It is interesting to look back at some matchups that may have happened, Floyd Mayweather is an interesting proposition but i think he would have been too big and too fast..Mayweather is really something special and if he stays out of prison he will be on his way to an all time great IMO.
Another guy who called Hamed out a few times after his earlier fights was Acelino Freitas, that fight could have been interesting with Hamed's power and Freitas's less than stellar chin...however again Naz would have had to move up and Freitas was a massive puncher back then and not so one dimensional as he is now.
Anyway i answer the quesiton of the thread as....No. I don't think he would be an all time great Featherweight.
Did Naz achieve his legacy as one of the greatest ?????
-
Old bones Ian
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 11805
- Joined: 13 Jul 2004, 07:33
when you look at Naz's record there are some stand out figures. unbeaten fighters that lost to him by knockout are are Ley, Padilla, Alicia, Molina, Ingle.
And fighters that have never been stopped before that lost by knock out to him, Cruz, Leindo, Robinson, Lawal, Johnson, Cabrera, Badillo, Bungu.
theres some good fighters in that lot
And fighters that have never been stopped before that lost by knock out to him, Cruz, Leindo, Robinson, Lawal, Johnson, Cabrera, Badillo, Bungu.
theres some good fighters in that lot
One thing I will say, whether you loved him or hated him, Naz was great for boxing in this country.
Sure, he was an arrogant wanker at times, but everyone knew who he was, and eveyone watched his fights. I know he was around at what may well come to be regarded as a stellar time for British boxing but he was a big, big draw on his own. And we could do with someone at that level now. Can Khan do it? Let's hope so.
Sure, he was an arrogant wanker at times, but everyone knew who he was, and eveyone watched his fights. I know he was around at what may well come to be regarded as a stellar time for British boxing but he was a big, big draw on his own. And we could do with someone at that level now. Can Khan do it? Let's hope so.
I agree, Kevin Kelly `s name was brought up as proof of the great fighters he beat but Kevin was not the same fighter that beat Goya Vargas some 4yrs before.jamesmcdonnell wrote:he was a great BRITISH fighter, but all time great at featherweight...nah.
Like almost all of the big names on his record he was past his best by a long way.
Verygood British fighter, never an all time great.
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45229
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
His fight with Medina in retrospect was a very impressive performance, Naz had problems, but broke him down and did a number on him. When you consider the problems he gave Scott Harrison years later, even in the second fight he had his moments, that was a very good performance.
Had he fought and beaten the likes of Marquez or Barrera, then we would be talking about him in very different terms.
Nobody save Pacquaio has had the bollocks to get in there and risk their titles against Marquez, and looking at that fight, I think they were wise not to. Neither hits as hard as Manny, and Marquez is technically superior to both in my opinion, and he carries a whack too.
Had he fought and beaten the likes of Marquez or Barrera, then we would be talking about him in very different terms.
Nobody save Pacquaio has had the bollocks to get in there and risk their titles against Marquez, and looking at that fight, I think they were wise not to. Neither hits as hard as Manny, and Marquez is technically superior to both in my opinion, and he carries a whack too.
-
black panther
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4095
- Joined: 11 Dec 2003, 07:06
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45229
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
Hmm I wonder how long he could have continued to make Super Bantam though, he was a short featherweight, but broad shouldered and had legs like tree trunks. I doubt if he could have continued to make weight for that long and he was obviously very strong at the weight.
His fight with Robinson was also a very good win considering Naz' lack of experience, he just punched holes in Robinsons guard.
His fight with Robinson was also a very good win considering Naz' lack of experience, he just punched holes in Robinsons guard.
No - He was a great fighter (as is a bit better than good) but an all time great, no.
Lets go through his title reign and look at the "edge" he had in most of his fights.
1 Steve Robinson - No time to prepare, on the slide.
2 Said Lawal - Not Good enough.
3 Daniel Alicia - No expereicne, not good enough.
4 Manuel Medina - Good title defence here, can't fault that one.
5 Regimilo Molina - Not Good enough.
6 Tom Johnson - On the slide.
7 Billy Hardy - On the slide, Not good enough.
8 Jaun Cabrera - Not good enough.
9 Jose Badillo - Not good enough
10 Kevin Kelley - On the slide
11 Wilfredo Vaszquez - On the slide
12 Wayne McCullough - No Featherweight.
13 Paul Ingle - Not expereicned enough
14 Cesar Soto - Poor world champion who was on the slide
15 Vuyani Bungu - No Featherweight, rusty, on the slide
16 Augie Sanchez - Not good enough, inexperienced
17 Marco Antionio Barrera - A+ Performer in his peak, Hamed lost
18 Manuel Calvo - Not good enough.
I'm not saying that out of bias, but it was something that if this forum was around then we would have been saying BEFORE the contest. Hamed was always heavily favoured, nobody ever saw the majority of these fights as a MAJOR threat (which does demonstrate how talented he was) but he lacked the challenge of an all time great.
Roy Jones hardly lost a round in his career untill he fought Tarver but still had lots of challenges, he was the underdog vs Toney and a LOT of respected critics thought he would fall vs Ruiz. Hamed very rarely had this, some thought Robinson in Cardiff might have been to much for the inexperience Hamed, but in reality 4 weeks wasn't long enough for Robinson to prepare - so really wasn't much of a threat.
