BoxRec

Sorry meant Calvo fight
&
wanted a rematch with Barrera

Raff The Frenchman wrote:the difference being Tyson, despite all that happened outside the ring, has been an invincible world champ for quite a while , has beaten some of the bests and will remain forever as an all time great. Hamed never really achieved a lot besides beating Kelley and defending his cheap WBO title a few times. As soon as he met with another great, he lost and hung them up.

Cheap WBO?

Erm... He was undisputed FW champion u joke.

Do you ever make a post without talking Rubbish?

I think Pac would have owned him, but what I really wanted was Naz vs. Corrales.

observer1 wrote:

Raff The Frenchman wrote:the difference being Tyson, despite all that happened outside the ring, has been an invincible world champ for quite a while , has beaten some of the bests and will remain forever as an all time great. Hamed never really achieved a lot besides beating Kelley and defending his cheap WBO title a few times. As soon as he met with another great, he lost and hung them up.

Cheap WBO?

Erm... He was undisputed FW champion u joke.

Do you ever make a post without talking Rubbish?

riiight, he won 1 fight against Soto and chose to defend his CHEAP WBO belt rather than the WBC which is the real belt. Hamed kept ducking Eric Morales and we all know that the WBO contenders are stiffs.
not talking rubbish, just telling the truth, can you keep your patriotism aside for a minute?

Naz defeated all other belt holders in the division, now whether he kept those belts or relinquished them is neither here nor there tbh - He WAS the Featherweight Champion.

To diminish his achievements becaue of the fact he did not hang on to them and relinquished them is really stretching an arguement which does not exist.

The same goes for those who have posted about favouritism, its apparent some dont just like him, thus this affects their judgement.

Kevin Kelley, Marco Antonio Barrera, Vincenzo Belcastro, Freddy Cruz, Steve Robinson, Manuel Medina, Tom Johnson, Wilfredo Vazquez, Wayne McCullough, Paul Ingle, Said Lawal, Augie Sanchez and Vuyani Bungu cant all have been rubbish, overrated fighters, surely?

To say, he beat shot, over the hill, overrated fighters yet lost to the one decent fighter he fought is just not accurate.

And before anyone leaps in, I have commented, in this thread, that maybe he was not quite up in the levels of a peak Barrera or Morales - But he went to the USA, out of his comfort zone, fought some pretty decent fighters in and around his division and won, all bar Barrera. (Something, Hatton apart, more British fighters should have the balls to do).

Not too shabby for the short time he was on the scene.

Mayweather/Hamed would have been an amazing fight if it came off, obviously they were a few years apart tho, so it never materialized. I would give Hamed a good chance in that bout tho, Hamed was extremely fast and obviously had devastating KO power. Quite frankly, looking @ Floyd's biggest career wins (JL Castillo (first fight was basically a loss btw), Corrales, older DLH, Hatton), you could make the case he's never fought a guy on the level of Hamed. Hamed had legendary punching power, and unlike Corrales, actually had very good boxing ability, speed, and defense. Stylistically, Floyd has problems with guys that he's not faster than (see Judah fight), and I think he'd experience that with Naz.

Prime for Prime, you'd probably have to favour Mayweather, but damn man, when Naz was in his prime, this guy was serious. I like Naz's chances in that fight. Styles make fights, and I think Naz has a good style for fighting Floyd.

bengulnaci1 wrote:
Kevin Kelley, Marco Antonio Barrera, Vincenzo Belcastro, Freddy Cruz, Steve Robinson, Manuel Medina, Tom Johnson, Wilfredo Vazquez, Wayne McCullough, Paul Ingle, Said Lawal, Augie Sanchez and Vuyani Bungu cant all have been rubbish, overrated fighters, surely?
.

The only tough opponents were Barrera and Kelley, the others were not that good and many like Bungu or Sanchez were rubbish like you say. He could have easily beaten guys like Paul Ingle or Augie Sanchez but made it difficult fights because he was so lazy and careless. Hell even Kelley was no good and he almost KOed Hamed. Sanchez was total crap and had nothing but good power, yet he really hurt Hamed and had him nearly out in the early rounds.
Hamed was good but totally wasted his talent and you cant compare his career to Tyson"s.

Raff The Frenchman wrote:

bengulnaci1 wrote:
Kevin Kelley, Marco Antonio Barrera, Vincenzo Belcastro, Freddy Cruz, Steve Robinson, Manuel Medina, Tom Johnson, Wilfredo Vazquez, Wayne McCullough, Paul Ingle, Said Lawal, Augie Sanchez and Vuyani Bungu cant all have been rubbish, overrated fighters, surely?
.

The only tough opponents were Barrera and Kelley, the others were not that good and many like Bungu or Sanchez were rubbish like you say. He could have easily beaten guys like Paul Ingle or Augie Sanchez but made it difficult fights because he was so lazy and careless. Hell even Kelley was no good and he almost KOed Hamed. Sanchez was total crap and had nothing but good power, yet he really hurt Hamed and had him nearly out in the early rounds.
Hamed was good but totally wasted his talent and you cant compare his career to Tyson"s.

You do know Augie Shanchez beat Mayweather in the Amatuers right?

dude, you dont know what you are talking about.

Stick to mainstream stuff, like Pacquaio, Mayweather and Hatton etc.

Raff The Frenchman wrote: not talking rubbish, just telling the truth, can you keep your patriotism aside for a minute?

lol?

Patriotism?

