Azumah Nelson . vs Naseem Hamed
-
Vladimir5555
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 1221
- Joined: 12 Apr 2013, 11:38
Azumah Nelson . vs Naseem Hamed
I think Professor win by decision 116-112
Re: Azumah Nelson . vs Naseem Hamed
Nelson on points.
-
dr_devious
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 5349
- Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 09:19
Re: Azumah Nelson . vs Naseem Hamed
Nelson by KO, a clear level above Hamed
Re: Azumah Nelson . vs Naseem Hamed
Azumah Nelson W12
-
polecateddy
- Heavyweight

Re: Azumah Nelson . vs Naseem Hamed
I think it's impossible to really say how Nelson would have coped with a peak Naz. His Pat Cowdell win was quite reminiscent of say Naz's win over Billy Hardy. However Nelson was rarely as totally dominant and spectacular as Naz in his wins. And when he met Pernell Whittaker he was completely outboxed. I will go against the grain of this thread and say Naz on PTS.
Re: Azumah Nelson . vs Naseem Hamed
The Whitaker fight was at lightweight, and Whitaker>>>Hamed.
-
polecateddy
- Heavyweight

Re: Azumah Nelson . vs Naseem Hamed
I'm not trying to put Naz above Whittaker. But there's no denying there is nearly always an anti-Naz bias because people just don't like him. He should be in the boxing hall of fame, but again there's this bias. I was simply pointing out that Nelson could be outboxed. And the younger version of Naz was pretty amazing.Rover wrote:The Whitaker fight was at lightweight, and Whitaker>>>Hamed.
-
RadioElRadar
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 292
- Joined: 04 Dec 2012, 04:35
Re: Azumah Nelson . vs Naseem Hamed
I've always been a big fan of Naz and agree that he gets undersold a lot of the time but Nelson is just too good imo and would have him all figured out by the mid rounds.
The Professor by comprehensive decision.
The Professor by comprehensive decision.
Re: Azumah Nelson . vs Naseem Hamed
I agree Nelson could be outboxed, but I'm frankly a little amazed you think Naz would be the one to do it. I would think if he had a chance, it would be to catch Nelson with something big. I don't think that's as likely as Nelson just outboxing hm, even though I am a big fan of his(Naz).polecateddy wrote:I'm not trying to put Naz above Whittaker. But there's no denying there is nearly always an anti-Naz bias because people just don't like him. He should be in the boxing hall of fame, but again there's this bias. I was simply pointing out that Nelson could be outboxed. And the younger version of Naz was pretty amazing.Rover wrote:The Whitaker fight was at lightweight, and Whitaker>>>Hamed.
-
polecateddy
- Heavyweight

Re: Azumah Nelson . vs Naseem Hamed
Naz gets marked down a lot because he was outpointed by Barrera. But people do tend to forget that the Naz who lived and breathed boxing at the start of his career. I think the version who say beat Steve Robinson could potentially stand Nelson on his head!Bobbyptsd wrote:I agree Nelson could be outboxed, but I'm frankly a little amazed you think Naz would be the one to do it. I would think if he had a chance, it would be to catch Nelson with something big. I don't think that's as likely as Nelson just outboxing hm, even though I am a big fan of his(Naz).polecateddy wrote:I'm not trying to put Naz above Whittaker. But there's no denying there is nearly always an anti-Naz bias because people just don't like him. He should be in the boxing hall of fame, but again there's this bias. I was simply pointing out that Nelson could be outboxed. And the younger version of Naz was pretty amazing.Rover wrote:The Whitaker fight was at lightweight, and Whitaker>>>Hamed.
Re: Azumah Nelson . vs Naseem Hamed
I'm a Naz fan. Saying Whitaker outboxed Nelson really doesn't tell us much about this match-up. That's kind of like saying that X would KO Y because Hearns did--two divisions north.polecateddy wrote:I'm not trying to put Naz above Whittaker. But there's no denying there is nearly always an anti-Naz bias because people just don't like him. He should be in the boxing hall of fame, but again there's this bias. I was simply pointing out that Nelson could be outboxed. And the younger version of Naz was pretty amazing.Rover wrote:The Whitaker fight was at lightweight, and Whitaker>>>Hamed.
Re: Azumah Nelson . vs Naseem Hamed
The Professor.
Re: Azumah Nelson . vs Naseem Hamed
Professor UD
Re: Azumah Nelson . vs Naseem Hamed
I don't think he has a Hall of Fame resume.polecateddy wrote:
I'm not trying to put Naz above Whittaker. But there's no denying there is nearly always an anti-Naz bias because people just don't like him. He should be in the boxing hall of fame, but again there's this bias. I was simply pointing out that Nelson could be outboxed. And the younger version of Naz was pretty amazing.
-
polecateddy
- Heavyweight

Re: Azumah Nelson . vs Naseem Hamed
Yet they put Gatti in.gilgamesh wrote:I don't think he has a Hall of Fame resume.polecateddy wrote:
I'm not trying to put Naz above Whittaker. But there's no denying there is nearly always an anti-Naz bias because people just don't like him. He should be in the boxing hall of fame, but again there's this bias. I was simply pointing out that Nelson could be outboxed. And the younger version of Naz was pretty amazing.
Re: Azumah Nelson . vs Naseem Hamed
Which is a joke.polecateddy wrote:Yet they put Gatti in.gilgamesh wrote:I don't think he has a Hall of Fame resume.polecateddy wrote:
I'm not trying to put Naz above Whittaker. But there's no denying there is nearly always an anti-Naz bias because people just don't like him. He should be in the boxing hall of fame, but again there's this bias. I was simply pointing out that Nelson could be outboxed. And the younger version of Naz was pretty amazing.
I'd vote no on Hamed. But he'll likely get in eventually.
Re: Azumah Nelson . vs Naseem Hamed
He didn't belong either. It is the Hall of FAME though, and he was more famous than most other active fighters of his era even though several of them were more accomplished. I'm sure his untimely death played into his being inducted as well.polecateddy wrote:Yet they put Gatti in.gilgamesh wrote:I don't think he has a Hall of Fame resume.polecateddy wrote:
I'm not trying to put Naz above Whittaker. But there's no denying there is nearly always an anti-Naz bias because people just don't like him. He should be in the boxing hall of fame, but again there's this bias. I was simply pointing out that Nelson could be outboxed. And the younger version of Naz was pretty amazing.
Re: Azumah Nelson . vs Naseem Hamed
^That's a good point that's often overlooked. It's the hall of fame, not the hall of accomplishment.
-
Ambling Alp II
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 15174
- Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31
Re: Azumah Nelson . vs Naseem Hamed
"Hall of Accomplishment" doesn't have a great ring to it, does it? ![[icon_e_biggrin.gif] :D](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)
Re: Azumah Nelson . vs Naseem Hamed
Exactly. Luis Resto's a famous boxer. HBO even did a documentary about one of his fights. He doesn't belong in the HOF.Ambling Alp II wrote:"Hall of Accomplishment" doesn't have a great ring to it, does it?
Re: Azumah Nelson . vs Naseem Hamed
I would say Luis Resto is an infamous boxer. In the same vein of Antonio Margarito.Rover wrote:Exactly. Luis Resto's a famous boxer. HBO even did a documentary about one of his fights. He doesn't belong in the HOF.Ambling Alp II wrote:"Hall of Accomplishment" doesn't have a great ring to it, does it?
Re: Azumah Nelson . vs Naseem Hamed
Highly unlikely in my opinion.polecateddy wrote: Naz gets marked down a lot because he was outpointed by Barrera. But people do tend to forget that the Naz who lived and breathed boxing at the start of his career. I think the version who say beat Steve Robinson could potentially stand Nelson on his head!
Re: Azumah Nelson . vs Naseem Hamed
Margarito had achieved fame before the Mosley scandal--at least in Mexico.gilgamesh wrote:I would say Luis Resto is an infamous boxer. In the same vein of Antonio Margarito.Rover wrote:Exactly. Luis Resto's a famous boxer. HBO even did a documentary about one of his fights. He doesn't belong in the HOF.Ambling Alp II wrote:"Hall of Accomplishment" doesn't have a great ring to it, does it?
But fair enough, back to my Butterbean example.