Prince Naseem Hamed; overrated or arrogant?

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 17 Sep 2005, 08:36

What do you make of the Prince?

There is a school of thought that says, when faced with quality oppositon, Naz is found wanting, but I believe that Naz is simply arrogant.

The Prince had tremedous talent & if he had listened to his trainer, knuckled down & got back to basics, he could have been one of the all-time greats.

He became rich & complacent & arrogantly believed that he could KO all his opponents.

He's also shown a lack of desire, evidenced in the fact that he disappeared after the Barrera loss, rather than focusing & going right back after Barrera.

It's sad to see him now, bloated, out of shape (& rich

)! What a waste!!!!! :x

Lefthookhappy19 · Post by **Lefthookhappy19** » 17 Sep 2005, 09:31

Hamed was the best featherweight of the 90's. Not even debatable. Barrera and Morales prior to when Barrera fought Naz never fought the quality Naz did. They have now sure, but not back then. They fought at superbantam mostly. Naz fought everyone but Barrera and Morales, with JMM opting out of a Naseem fight, not the other way which some stupid people claim.

The Barrera fight was also hardly a whitewash as Sky love to claim. And anyone who watched that channel 4 documentary knows how fucked up Naz's preparation was. His own fault though.

barry · Post by **barry** » 17 Sep 2005, 10:00

Many people just don't like Hamed, which is why you hear a lot trying to claim that he was overrated, but reality and fact tells a different story as Hamed not only fought and beat the very best of the featherweights, but he dominated and usually won very big with the knockout, which as I have said many times before, was Hamed's downfall. He simply fell in love with his own power and ability to end fights and instead of properly training for Barrera, he nonchalantly went about training in that bout by training for power only without no backup, nor any real boxing technique to counter Barrera with. Hamed thought he was going to knockout Barrera, and I did as well, but Barrera come out and fought the fight of his life and dominated Hamed. For one punch knockout power ability, Hamed was hard to match and he was certainly a great talent who unified the featherweight division…Hamed overrated…I don’t think so!

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 17 Sep 2005, 10:07

Hamed had far more potential and natural talent than either Barrera or Morales. He could and should have beat both Barrera and Morales. I think he would have had an easier time with Morales as Morales would not have boxed off the back foot like Barrera did.

Barrera-Hamed - Hamed didn't train but was 2-3 points down on a UD, hardly disgraceful.

Its interesting to compare common opponents of Morales/MAB and Hamed, Hamed ko'd a few guys in 2 that took Morales the distance.

Allot of the guys Hamed fought are also very underated. Look at his CV:

Robinson - WBO champ beat MkKenzie and MacMillan
Medina - 5time feather champ at his best? Went close with Espinosa before this and was stopped late by a Hamed suffering from flu.
Johnson - long time IBF champ
Kelly - ex-champ near his best
Wilfredo Vazquez - 3 weight champion and current WBA at feather
Wayne McCullough - not an ATG but a top contender nether the less.
Paul Ingle - beat Medina & Junior Jones after he lost to Hamed, it was a sad end to his career.
Cesar Soto - just beat Espinosa to take the WBC belt into the fight
Vuyani Bungu - long time Super-Batam IBF champ, beat Kennedy McKinney before Barrera got to him, then beat him again after

So there are 7champs he beat not bad for someone who supposedly gets beat when he steps up the competition

, won every single 1 of the belts (just didn't keep them and pay sanctionign fees), also pretty damn good for someone who went down hill in terms of skill after the Robinson win.

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

Good fighter but never beat any pound for pounders at the same time as he was....

And it really is as simple as that.

Had he beaten Barrera then you could say yeah he's up there. I have no time for men that "coulda shoulda and woulda".

jeej · Post by **jeej** » 17 Sep 2005, 19:01

I watched that Channel 4 documentary, it was really good. Naz seemed more concerned bout what hotel suite he was getting than the fight.

Although at the end of the day we are only accountable to ourselves, I personally believe that the people around Naz through out his career helped to make him so arrogant. I know Ingle has said he had, at times, trouble controlling Naz, but it seems a little hard to believe that it was just Naz himself creating his own invincible hype. I think he got caught in the machine and his attitude was his downfall.

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 17 Sep 2005, 19:48

Watching his fights at super bantam, he was an absolute sensation. Standing right in front of some serious hombres looking to do damage, he'd just move his chin a few inches as the punches sailed past him, then explode with the type of shots that could knock over a wall.

I think the type of confidence he had made him into the world's first million dollar featherweight, but also lead to his downfall. So I think his peak was always going to be pretty short, and I guess any ambitions to be an all time great went right out the window along with it.