I'm the first one to say British Boxers are awful and over-rated. Calzaghe is the top of that list too.

In his prime Hamed would cause anyone serious problems. Anyone who knew Hamed knows that he started to lose interest and full commitment to boxing well before he fought Barrera. He was spending more and more time on his numerous business ventures and new family. Add that to the problems he had been having with his hands and the fact that the fight took place in Las Vegas. Taking everything into account, losing by 3 points to a prime Barrera wasn't that bad a result. One thing no one can deny about Hamed was that he brought excitement into the ring. I wouldn't however, have fancied his chances against the skill and defence of Mayweather and at only 5'4", he may have been a too small for some of the other big names being mentioned, but I have no doubt he had the potential to cause serious problems for all. We need more fighters like Hamed to create that atmosphere which brings out even non hardcore boxing fans to watch fights.

verballistic wrote:

Soundkamp wrote:Naz filled Arenas with his style just like Roy Jones Did, he was a very exciting and a great fight....he was never really tested and started to think he was supreme and never put in the effort because everyone around him was a yes man!!!!! especially Manny Stewart for the MAB fight...if you watch the doco you could tell that Manny could not care for the fight and should have put him in his place....MAB was training in public gyms living in cabins at Big bear while Naz had his entourage and a gym set up in a effing mansion...

I think if he had a more serious attitude when it came to training, we could of wiped the floor with alot of fighters...including MAB in a rematch, Morales, Pacman and even Mayweather....he possessed something that most of these guys didn't and that was incredible power (one punch power), he could KO people with a jab.....so i think if he was well disciplined he could of been one of the greatest...but i still love the dude regardless

wiped the floor with pacman & floyd?!?

there is a reason naz has been passed over twice already, despite being eligible for HOF since 2007...he's not getting in!! his record was not built upon the caliber of fighters in their primes to earn a spot there...the best of his victims were past their peaks!! his career-defining win came over wilfredo vazquez, who was clearly past it a few months shy of age 38 and naz lost convincingly to the only future HOFer he ever fought---MAB!!

woulda, shoulda, coulda might sound nice in hindsight, but the reality was wouldn't, couldn't & didn't!! :(

with all due respect the hall of fame is an american thing, nobody outside america takes it seriously and its clearly bias towards americans.

verballistic wrote:

glittermonkey wrote:Hamed beat all the other champions in his division. I'd settle for more fighters never really achieving a lot if it meant more fights between the champions of the various sanctioning bodies.

trouble is that #1 WBO contender for over a year of naz' reign was none other than juan manuel marquez, who for some reason, naz was never interested in fighting!!

plus, most of the champs naz beat were somewhat past it...wilfredo vazquez, tom johnson...even kevin kelley was never the same fighter after his horrendously brutal beatdown by alejandro gonzalez before naz got hold of him!! :(

Marquez was, as has been stated already in this thread, not a name at all in the late-nineties. He offered nothing at a time when instead of facing his no-name mandatory, Hamed chose to take on Kelley in a big money introduction to America, a rival champion, and a man who'd only lost his WBC title at the weight below on, what I think was, a controversial decision against the very solid Zaragoza. It baffles me that fighters who take on mandatories that most of the board have never heard of get constant flack, but fighters who sidestep their unknown mandatories to face bigger, and more widely known, challenges are also pilloried. Had Hamed sat on his title, ignoring the other belt holders to face a string of mandatories we'd never heard of, would you praise him? Would you fornicate. There were few indications at the time that Marquez would go on to be one of the best fighters in the sport, especially after his patchy, unimpressive showing against Norwood. Painting him now as a feared, ducked, genuine threat to Hamed, when at the time he was nothing of the sort is the kind of revisionism that is the blight of many a boxing forum.

Whether the champions in the division were past their best or not (they clearly were, aside from journeyman-come-good Robinson, who was on a real roll before facing Hamed) is also neither here, nor there. They were still good enough to hold their baubles until Hamed beat them, or in the case of Vazquez, until they threw their title away in order to have a match against Hamed. A fighter cannot be held to account for the standard of the top men in his division, he can only face them, and hope that people are able to judge objectively when the dust settles. It's my opinion that Hamed's personality blots his copy-book with the vast majority of people, when it comes to casting an eye over his career.

observer1 wrote:
You do know Augie Shanchez beat Mayweather in the Amatuers right?
.
dude, you dont know what you are talking about.

Yeah I also know Lawrence Clay bay almost beat Wlad Klitschko, and Chagaev beat Felix Savon. There was also a bum who beat Mike Tyson in the amateurs and went to the olympics instead of him.
Beating someone in the amateurs doesn't mean anything.

Raff The Frenchman wrote:

observer1 wrote:
You do know Augie Shanchez beat Mayweather in the Amatuers right?
.
dude, you dont know what you are talking about.

Yeah I also know Lawrence Clay bay almost beat Wlad Klitschko, and Chagaev beat Felix Savon. There was also a bum who beat Mike Tyson in the amateurs and went to the olympics instead of him.
Beating someone in the amateurs doesn't mean anything.

Yeah but none of those guys bar Tyson became P4P #1

Calling them "Bums" just further indicates your ignorance.

Raff The Frenchman wrote:

bengulnaci1 wrote:
Kevin Kelley, Marco Antonio Barrera, Vincenzo Belcastro, Freddy Cruz, Steve Robinson, Manuel Medina, Tom Johnson, Wilfredo Vazquez, Wayne McCullough, Paul Ingle, