Prince Naseem V Salvador Sanchez

nazfan · Post by **nazfan** » 17 Sep 2005, 21:25

I reckon naz wins by KO if they both fight at the age of 23 (their primes). Sanchez use to get carried away and fight, and was made to pay before. I think this would have been an explosive fight. they both likes fats cars too. naz had the bigger punch but sanchez was better overall.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 17 Sep 2005, 21:39

Hamed was made for Salvador Sanchez. Naz's style was perfect for one of the greatest counterpunchers of all time. Sanchez either by late stoppage or a very wide decision.

britpack · Post by **britpack** » 17 Sep 2005, 22:23

Seamus wrote:Hamed was made for Salvador Sanchez. Naz's style was perfect for one of the greatest counterpunchers of all time. Sanchez either by late stoppage or a very wide decision.

yeah but he didnt have the solid defence like barrera did. i think when he takes a few clean licks, he would have gone down. i think naz knocks out barrera when he was 23. naz had a solid chin (underrated coz of his balance) and when he mixed it up, he could take anybody out. sanchez isnt impossible because he lost his mexican title fight. he had his flaws too. naz in his prime (23) could have ko'd any featherweight or small guy from any era. even jimmy wilde

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 18 Sep 2005, 07:38

britpack wrote:
Seamus wrote:Hamed was made for Salvador Sanchez. Naz's style was perfect for one of the greatest counterpunchers of all time. Sanchez either by late stoppage or a very wide decision.
yeah but he didnt have the solid defence like barrera did. i think when he takes a few clean licks, he would have gone down. i think naz knocks out barrera when he was 23. naz had a solid chin (underrated coz of his balance) and when he mixed it up, he could take anybody out. sanchez isnt impossible because he lost his mexican title fight. he had his flaws too. naz in his prime (23) could have ko'd any featherweight or small guy from any era. even jimmy wilde

Jimmy Wilde was a flyweight, only weighing about 105-112lbs, which would give him 10-20 pounds advantage. Even with that, Wilde would wipe the floor with Hamed. And I seriously doubt Naz kayoes any featherweight from any era, he couldn't beat the best of his own era, Barrera.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 18 Sep 2005, 08:22

Sanchez was in a different class to Hamed and would have picked him apart. Sanchez by Ko in about 6 rounds.

theone · Post by **theone** » 18 Sep 2005, 09:04

Yeah, i couldnt imagine a scenerio in my mind that has Naz winning. Sanchez was alot bettter than him. Imagine the Barrera fight, now imagine if barrera were naturally bigger and slightly faster.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 18 Sep 2005, 09:08

theone wrote:Yeah, i couldnt imagine a scenerio in my mind that has Naz winning. Sanchez was alot bettter than him. Imagine the Barrera fight, now imagine if barrera were naturally bigger and slightly faster.

Sanchez was much faster than Barrera and naturally bigger. Sanchez vs Naz would be no contest really. Hamed was very overhyped and was exposed evertime he stepped up in class.

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 18 Sep 2005, 12:39

yeah i can't see too many hamed takers here.sanchez was an unbelievable fighter who took a good wallop.sanchez grinds him down giving a systematic beating.12 rounds points or 14/15 round stoppage.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 18 Sep 2005, 12:43

Hamed was an "over rated lefty" like most southpaws are. Once he fought any decent caliber fighter he was destroyed. I don't even know why his name keeps coming up. He was bum. He should have been in the WWF, he was all show and NO-GO......

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 18 Sep 2005, 13:56

ringsider wrote:Hamed was an "over rated lefty" like most southpaws are. Once he fought any decent caliber fighter he was destroyed. I don't even know why his name keeps coming up. He was bum. He should have been in the WWF, he was all show and NO-GO......