Amazing reflexes will only take you so far.

He gets a lot of critsism on there boards, but he had a hell of a lot going for him: great chin ( and yes, poor balance ), huge heart, terrific power in either hand, speed and a true killer insinct.

One of the most exciting featherweights we've ever seen.

nazfan · Post by **nazfan** » 17 Sep 2005, 20:30

arrogant and stupid. relied on his power and his skills diminshed. if he carried on i think he still could have had a hall of fame career (even without beating barrera). he did alot for british boxing as our first pay per view fighter. he made the yanks sit up and listen (after kicking two of their finests 'butts') and brought british boxing back into the world scene. he didnt decide to stay local and make easy money like benn eubvank and crew. at least he moved his ass to fight the best and was beaten by the best. its better than sitting on your arse and getting it handed to you by a bum in your own backyard. naz was as talented as jimmy wilde and ted lewis but he never fulfilled his potential.

nazfan · Post by **nazfan** » 17 Sep 2005, 20:33

someone mentioned it wasnt a whitewash. id have to agree. i had the fight 8 rounds to 4 for barrera. however, the rounds naz won was because barrera was waiting for him (except the 10th which naz won fair and square). naz was jabbing and wouldnt commit so barrera waited. by the fifth naz lost his patience because he had no other ideas and went forward to get whooped. counter punching naz cant fight a counter puncher. thats al there was to it. he should have gone on to beat up some other fools like pacquiao. i also think his chances against morales would have been good. morales doenst have the same defence and is more open

Southpaw Stylist · Post by **Southpaw Stylist** » 17 Sep 2005, 22:07

Naz did not have poor balance.

britpack · Post by **britpack** » 17 Sep 2005, 22:28

Southpaw Stylist wrote:Naz did not have poor balance.

yeah he did. thats why it looked bad when he wasnt really getting licked that badly. it also attributed to some of his KD's. his chin was solid and in his prime he could have taken on any of these chumps. he was the best featherweight of the 90's. he was beating the best at that point. barrera was fighting bums when naz beat kelly et al. he was on slim fats too and waited for the money to be right before eating again. if barrera came to fight naz in the uk back in 1997, he would have got knocked the fornicate out

Southpaw Stylist · Post by **Southpaw Stylist** » 17 Sep 2005, 23:28

Poor balance or not great balance?

I think you need to re-word it.

Grilling Machine · Post by **Grilling Machine** » 19 Sep 2005, 02:13

Unless I'm mistaken: didn't Nigel Benn spend a few years in the States early in his career?

Anyway, Naz.
At his peak (arguably '95,) I do think he really was good enough to KO pretty much any featherweight.

The problem was underfeeding him with much weaker opponents for too long; he just got used to easy wins.

Gordon · Post by **Gordon** » 19 Sep 2005, 07:24

Naz in my mind was a mini Tyson.

He blew everyone away. He had no respect for anyones name or reputation, he took on all comers.

That became his downfall. Like Tyson he became complacent and thought he was indestructable.

his contempt showed in his lack of pre fight training.

Why he never came back after Barrera I'll never know. A couple of months training and a re-match and the Naz would have reversed the decision.

He was awkward and untidy and you always wondered what if someone landed a bomb on his chin, but he always managed to get back on his feet and comeback stronger.

Like Tyson, I still don't think the world saw the best of Prince Naseem Hamed.

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 19 Sep 2005, 07:33

Gordon wrote:Naz in my mind was a mini Tyson.

He blew everyone away. He had no respect for anyones name or reputation, he took on all comers.

That became his downfall. Like Tyson he became complacent and thought he was indestructable.

his contempt showed in his lack of pre fight training.

Why he never came back after Barrera I'll never know. A couple of months training and a re-match and the Naz would have reversed the decision.

He was awkward and untidy and you always wondered what if someone landed a bomb on his chin, but he always managed to get back on his feet and comeback stronger.

Like Tyson, I still don't think the world saw the best of Prince Naseem Hamed.

He did come back and looked diabolical against Calvo. I think he realised then he didnt have it any longer.

johnswan1 · Post by **johnswan1** » 19 Sep 2005, 07:55

The fight against Barrera was a whitewash. No doubts about it. Naz was easily beaten and bullied throughout. Even as the fight wore on, Barrera was becoming more aggressive and landing punches at will. He won the fight by five points on one judges card and three on the other two - and that was after being deducted a point for slamming Naz's head into the turnbuckle in the 12th round. He humiliated him.

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 19 Sep 2005, 07:58

Absolute rubbish, being beaten by a few points against a guy who is undoubtedly one of the top fighters pound for pound in the world is hardly a humiliation is it? Jesus.

