought him early success and became obsessed with his punch power, to the detriment of his other skills set or was it the fact that Steward tampered too much with Hamed's unorthadox style, confusing the fighter and making him become more susceptable as a result ?

Both Brendan Ingle and Manny Steward have commented in the past, that Hamed was not living or training correctly, in order to fully forfill his potential and talent. Ingle states that this dates back to the Tom Johnson fight. They also say, that Hamed had a stubborn streak and would not listen to the advice that was given, prefering to take the advice or opinions of his incraesingly large entourage. Ingle stated that Hamed was becoming a target because his style was becoming too one dimensional and Steward states that he advised Hamed on ways to iron out his fundamental flaws and weaknesses, because in his opinion, the elite fighters would know how to negate and unlock Hameds' key attributes.

Hamed Looked more impressive in the early to middle part of his career and had some goods wins, most notably Robinson, Medina, Johnson and Kevin Kelly. Once Hamed left Brendan Ingle, his performances under Steward become lacklustre, in particular, against Ingle, Mcullough and Sanchez. The most dire performance came in what was his most high profile and important fight against Barerra, who out-boxed Hamed for 12 rounds and was a deserving winner. One more lacklustre performance in his return fight against Manuel Calvo, saw what was to be the last fight for Naseem Hamed and despite a re-match clause in his contract with Barrera, Hamed, much to the dissapointment of many fight fans, dissapeared from boxing and effectively retired at the age of 28.

Hamed never fought Morales or Marquez and lost his fight to Barrera. He fought a very good, but ageing fighter in Tom Johnson and defeated a highly rated Kevin Kelly, who at that point had only one defeat in 50 fights and was considered to be one of the best featherweights of his era. Other than the Johnson and Kelly fights, Hamed's opposition was decent to very good, including the likes of Robinson, Medina, Bungu, Ingle, McCullough, Vazquez and Sanchez et al. Hamed had a unique fighting style, a flambouyant personality and brought much to the sport of boxing, a charcter who was either loved or hated, but the question is and remains.......

How good was Naseem Hamed ?

Thanks,

Quixall

[Mick the Mechanic]

You've said it all really,world class,punch like a sledgehammer,but there were 2 or 3 around better...and he knew it.
A bit too much belief in his fighting style too,hence not a good fighter to train.

[big lennox]

How good was he? Very.

the naz who last to barerra shouldnt be confused with the naz of few years earlier.

[Quixall]

You've said it all really,world class,punch like a sledgehammer,but there were 2 or 3 around better...and he knew it.
A bit too much belief in his fighting style too,hence not a good fighter to train.

I agree....

I think in order to fully realise your potential as a fighter, you have to apply yourself properly, in terms of your attitude and general demeaner, how you train and how you live your life and it became increasingly obvious that Hamed was falling short on all three.

[Arnie]

Amazing

[Quixall]

How good was he? Very.

the naz who last to barerra shouldnt be confused with the naz of few years earlier.

Interesting Lennox,

Because for a lot of people, they would say that it was the same Naseem Hamed of a few years before, the only difference being that he was fighting better quality opposition, who could negate his skills and out-box him, as was the case with the Barrera fight.....

What would your reply be to those that assert that argument ?

[Quixall]

Amazing

Amazing.......in what respect Arnie ?

An amazing fighter or amazing to watch ?

Can a fighter who never fought Morales or Marquez and lost to Barrera be called "amazing" ?

[terminator]

How good was he? Very.

the naz who last to barerra shouldnt be confused with the naz of few years earlier.

Interesting Lennox,

Because for a lot of people, they would say that it was the same Naseem Hamed of a few years before, the only difference being that he was fighting better quality opposition, who could negate his skills and out-box him, as was the case with the Barrera fight.....

What would your reply be to those that assert that argument ?

I would tell them to watch that documentary "Little Prince Big Fight"
Hamed was never going to win with that kind of preparation!

[johnftiz]

there has never been and probably will never be anyone like naz. he filled arenas wherever he went, and had the phenomenal talent to back up all his pomp and show.

when he was in love with boxing there were few who could have imagined it would go down the route it did, with money and back slappers ruining what could have been the greatest boxing career in history.

i have never seen anyone punch from such obscure angles and with such power as naz did, and at the same time be so fast, agile and imaginative in his defence.

his total demolition of steve robinson was something legend is made of, and the way he dispatched kevin kelley after a couple of scares early on was what made naz (at the time) the best boxer in the business.

in his prime he was a much better fighter tham barrera, but the lad simply did not look like he wanted it that night, and there was something seriously missing compared to his usual arrogant brilliance.

it is such a shame that it went the way it did, and such a shame that we will never know how far he could have gone, because in my humble opinion, there has never been anyone with such natural ability............but he wasted it, and therefore can never be remembered as a true great.