Don't give up the day job mate... if you've got one.....

vagabundo55 · Post by **vagabundo55** » 18 Sep 2005, 17:30

You can't compare Naz to Salvador Sanchez in terms of a competitive fight. It would be completely one sided. Sanchez TKOs Naz in a 15 rounder. And in a 12 rounder he probably still TKO's Naz or at least wins practically every round. Sanchez also had an iron chin. And Sanchez' defense is better than Barrera's, sometimes he'd just take a shot to counterpunch. But for every shot that landed on him he'd land at least 4. If you watch the last round of the fight with Gomez, he takes a hard right, and in return Sanchez lands about 3 shots. Naz had great punching power and raw talent. But he didn't have anywhere near the skills to take on Sanchez, or any all time top featherweight for that matter. Sanchez also liked to trade shots with his opponents but he was a master counterpuncher rarely getting hit himself. He could stand in front of you, hit you with 10 shots and you'd only be able to land about 1 or 2. Now I don't think Barrera's defense would allow him to do that. If you don't believe this here's a link to a video http://www.ddanzi.com/ddanziilbo/102/10 ... xing11.wmv watch the fight after the Nelson TKO. NOTE: might not work on firefox.. don't know why it's not working on mine at the moment. Sometimes it does work though.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 18 Sep 2005, 17:55

britpack wrote

yeah but he didnt have the solid defence like barrera did. i think when he takes a few clean licks, he would have gone down. i think naz knocks out barrera when he was 23. naz had a solid chin (underrated coz of his balance) and when he mixed it up, he could take anybody out. sanchez isnt impossible because he lost his mexican title fight. he had his flaws too. naz in his prime (23) could have ko'd any featherweight or small guy from any era. even jimmy wilde

ok ur love for hamed goes way beyond his fighting ability. i wouldnt rate hamed in my top 15 featherweights of all time. u saw he was overhyped and when he stepped up to fight a great fighter, he was taken to school and given a boxing lesson. and hamed was only 27, he was very much in his prime against MAB.

why is this even a topic????? Salvadore sanchez would pick apart hamed and KO hamed in mid rounds.

britpack · Post by **britpack** » 18 Sep 2005, 21:13

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:britpack wrote

yeah but he didnt have the solid defence like barrera did. i think when he takes a few clean licks, he would have gone down. i think naz knocks out barrera when he was 23. naz had a solid chin (underrated coz of his balance) and when he mixed it up, he could take anybody out. sanchez isnt impossible because he lost his mexican title fight. he had his flaws too. naz in his prime (23) could have ko'd any featherweight or small guy from any era. even jimmy wilde

ok ur love for hamed goes way beyond his fighting ability. i wouldnt rate hamed in my top 15 featherweights of all time. u saw he was overhyped and when he stepped up to fight a great fighter, he was taken to school and given a boxing lesson. and hamed was only 27, he was very much in his prime against MAB.

why is this even a topic????? Salvadore sanchez would pick apart hamed and KO hamed in mid rounds.

he was 27 but past his prime by 5 years. in his prime barrera was ducking him while naz was fighting and beating the best. barrera would not face guys like kelly but had slim fast and waited 6 years later to fight dangerous guys like kelly. naz was the best featherweight of the 90's by a mile. his electrifying spped and power had diminshed by 27 and he wasn't very elusive either. he ballooned up by 3 stones between fights. he wasn't in the best form of his life. in his prime he was as fast as sanchez but had a much bigger punch. sanchez doesnt really have barrera's defence either (even marco was rocked a few times, check his website). sanchez was beaten up by a mexican bum, so i think he is a bot overhyped too (just like you say about naz who never lost to a brit or an american). he lost at domestic level and if he lived i think he would have lost again. he was no superman, but he is a bit like boxings elvis. if naz wasnt so rich and his head wasnt so big, i think he could have beaten morales who is alot easier to hit. pacman is right up his street. thats a great careeer even without barrera. i think he beats barrera 4 years earlier and maybe even in a rematch now. NAZ ALWAYS HAS A PUNCHERS CHANCE AGAINST ANY FEATHERWEIGHT OF ANY ERA!!!

britpack · Post by **britpack** » 18 Sep 2005, 21:19

ringsider wrote:Hamed was an "over rated lefty" like most southpaws are. Once he fought any decent caliber fighter he was destroyed. I don't even know why his name keeps coming up. He was bum. He should have been in the WWF, he was all show and NO-GO......

motherfucking hater he had 17 title defences and put british boxing on the map and in to PPV. he shut up the best america had to offer and even decked kelly in his won backyard. he beat alot of tough guys and did it by ko. guys like amateur champion and undefeated alicea, tom johnson, mccullough, soto, ingle etc. barrera didnt fight guys like that in the 90's except for junior jones and we all know what happened there. naz was agreat ko artist and dont hate. especially when none of his peers were perfect either. especially when they were ducking him in his prime (1995-1999).

britpack · Post by **britpack** » 18 Sep 2005, 21:23

vagabundo55 wrote:You can't compare Naz to Salvador Sanchez in terms of a competitive fight. It would be completely one sided. Sanchez TKOs Naz in a 15 rounder. And in a 12 rounder he probably still TKO's Naz or at least wins practically every round. Sanchez also had an iron chin. And Sanchez' defense is better than Barrera's, sometimes he'd just take a shot to counterpunch. But for every shot that landed on him he'd land at least 4. If you watch the last round of the fight with Gomez, he takes a hard right, and in return Sanchez lands about 3 shots. Naz had great punching power and raw talent. But he didn't have anywhere near the skills to take on Sanchez, or any all time top featherweight for that matter. Sanchez also liked to trade shots with his opponents but he was a master counterpuncher rarely getting hit himself. He could stand in front of you, hit you with 10 shots and you'd only be able to land about 1 or 2. Now I don't think Barrera's defense would allow him to do that. If you don't believe this here's a link to a video http://www.ddanzi.com/ddanziilbo/102/10 ... xing11.wmv watch the fight after the Nelson TKO. NOTE: might not work on firefox.. don't know why it's not working on mine at the moment. Sometimes it does work though.

naz looked greater than that when he fought bums. nelson was green and inexperienced so dont talk about that. looking good against bums is easy. go watch naz v's bill hardy who was a european champion. better than them guys you are showing me. sanchez was also over-rated and had many flaws which had been exposed at national level. he improved but they were still there. if he didnt die, then his reckless style in the ring would have got him another loss. make no mistake, naz can beat this guy. you said he often had to take punches in order to counter punch. a big mistake with naz. if you do that with him you go to sleep. fighting with naz is a big no no. you have to stand back and counter punch. walk forward counter punchers like sanchez and marquez have to crawl under a rock and hide, because they know what happens when you trade with naz. you may hit him more times, but when he hits you........

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 18 Sep 2005, 21:28

britpack

he was 27 but past his prime by 5 years. in his prime barrera was ducking him while naz was fighting and beating the best. barrera would not face guys like kelly but had slim fast and waited 6 years later to fight dangerous guys like kelly. naz was the best featherweight of the 90's by a mile. his electrifying spped and power had diminshed by 27 and he wasn't very elusive either.

only die hard naseem fans think that way. no offense but hames was just an overated overhyped fighter who drifted back to reality once he lost to MAB. MAB showed the world hamed wasnt as good as we all thought.

and saying hamed wasnt in his prime is bullshit, and only die hard hamed fans make up exuses for hamed. 27 is not past ur prime, that in fact should be ur peak!!!! hamed looked the same as ever in his bouts leading up to MAB and MAB. fact is an old kevin kelly exposed hamed, and MAB took advantge of it. hamed never beat great fighters before he faced MAB. it was a step up in competetion. MAB beat a prime hamed. MAB is the better fighter.

hamed is not a top 10 featherweight of all time.

salvdaor sanchez is on a much different level than hamed. hamed cannot be compared with a great legend in sanchez. did u ever see sanchez fight?????

salvador sanchez would have taken apart naseem hamed and made him look like a child. danny lopez hit harder than hamed yet couldnt dent sanchez.

please dont argue with us if ur not going to accept reality that hamed was just an overhyped overated fighter. i know u love him, but the ffact that u think he could beat sanchez is ridiculous and laughable not to mention ur making exuses of why he lost to MAB.