I think you will find a whitewash would have been 120-108 would it not?

johnswan1 · Post by **johnswan1** » 19 Sep 2005, 08:08

Watch the fight again and stop ranting you stupid fool.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 19 Sep 2005, 08:21

nickd wrote:Absolute rubbish, being beaten by a few points against a guy who is undoubtedly one of the top fighters pound for pound in the world is hardly a humiliation is it? Jesus.

I think you will find a whitewash would have been 120-108 would it not?

The fight was way too close on the scorecards, it was an abject humiliation, Hamed hardly laid a glove on Barrera all night, and got absolutely hammered over the last 3 rounds.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 19 Sep 2005, 08:24

Gordon wrote:Naz in my mind was a mini Tyson.

He blew everyone away. He had no respect for anyones name or reputation, he took on all comers.

That became his downfall. Like Tyson he became complacent and thought he was indestructable.

his contempt showed in his lack of pre fight training.

Why he never came back after Barrera I'll never know. A couple of months training and a re-match and the Naz would have reversed the decision.

He was awkward and untidy and you always wondered what if someone landed a bomb on his chin, but he always managed to get back on his feet and comeback stronger.

Like Tyson, I still don't think the world saw the best of Prince Naseem Hamed.

Good call.

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 19 Sep 2005, 08:32

johnswan1 wrote:Watch the fight again and stop ranting you stupid fool.

Who's ranting? No need for that sort of talk everyone is entitled to their opinions. Because I dont agree with you I am a stupid fool? I don't think so..... save the name calling for the playground please.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 19 Sep 2005, 17:24

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
nickd wrote:Absolute rubbish, being beaten by a few points against a guy who is undoubtedly one of the top fighters pound for pound in the world is hardly a humiliation is it? Jesus.

I think you will find a whitewash would have been 120-108 would it not?
The fight was way too close on the scorecards, it was an abject humiliation, Hamed hardly laid a glove on Barrera all night, and got absolutely hammered over the last 3 rounds.

Agree with that view James, IMO Hamed didn't "win" a round, Barrera might have not done enough in some of the rounds (thus saving an official whitewash) but there was not a single session in the fight where I thought "Hamed getting to him now" or "The fight is getting close on the cards" or "Barrera is not in control".

Barrera said after that he took his foot off for a few sessions cause he knew he was in control, of both the battle and on the score cards, and he was weary that Hamed might catch him if he got careless. Seeing the fight time and time again and watching Barrera since I completely believe him. I also believe him when he said he would smash Hamed to bits in a rematch as he would throw caution to wind as he was confident he could take his shots.

johnswan1 · Post by **johnswan1** » 19 Sep 2005, 17:24

Ah shut up moaning and watch the fight again and stop taking shit.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 20 Sep 2005, 06:10

stujones wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:
nickd wrote:Absolute rubbish, being beaten by a few points against a guy who is undoubtedly one of the top fighters pound for pound in the world is hardly a humiliation is it? Jesus.

I think you will find a whitewash would have been 120-108 would it not?
The fight was way too close on the scorecards, it was an abject humiliation, Hamed hardly laid a glove on Barrera all night, and got absolutely hammered over the last 3 rounds.
Agree with that view James, IMO Hamed didn't "win" a round, Barrera might have not done enough in some of the rounds (thus saving an official whitewash) but there was not a single session in the fight where I thought "Hamed getting to him now" or "The fight is getting close on the cards" or "Barrera is not in control".

Barrera said after that he took his foot off for a few sessions cause he knew he was in control, of both the battle and on the score cards, and he was weary that Hamed might catch him if he got careless. Seeing the fight time and time again and watching Barrera since I completely believe him. I also believe him when he said he would smash Hamed to bits in a rematch as he would throw caution to wind as he was confident he could take his shots.

Had he put his foot on the gas he could probably have stopped Hamed over the last two.

Coconut · Post by **Coconut** » 20 Sep 2005, 06:22

But the Hamed who fought Barrera was far from prime, and mostly because, as alluded to earlier, he'd fallen for his own hype. Leaving Ingle who, if he had trouble controlling him, at least knew how to coach his style, was suicide. Suarez was a yes-man, Manny did his accustomed swanning in for a few days, and Naseem was allowed to forget the combinations which set up the KO shots.

As with the chap above who said he had no time for 'could have beens', I am similarly disdainful for people who waste talent (maybe because I need so much myself...) but in terms of pure talent Naseem was on his own level.

Prince Naseem Hamed; overrated or arrogant?

Prince Naseem Hamed; overrated or arrogant?

re

not overrated

oh yeah