Argument between me and mates about Naseem Hamed vs McGuigan

[Anzi]

You've been posting on Boxrec for 8 years and that's the level of your understanding of boxing? Brush over a class world champion's accomplishments and judge him on a novice loss, a loss when he was past it, and a 15 round fight in 110 degrees. Who let you out of Current Scene!?

But Hamed would have easily beaten all in the same conditions.
Also Pedroza was well past it, and the quality American, whose name escapes me, boxed his head off before inexplicitly quitting. McGuigan didn't have any longitude at top world level, whereas Hamed unified the division and beat the best out there. He only took on Barrera when he was over the hill himself. He has near unbeatable when he was first champ.
For me Hamed wins very convincingly.

When did Hamed go over the hill? When Barrera started punching his face?

I picked Barrera going in, and it wasn't because there was any evidence of the 27 year old Hamed being "over the hill". Your logic seems to be when he was a WBO champ boxing handpicked WBO opponents at home he looked fantastic therefore was in his prime, when he was in Vegas in a big fight vs an all-round beast and found himself outgunned he was suddenly over the hill.

Perhaps Barrera was just much better than everybody Hamed had ever faced - that two-fisted reality check he gave the Prince ran him right out of boxing.

another one who has limited boxing knowledge.

[lillywhite14]

Wonder how many of these people who picked Barrera actually picked Barrera? Naz was 2/5 top price on the night and I have email conversations with Mike Katz and other boxing sages at the time who all thought Naz would do a job on him. Boxing News also picked Hamed.

I lost a fortune backing Hamed that night. Money I couldn't afford to lose. But if the conversation comes up now every man and his dog had Barrera winning. I guess after the ship has sunk, everyone knows how she might have been saved.

Hamed beats Barry Mac inside six rounds I reckon.

I took 20 quid off a pal for that fight. I was a know it all bastard back then though and will admit, although I fancied MAB I just wanted to annoy my pals who all had Naz to win!

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

I wasn't a fan of McGuigan but he wasn't a fraud either. He beat a prime Juan LaPorte and he also beat the uncrowned champion of the eighties - Bernard Taylor - one of the finest boxers to ever lace gloves - that is how good he was - McGuigan broke his ribs in that fight which made him retire on his stool - otherwise Taylor would have boxed McGuigans head off for a shutout.

Naz was very powerful though and the chances of him catching McGuigan with his uppercuts coming in are really good. But there is a good chance of McGuigan drowning Naz in the later stages of a 15 round fight - Naz wins it early or McGuigan wins it late. Which scenario would I put my money on, I don't think I would.

[lillywhite14]

The 15 rounds argument is pointless for a modern day fighter though isn't it? Naz never had to train for 15 rounds because he didn't have to fight over that distance.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

The 15 rounds argument is pointless for a modern day fighter though isn't it? Naz never had to train for 15 rounds because he didn't have to fight over that distance.

But McGuigan fought 15 round fights and was a world class 15 round fighter - all his world title fights were 15 rounds - we can't just dismiss that because Naz never had the privilege of fighting one, I suppose this is where the comparisons and 'who would win between...' fall short.

[REEVE]

Naz bangs Barry out lads simple as

[boxingknockout]

Barry has short prime and was great boxer / puncher in that time. The yardstick I usually use in these convos, is - if you had to bet your life who would u bet on?

And I would bet Hamed.

[Dixonian]

Jim McDonnell, Steve Cruz and Peter Eubank all proved too good for Finbar.

You've been posting on Boxrec for 8 years and that's the level of your understanding of boxing? Brush over a class world champion's accomplishments and judge him on a novice loss, a loss when he was past it, and a 15 round fight in 110 degrees. Who let you out of Current Scene!?

Yep that's a pathetic statement alright.

[Dixonian]

Jim McDonnell, Steve Cruz and Peter Eubank all proved too good for Finbar.

You've been posting on Boxrec for 8 years and that's the level of your understanding of boxing? Brush over a class world champion's accomplishments and judge him on a novice loss, a loss when he was past it, and a 15 round fight in 110 degrees. Who let you out of Current Scene!?

Yep that's a pathetic statement alright.

[forcefraser]

Finbar was a great fighter in his day, but he was no Naz (not in my opinion)

I`d go for Naz to stop him mid rounds after a Steve Robinson style beasting.

[gazza8]

A prime Brendan Ingle Naz stops McGuigan all day.

Watched them both and ive always felt that as good as McGuigan was Naseem Hamed at his peak was a once in a lifetime fighter that we probobably will never see again. His power, speed and elusiveness he would dance round Mcguigan all night and knock him out.

[jamesmcdonnell]

I think it would have been much like Naz v Robinson, McGuigan was a good fighter, but he was a come forward pressure fighter, a good one, but he was orthodox, and wasn't a huge puncher, Naz would have been timing him and hitting him with very hard shots.

Hard to see any way McGuigan wins really, Naz in his prime was in good condition and I don't think McGuigan's only chance of winning, of outlasting him would have worked.

[jamesmcdonnell]

I wasn't a fan of McGuigan but he wasn't a fraud either. He beat a prime Juan LaPorte and he also beat the uncrowned champion of the eighties - Bernard Taylor - one of the finest boxers to ever lace gloves - that is how good he was - McGuigan broke his ribs in that fight which made him retire on his stool - otherwise Taylor would have boxed McGuigans head off for a shutout.

Naz was very powerful though and the chances of him catching McGuigan with his uppercuts coming in are really good. But there is a good chance of McGuigan drowning Naz in the later stages of a 15 round fight - Naz wins it early or McGuigan wins it late. Which scenario would I put my money on, I don't think I would.

Good call, I think Naz's angles and punches coming from strange places, would have been a nightmare for McGuigan, and it would have been over before McGuigan could take him into deep waters.

[Deserter]

Finbar was a great fighter in his day, but he was no Naz (not in my opinion)

I`d go for Naz to stop him mid rounds after a Steve Robinson style beasting.

A prime Naz would probably have stopped McGuigan IMO, but the idea that it would be a Robinson style beating is a gross underestimation of McGuigan in his prime. As Fat Git mentioned, his performances against Laporte and Taylor are great yardsticks.

[Pugilist-specialist]

Jim McDonnell, Steve Cruz and Peter Eubank all proved too good for Finbar.

You've been posting on Boxrec for 8 years and that's the level of your understanding of boxing? Brush over a class world champion's accomplishments and judge him on a novice loss, a loss when he was past it, and a 15 round fight in 110 degrees. Who let you out of Current Scene!?

Yep that's a pathetic statement alright.

That's your opinion. It is factual.

[Deserter]

You've been posting on Boxrec for 8 years and that's the level of your understanding of boxing? Brush over a class world champion's accomplishments and judge him on a novice loss, a loss when he was past it, and a 15 round fight in 110 degrees. Who let you out of Current Scene!?

Yep that's a pathetic statement alright.

That's your opinion. It is factual.

And yet meaningless without context. It is factual that Danny Williams beat Mike Tyson.

[Tuan_Jim]

Yep that's a pathetic statement alright.

That's your opinion. It is factual.

And yet meaningless without context. It is factual that Danny Williams beat Mike Tyson.

And it's "factual" that Wilfredo Benitez couldn't handle Pat Lawlor, which makes you wonder why anyone rates him as well.

What a dummy the absurdly named "Pugilist-specialist" is. Not only to make such an asinine remark, but to try stand by it with such a skin crawling rationalisation. Boxrec rights revoked I say!

[Old Jack J]

It depends on the size of the ring.......

[Coco]

But Hamed would have easily beaten all in the same conditions.
Also Pedroza was well past it, and the quality American, whose name escapes me, boxed his head off before inexplicitly quitting. McGuigan didn't have any longitude at top world level, whereas Hamed unified the division and beat the best out there. He only took on Barrera when he was over the hill himself. He has near unbeatable when he was first champ.
For me Hamed wins very convincingly.

When did Hamed go over the hill? When Barrera started punching his face?

I picked Barrera going in, and it wasn't because there was any evidence of the 27 year old Hamed being "over the hill". Your logic seems to be when he was a WBO champ boxing handpicked WBO opponents at home he looked fantastic therefore was in his prime, when he was in Vegas in a big fight vs an all-round beast and found himself outgunned he was suddenly over the hill.

Perhaps Barrera was just much better than everybody Hamed had ever faced - that two-fisted reality check he gave the Prince ran him right out of boxing.

You never noticed any decline in Hamed?
He was only ever WBO champ?
He only ever fought WBO handpicked opponents?

[standing8]

Naz all the way, could even name the round

Paul ingle would have done him too

[Tuan_Jim]

But Hamed would have easily beaten all in the same conditions.
Also Pedroza was well past it, and the quality American, whose name escapes me, boxed his head off before inexplicitly quitting. McGuigan didn't have any longitude at top world level, whereas Hamed unified the division and beat the best out there. He only took on Barrera when he was over the hill himself. He has near unbeatable when he was first champ.
For me Hamed wins very convincingly.

When did Hamed go over the hill? When Barrera started punching his face?

I picked Barrera going in, and it wasn't because there was any evidence of the 27 year old Hamed being "over the hill". Your logic seems to be when he was a WBO champ boxing handpicked WBO opponents at home he looked fantastic therefore was in his prime, when he was in Vegas in a big fight vs an all-round beast and found himself outgunned he was suddenly over the hill.

Perhaps Barrera was just much better than everybody Hamed had ever faced - that two-fisted reality check he gave the Prince ran him right out of boxing.

You never noticed any decline in Hamed?
He was only ever WBO champ?
He only ever fought WBO handpicked opponents?

I noticed a pompous buffoon fall in love with his power. I noticed a deluded fool let his ego grow to the size of a. . . . 2016 Naseem Hamed waistline. I saw it so clearly I told everyone I knew who liked boxing (all 3 of them) Barrera would win.

But was Hamed "past his prime"? No. Did he win belts better than the WBO? Of course, whenever the champ looked ready for the taking. And then vacate them so that he could continue to pick & choose WBO challengers. Hence my post. The meaning behind what I wrote was clear and I excised the alphabet juggling to keep it punchy.

[TheLeprechaun]

Naz all the way, could even name the round

Paul ingle would have done him too

From what I've seen of McGuigan, he was a better, more powerful version of Ingle.

[Grilling Machine]

Hamed was still in or close to his physical prime, but his prime ability was years previous. Just because someone could regain their prime doesn't mean they have the desire to. Equally, some people - Herol was one - find renewed hunger late in their careers.

We don't know if Hamed could've ever beaten Barrera, but we do know that he wasn't at his best that night. And yeah, it's a great shame. Tyson was never the same after jail; it happens. Credit to the likes of Hopkins for dominating a division at 40.

[ClivePatrickLyons]

Hamed wins by 11 round Tko while slightly ahead in a barnburner

[Pugilist-specialist]

Yep that's a pathetic statement alright.

That's your opinion. It is factual.

And yet meaningless without context. It is factual that Danny Williams beat Mike Tyson.

Tyson hadn't been world champ for 8 years when he fought Williams - it's hardly comparable to McGuigan losing to Cruz on his third defence.