MAB was better!!!!! before the mab fight, NO ONE was saying hamed was past his prime. hamed was young and at his best, he simply lost to the better fighter

britpack · Post by **britpack** » 18 Sep 2005, 21:34

dalek wrote:yeah i can't see too many hamed takers here.sanchez was an unbelievable fighter who took a good wallop.sanchez grinds him down giving a systematic beating.12 rounds points or 14/15 round stoppage.

taking a great wallop was something kelly was known for. but that isnt enough to beat naseem. thats why barrera opted not to take any wallops against an old fat naseem. the prime naseem whould have kncoked anybody out that likes to trade. sanchez took great wallops from people who couldnt give great wallops. naz was the most electrifying puncher in the lower weight divisions. i dont think sanchez could have handled them punches. people think he is elvis just coz he died. he was beaten by a bum you know. he had his flaws and would have paid sooner or later. dont believ the mexican hype over this over-rated dead guy

britpack · Post by **britpack** » 18 Sep 2005, 21:36

theone wrote:Yeah, i couldnt imagine a scenerio in my mind that has Naz winning. Sanchez was alot bettter than him. Imagine the Barrera fight, now imagine if barrera were naturally bigger and slightly faster.

watch naz v badillo or naz v robinson. watch kelly try to trade with naz. then try imagining the scenario again. naz was an electrifying fighter with great speed and power. they ran from him in his prime and sanchez would have been killed if he fought him in their respective primes. nobdoy can trade with naz. barrera proved that. trading with naz is a lose lose situation

britpack · Post by **britpack** » 18 Sep 2005, 21:39

Seamus wrote:Hamed was made for Salvador Sanchez. Naz's style was perfect for one of the greatest counterpunchers of all time. Sanchez either by late stoppage or a very wide decision.

one of the greatest counter punchers my ass. he walked forward and use to take a shot in order to counter at times. he was someone with great tools but great flaws just like naz. maybe more. he was so easy to hit and if he wasnt over-rated for dying young, he would have been figured out quicker than naz ever was. quite a few guy sin the 80's would have beat him. i think nelson was inexperienced and by 1986 had more than enough skill and tools to teach sanchez a lesson or two. the problem is that sanchez likes to trade and mix it up. when you do that with naz, flesh is flesh and you get KNOCKED THE fornicate OUT. nobody could handle naz's power. thats why a prime barrera was hding from naz's shadow. you cant even fight with tthe fat naz because he still ko's your ass.

vagabundo55 · Post by **vagabundo55** » 18 Sep 2005, 21:56

britpack wrote:
vagabundo55 wrote:You can't compare Naz to Salvador Sanchez in terms of a competitive fight. It would be completely one sided. Sanchez TKOs Naz in a 15 rounder. And in a 12 rounder he probably still TKO's Naz or at least wins practically every round. Sanchez also had an iron chin. And Sanchez' defense is better than Barrera's, sometimes he'd just take a shot to counterpunch. But for every shot that landed on him he'd land at least 4. If you watch the last round of the fight with Gomez, he takes a hard right, and in return Sanchez lands about 3 shots. Naz had great punching power and raw talent. But he didn't have anywhere near the skills to take on Sanchez, or any all time top featherweight for that matter. Sanchez also liked to trade shots with his opponents but he was a master counterpuncher rarely getting hit himself. He could stand in front of you, hit you with 10 shots and you'd only be able to land about 1 or 2. Now I don't think Barrera's defense would allow him to do that. If you don't believe this here's a link to a video http://www.ddanzi.com/ddanziilbo/102/10 ... xing11.wmv watch the fight after the Nelson TKO. NOTE: might not work on firefox.. don't know why it's not working on mine at the moment. Sometimes it does work though.
naz looked greater than that when he fought bums. nelson was green and inexperienced so dont talk about that. looking good against bums is easy. go watch naz v's bill hardy who was a european champion. better than them guys you are showing me. sanchez was also over-rated and had many flaws which had been exposed at national level. he improved but they were still there. if he didnt die, then his reckless style in the ring would have got him another loss. make no mistake, naz can beat this guy. you said he often had to take punches in order to counter punch. a big mistake with naz. if you do that with him you go to sleep. fighting with naz is a big no no. you have to stand back and counter punch. walk forward counter punchers like sanchez and marquez have to crawl under a rock and hide, because they know what happens when you trade with naz. you may hit him more times, but when he hits you........