Only 4 of Hamed's title defences went on to do something after their encounter with the Prince. Ingle, Medina, McCullough (gave Morales a good fight) and Barrera - that says alot to me.
Not saying he couldn't have been an all time great, but he never had the challenge and thus falls short.
Lets go through his title reign and look at the "edge" he had in most of his fights.
1 Steve Robinson - No time to prepare, on the slide.
2 Said Lawal - Not Good enough.
3 Daniel Alicia - No expereicne, not good enough.
4 Manuel Medina - Good title defence here, can't fault that one.
5 Regimilo Molina - Not Good enough.
6 Tom Johnson - On the slide.
7 Billy Hardy - On the slide, Not good enough.
8 Jaun Cabrera - Not good enough.
9 Jose Badillo - Not good enough
10 Kevin Kelley - On the slide
11 Wilfredo Vaszquez - On the slide
12 Wayne McCullough - No Featherweight.
13 Paul Ingle - Not expereicned enough
14 Cesar Soto - Poor world champion who was on the slide
15 Vuyani Bungu - No Featherweight, rusty, on the slide
16 Augie Sanchez - Not good enough, inexperienced
17 Marco Antionio Barrera - A+ Performer in his peak, Hamed lost
18 Manuel Calvo - Not good enough.
I'm not saying that out of bias, but it was something that if this forum was around then we would have been saying BEFORE the contest. Hamed was always heavily favoured, nobody ever saw the majority of these fights as a MAJOR threat (which does demonstrate how talented he was) but he lacked the challenge of an all time great.
Roy Jones hardly lost a round in his career untill he fought Tarver but still had lots of challenges, he was the underdog vs Toney and a LOT of respected critics thought he would fall vs Ruiz. Hamed very rarely had this, some thought Robinson in Cardiff might have been to much for the inexperience Hamed, but in reality 4 weeks wasn't long enough for Robinson to prepare - so really wasn't much of a threat.
Only 4 of Hamed's title defences went on to do something after their encounter with the Prince. Ingle, Medina, McCullough (gave Morales a good fight) and Barrera - that says alot to me.
Not saying he couldn't have been an all time great, but he never had the challenge and thus falls short.
Good comprehensive analysis Stu. I mostly agree, except to add that for a time Hamed IMO was so good that he made all those fights uncompetitive, he might have had en edge but he toyed with them before flattening them. And looked like he thoroughly enjoyed knocking people out.
I would also suggest that in the case of some of those fighters Hamed actually finished them which is why more of them didn't go on to acheive more post-Naz. It often happens when fighters suffer the kind of heavy knockouts that Hamed used to dish out.
I would also suggest that in the case of some of those fighters Hamed actually finished them which is why more of them didn't go on to acheive more post-Naz. It often happens when fighters suffer the kind of heavy knockouts that Hamed used to dish out.
In my opinion Hamed was an all time British great fighter no question, but I would struggle to rate him in the top ten All Time Great Featherweight list. Mainly because he never beat another great fighter.
Although his punching power rates with any Featherweight in history I feel. But as we know punching power alone is not enough to be considered an all time great. Someone like Azumah Nelson would have given Hamed a scientific beating of the worst kind.
I always felt it was a bit of a shame he didn't pick up a World Title at Super-Bantamweight. It was also a shame that the Gainer grudge match never happened.
Hamed achieved a great deal and was a fun career to watch over the years but he never achieved the hights that he claimed he would.
Although his punching power rates with any Featherweight in history I feel. But as we know punching power alone is not enough to be considered an all time great. Someone like Azumah Nelson would have given Hamed a scientific beating of the worst kind.
I always felt it was a bit of a shame he didn't pick up a World Title at Super-Bantamweight. It was also a shame that the Gainer grudge match never happened.
Hamed achieved a great deal and was a fun career to watch over the years but he never achieved the hights that he claimed he would.
Naz was a great fighter who didn't achieve greatness. Strange, but not by any means unique. An all-time British great but on the world scene, far from it.
However, I don't give a fornicate what anyone says - a peak, focused Ingle trained Hamed would have beaten anyone within a division of him...and you can have Mayweather in that.
However, I don't give a fornicate what anyone says - a peak, focused Ingle trained Hamed would have beaten anyone within a division of him...and you can have Mayweather in that.
Fair enough, although Barrera had only 1 fight at Featherweight at the time. He did have the challenge - but look what happend.tonyevs wrote:But he did have the challenge.stujones wrote:
17 Marco Antionio Barrera - A+ Performer in his peak, Hamed lost
Not saying he couldn't have been an all time great, but he never had the challenge and thus falls short.
Greats WIN their challenge. Oscar done it by moving up the weights, Roy Jones did by moving up the weights and beating Toney, even though Hopkins lost his first challenge, he did go on to CLEAN up the devision beating guys in their prime - Hopkins' wins compare to Hameds wins over Espinosa, Norwood and a prime Vasquez, Johnson and Kelley - oh yeah, he never done that.
Hamed has never been the underdog, sign of how good he was possibly, but also an indication of his opposition - I cannot think of one all time great who has never been the betting underdog, with the exception of Tyson - but as a Heavyweight the best you can do is clean up the devision, which he did in the 1980's.