[Quixall]

How good was he? Very.

the naz who last to barerra shouldnt be confused with the naz of few years earlier.

Interesting Lennox,

Because for a lot of people, they would say that it was the same Naseem Hamed of a few years before, the only difference being that he was fighting better quality opposition, who could negate his skills and out-box him, as was the case with the Barrera fight.....

What would your reply be to those that assert that argument ?

I would tell them to watch that documentary "Little Prince Big Fight"
Hamed was never going to win with that kind of preparation!

Exactly....

Which goes back to what was being said by Ingle and Steward, with regards to training habits

[Quixall]

there has never been and probably will never be anyone like naz. he filled arenas wherever he went, and had the phenomenal talent to back up all his pomp and show.

when he was in love with boxing there were few who could have imagined it would go down the route it did, with money and back slappers ruining what could have been the greatest boxing career in history.

i have never seen anyone punch from such obscure angles and with such power as naz did, and at the same time be so fast, agile and imaginative in his defence.

his total demolition of steve robinson was something legend is made of, and the way he dispatched kevin kelley after a couple of scares early on was what made naz (at the time) the best boxer in the business.

in his prime he was a much better fighter tham barrera, but the lad simply did not look like he wanted it that night, and there was something seriously missing compared to his usual arrogant brilliance.

it is such a shame that it went the way it did, and such a shame that we will never know how far he could have gone, because in my humble opinion, there has never been anyone with such natural ability............but he wasted it, and therefore can never be remembered as a true great.

I like your post...

It was remarked by Barry McGuigan in a pre-fighte interview with Hamed, before his fight with Bungu, that Hmaed looked "out of love" with boxing and seemed bored. I think everyone noticed that Hamed was not his usual self the night he fought Barrera, where most notably, he did'nt jump the ropes !!

The Robinson victory was a good win for Hamed, but with all due respect, Robinson was really a Euro-level fighter and in my opinion not to be described as world class. The win against Kevin Kelly was good, but i think that Hamed had begun to abandon his skills set by then and was intent on taking his opponent out as soon as possible with his punch power. Although he was never seriously dazed by Kelly, they were more flash knock-downs, due to Hameds' lack of balance, i still feel that there were signs in that fight that Hamed had lost some momentum and was becoming more one dimensional in his approach, something that would cost him dearly against Barrera a few years later.

[teddy007]

Amazing

Amazing.......in what respect Arnie ?

An amazing fighter or amazing to watch ?

Can a fighter who never fought Morales or Marquez and lost to Barrera be called "amazing" ?

Absolutley not, he was overated and beaten by a true world class legend in Barerra.

[scottyboy_1978]

He was a very good fighter no doubt about that and he certainly brought alot of new fans to boxing in the 90s who wouldnt normaly watch boxing.

If he had perhaps took his training more seriously then who knows he might hav beaten the very best out there too. On some occassions he relied to heavily on his knockout power , " rocket launcher " punch as he called it. Unfortunatly when faced with A+ opposition he failed.

All about how u deal with defeat i suppose as a boxer. As it happens to most. Naz was all over the place at some points of the Barerra fight and never looked like winning realy. His ego was well and truly burst.

Didnt he hav a comeback fight against Manuel Calvo ??? Sure it was a points descision after a rather boring 12 rounds.???

[MightyWarrior]

He had it all really, a once in a lifetime talent with the reflexes, fighting heart and out of this world punch power in either hand. And very rare for such a puncher, a great chin too. His knockdowns were all about bad balance/poor footwork.

Add to that, the absolute self belief that allowed him to take on the world.

Of course it all fell apart long before Barrera fight, in a fog of out of control ego and more money than he could ever spend.

Yes Barrera schooled him, but take into account the Mexican all time great had been studying Naz for years, working out the perfect surprise strategy to outbox him ( no one saw MAB as a boxer before then ) and Naz? Well he was expecting a walk in the park....

I'd bet if they'd met 3 or 4 years before that, Naz would likely have laid out Barrera flat - why not? Jr Jones managed it, after all.

[Chambers2]

At his very best he was phenomenal, he was definately one of the most entertaining and exciting fighters that I've seen. Unfortunately for the fans he struggled to get out of his silk pyjamas comparitively early on his career, but he reportedly earnt £40m during his career so he was doing something right.

I still miss Naz Naz was Great!

[banjo]

Peaked around the time of the Kelley fight but it all went downhill from there, his confidence turned to pure arrogance and as mentioned he was raking in money and began to lose his motivation yet he still believed he could never be beaten and that is why his ego was hit so hard following the loss to Barrera.

[fist]

Amazing

Amazing.......in what respect Arnie ?

An amazing fighter or amazing to watch ?

Can a fighter who never fought Morales or Marquez and lost to Barrera be called "amazing" ?

Absolutley not, he was overated and beaten by a true world class legend in Barerra.

Have never agreed with this viewpoint. Overly simplistic and ignores the talent that Naseem had. For me he is the most entertaining fighter Ive ever seen, most exciting and in terms of British fighters, the most possibly the most talented. The Barrera fight does not define Naseem, his championship belts do, his KOs do. For me the Barrera fight illustrated where Naseem went wrong - leaving Ingle, spending virtually no time sparring or preparing before the fight, not having a plan B or C when A was not working. Truth is he lost a fight to a great boxer, but wasn;t knocked out, nor was he hugely behind on points depsite fighting an appauling fight. I have absolutely no doubts that it was within Naseem to win a re-match and I also think that he had scope to be better champion than Barrera or Morlales.

But is heart was not in it anymore. He had a glorious career, made ridiculous amounts of money and provided entertainment that Ive never witnessed since.

Probably my favourite ever fighter.

[Quixall]

He had it all really, a once in a lifetime talent with the reflexes, fighting heart and out of this world punch power in either hand. And very rare for such a puncher, a great chin too. His knockdowns were all about bad balance/poor footwork.

Add to that, the absolute self belief that allowed him to take on the world.

Of course it all fell apart long before Barrera fight, in a fog of out of control ego and more money than he could ever spend.

Yes Barrera schooled him, but take into account the Mexican all time great had been studying Naz for years, working out the perfect surprise strategy to outbox him ( no one saw MAB as a boxer before then ) and Naz? Well he was expecting a walk in the park....

I'd bet if they'd met 3 or 4 years before that, Naz would likely have laid out Barrera flat - why not? Jr Jones managed it, after all.

What do you think the major differences were between the Naz of 2001 and the Naz of 1997/98 ?

What makes you think that version of Hamed would have sparked Barrera ?

[Quixall]

Have never agreed with this viewpoint. Overly simplistic and ignores the talent that Naseem had. For me he is the most entertaining fighter Ive ever seen, most exciting and in terms of British fighters, the most possibly the most talented. The Barrera fight does not define Naseem, his championship belts do, his KOs do. For me the Barrera fight illustrated where Naseem went wrong - leaving Ingle, spending virtually no time sparring or preparing before the fight, not having a plan B or C when A was not working. Truth is he lost a fight to a great boxer, but wasn;t knocked out, nor was he hugely behind on points depsite fighting an appauling fight. I have absolutely no doubts that it was within Naseem to win a re-match and I also think that he had scope to be better champion than Barrera or Morlales.

But is heart was not in it anymore. He had a glorious career, made ridiculous amounts of money and provided entertainment that Ive never witnessed since.

Probably my favourite ever fighter.[/quote]
I'm sympathetc to your viewpoint.....

and i'm sure a lot of others are too, but a fighter has to have the full package and have it over a long period of time aswell. Just being "talented" or the most entertaining or exciting fighter is'nt always enough to justify why someone should be called an elite fighter. Living the correct life, having a structured training programme, preparing for fights in a professional manner are all part and parcel of what makes a great or "elite" fighter. A perfect example of this is Bernard Hopkins. Hopkins had lots of money etc, but still was disciplined and professional about his lifestyle, training and prepaeration for fights. This was in evidence in the Pavlik fight, when a 43 year old guy out fights an unbeaten 26 year old, so in my opinion Hamed can't hide behimd those excuses.

It's true that Hmaed was a truely exciting fighter, with a flambouyant personality that excited people and drew big crowds to boxing and his knock-out ratio was a big part of that appeal. However, it remains the case, that Hamed never fought Morales or Marquez, lost to Barrera and never took up the re-match clause in the Barrera fight. If Hamed had been as confident as you, he would have taken that re-match with Barrera, He could have had five or six fights before taking on Barerra again, even gone back to the Ingle gym, if he was that determind and focused. He was only 28, had never been roughed up and had plenty of time on his side, to go back to the basics and take up the re-match and then go on to fight both Morales and Marquez.......

You have to ask yourself why he did none of those things ??

Money, boredom, family life, indiscipline etc etc, can all play a part, but that goes for a lot of fighters, but it does'nt disguise the fact that maybe Hamed knew that deep down, he could'n be sure whether he was capable of beating a style like Barrera's or even Morales and Marquez for that matter. I think your basing your argument on assumptions, when you need to ask the really hard questions about why Hamed avoided two of his contempories, did'nt take up a re-match clause with Barrera and retired at 28 years of age.

[DaveyH]

When I think of Naseem I think of an awesome talent who thrilled the crowds and kept people interested in boxing once Eubank/Benn/Collins began to fade from view. But he was also a goose that laid golden eggs and as a result missed out on fulfilling the potential he had.
Being a Sheffield lad myself, I followed Naz's career from an early stage and the buzz around the city was fantastic.
But we were all waiting for him to really show us what he could do. He worked himself up to Number one contender status at Super Bantam for the WBO title. The champion was one unbeaten superstar Marco Antonio Barrera. This fight was a natural to be made between 2 exciting undefeated stars, both aged 22 and hungry for success. All the questions about whether Barrera could have beaten a more prime Naz could have been answered back then. But somehow Naz got a title shot at Featherweight against the decent but shopworn and Euro level at best Steve Robinson. It always struck me as odd that Naz had never even fought at feather and all of a sudden he was fighting for a title, but I guess that was one FW working his magic. Robinson or Barrera?
In terms of competition, the Featherweight Division was ideal for a brash young talent like Naz. After his dismantling of Robinson, the other title holders were the declining Tom Johnson,
Luisito Espinosa and Eloy Rojas. Rojas was soon defeated by Wilfredo Vasquez. The division was crying out for a changing of the guard and Hamed was the perfect talent for the job.
Before unifying Naz took some pretty ropey defences, again seemingly taking the soft option. Pulling out twice against the dangerous Mexican Arnulfo Castillo (I thought this would be a true test for Hamed) he settled on the useless Said Lawal. Daniel Alicea looked dangerous but was green and paid the price, Medina was a tough changing of the guard type fight that set Naz up perfectly for his unification with Johnson (via another glorified punchbag in Remigio Molina).
Simply put, Naz took the division at the perfect time, but he did it in style and made good money on the way so who can blame him? However there didn't seem a genuine prime world class contender out there for Naz at this point. It's interesting to note that for a decent part of his WBO title reign Juan Manuel Marquez was his number one contender.
For me however, missing the prime Barrera fight and not fighting Morales or Marquez were not what makes me look back at Naz's career with a hint of disappointment.
It's the fact that throughout his career he stated his ambition was to unify the divisions all the way up to light welter. A big ambition yes but after taking the Featherweight Division in such style it seemed the natural progression would be to move up to Super feather and pit his skills against the big names up there.
After beating Cesar Soto at the end of 1999, Naz should have moved up to a division that boasted such champions as Diego Corrales, Acelino Freitas, Joel Casamayor and one Floyd Mayweather! Can you imagine a focused Naz up against the brash and brilliant Floyd?
If he was bored at Featherweight there was plenty of motivation to move up and really cash in and leave a true legacy.
But he stayed at Feather and beat past it ex Super Bantam Bungu and the exciting but china chinned Augie Sanchez. When the Barrera fight finally happened, the script was for Naz to really shine against a man with a legendary name but thought to be faded (hmmm this sounds familiar?)
Naseem should have been a bona fide legend. For what it's worth if Naz had fought Barrera in 1995 I think Naz would have won on points. I don't think he'd have got the knockout. Sure Junior Jones did it but that seemed a complete one off to me. Barrera more than proved his toughness since.
I think Naz would have been too much for an inexperienced Marquez but it'd have been an entertaining battle.
At Super Feather, I think Naz would have outsmarted Freitas, had some serious problems before edging out a points win over Corrales, beaten Casamayor and a match with Floyd could have gone either way.

[Coco]

I believe Hamed under achieved, but still ranks as one of our best ever fighters. He had talent to burn and was p4p one of the hardest hitters out there.
In fact he probably hit too hard for his own good as it was primarily responsible for neglecting his other skills.
His ego let him believe he he could rely soley on that to beat anyone. Also his financial success waned his desire and he didn't train as hard as he could
IMO he would have def beaten the MAB that Junior Jones did
Nevertheless love him or hate him he transcended the sport and was fabulous entertainment
FW was so confident of his abilities he did not protect him at all

[stujones]

I don't think we will ever know. Its a bit like the debate on whether you think a prime Barrera would have beaten a prime Hamed. Personally, I think yes.... and I think the fight supports my view point - but then equally, I think a prime Tyson would have beaten a prime Lewis and their fight doesn't support that.

For me though... the only time he fought a Bona Fide "A" level fighter in his prime, he lost.

[Old bones Ian]

For me if Naz had stayed at Super Bantam we would of seen one of the best ever.

[observer1]

Very talented and exciring fighter.

But like most champions, hunger and heart went for the sport late in their career

[Twinkle Toes]

Awesome fighter, and something this country hadn't seen before, and won't see again, at least for quite some time.

Unfortunately he lost the desire, and it did have a huge bearing on how he performed in the ring.