Are Nelson, Gomez, Lopez, and a whole bunch of others that were top 10 contendors bums? Because that's what Sanchez fought.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 18 Sep 2005, 22:16

Notice how Britpack jumps to the defense of Naseem. As I said earlier the Britts don't know shit about fighters. They adopted this southpaw clown Naseem, thought he was something for fighting tomatoes. He fights someone with talent, he gets destroyed. We now hear no more of him except in the dreams of the wishful thinking wish they knew boxing types like Britpack. Hey Britpack drink another six pack and tells us some more of your fight fantasies. Stick with fooseball in the pub knucklehead.

britpack · Post by **britpack** » 18 Sep 2005, 22:25

silkov wrote:Sanchez was in a different class to Hamed and would have picked him apart. Sanchez by Ko in about 6 rounds.

he couldnt pick anybody aprt in his first mexican title fight

britpack · Post by **britpack** » 18 Sep 2005, 23:08

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:britpack
he was 27 but past his prime by 5 years. in his prime barrera was ducking him while naz was fighting and beating the best. barrera would not face guys like kelly but had slim fast and waited 6 years later to fight dangerous guys like kelly. naz was the best featherweight of the 90's by a mile. his electrifying spped and power had diminshed by 27 and he wasn't very elusive either.
only die hard naseem fans think that way. no offense but hames was just an overated overhyped fighter who drifted back to reality once he lost to MAB. MAB showed the world hamed wasnt as good as we all thought.

and saying hamed wasnt in his prime is bullshit, and only die hard hamed fans make up exuses for hamed. 27 is not past ur prime, that in fact should be ur peak!!!! hamed looked the same as ever in his bouts leading up to MAB and MAB. fact is an old kevin kelly exposed hamed, and MAB took advantge of it. hamed never beat great fighters before he faced MAB. it was a step up in competetion. MAB beat a prime hamed. MAB is the better fighter.

hamed is not a top 10 featherweight of all time.

salvdaor sanchez is on a much different level than hamed. hamed cannot be compared with a great legend in sanchez. did u ever see sanchez fight?????

salvador sanchez would have taken apart naseem hamed and made him look like a child. danny lopez hit harder than hamed yet couldnt dent sanchez.

please dont argue with us if ur not going to accept reality that hamed was just an overhyped overated fighter. i know u love him, but the ffact that u think he could beat sanchez is ridiculous and laughable not to mention ur making exuses of why he lost to MAB.

MAB was better!!!!! before the mab fight, NO ONE was saying hamed was past his prime. hamed was young and at his best, he simply lost to the better fighter

yeah. and barrera is better than sanchez too and beat more top fighters. dont come out but if, coz but if is a load of crap. danny lopez never hit harder than hamed, and hamed had the power to dent anybody. barrera beat hamed, but i still think he has a punchers chance against anybody who stands right in front of him. the way to beat hamed is by counter punching and standing back. not counter punching and walking forward. hamed beats anybody who does that. kevik kelly wasnt old if you knew what was what. thats the kelly that barrera foguht. kelly fought naz and was burned. same happens to anybody who decides to figh with him. and yes ive seen em both from beginning to end.

britpack · Post by **britpack** » 18 Sep 2005, 23:11

ringsider wrote:Notice how Britpack jumps to the defense of Naseem. As I said earlier the Britts don't know shit about fighters. They adopted this southpaw clown Naseem, thought he was something for fighting tomatoes. He fights someone with talent, he gets destroyed. We now hear no more of him except in the dreams of the wishful thinking wish they knew boxing types like Britpack. Hey Britpack drink another six pack and tells us some more of your fight fantasies. Stick with fooseball in the pub knucklehead.

your the knucklehead who knows nothing about boxing. for starters naz isnt a southpaw, he is clearly ambidextrous and alot of his ko's came from the orthodox stance including kelly, sanchez and some of the more devastating ones. he was fighting elite guys and johnson and kelly were tipped by the americans to beat hamed. johnson was the linear champ and many americans thought he would be too good for naz. but naz burned him and kelly. go back to watching rugby with helmets (rugby for fags) until you actually learn something about boxing. i know you cant take it that an american couldnt beat him but no need to cry. donald curry was over-rated too but who's complaining?

britpack · Post by **britpack** » 18 Sep 2005, 23:16

vagabundo55 wrote:
britpack wrote:
vagabundo55 wrote:You can't compare Naz to Salvador Sanchez in terms of a competitive fight. It would be completely one sided. Sanchez TKOs Naz in a 15 rounder. And in a 12 rounder he probably still TKO's Naz or at least wins practically every round. Sanchez also had an iron chin. And Sanchez' defense is better than Barrera's, sometimes he'd just take a shot to counterpunch. But for every shot that landed on him he'd land at least 4. If you watch the last round of the fight with Gomez, he takes a hard right, and in return Sanchez lands about 3 shots. Naz had great punching power and raw talent. But he didn't have anywhere near the skills to take on Sanchez, or any all time top featherweight for that matter. Sanchez also liked to trade shots with his opponents but he was a master counterpuncher rarely getting hit himself. He could stand in front of you, hit you with 10 shots and you'd only be able to land about 1 or 2. Now I don't think Barrera's defense would allow him to do that. If you don't believe this here's a link to a video http://www.ddanzi.com/ddanziilbo/102/10 ... xing11.wmv watch the fight after the Nelson TKO. NOTE: might not work on firefox.. don't know why it's not working on mine at the moment. Sometimes it does work though.
naz looked greater than that when he fought bums. nelson was green and inexperienced so dont talk about that. looking good against bums is easy. go watch naz v's bill hardy who was a european champion. better than them guys you are showing me. sanchez was also over-rated and had many flaws which had been exposed at national level. he improved but they were still there. if he didnt die, then his reckless style in the ring would have got him another loss. make no mistake, naz can beat this guy. you said he often had to take punches in order to counter punch. a big mistake with naz. if you do that with him you go to sleep. fighting with naz is a big no no. you have to stand back and counter punch. walk forward counter punchers like sanchez and marquez have to crawl under a rock and hide, because they know what happens when you trade with naz. you may hit him more times, but when he hits you........
Are Nelson, Gomez, Lopez, and a whole bunch of others that were top 10 contendors bums? Because that's what Sanchez fought.

nelson was green, and alot of the other guys were not all that either. yes they were top contenders but they were no better than the guys hamed fought and beat. they were both fighting and beating world class guys. in the 90s hamed was fighting tougher guys than what barrera was fighting. naz's desctruction of bungu shows that junior jones was full of shit. jones would have crumbled under the prince. so would barrera in the 90s. they were the days of his highness. not 2001 when he was ballooning up between fights and had diminished speed and reflexes. barrera didnt beat naz at his best. yes fighters can be past their best at 27. alot of other athletes experience the same. qucik starters like owen are past their prime in their early 20s. being past your prime is not a crime and barrera did a great job. he also beat morales who until this weekened was believed to be pound for pound number 1 by some. barrera is much better than sanchez in many ways. dont even begin to use that argument. sanchez was flawed like naz and i think the prince has a punchers chance with a guy who takes so many shots to the head. they never tatse the power until they taste the power of naz. even barrera felt it but his defence is superior to sanchez. blocking shots with your head and countering is not a good idea with naz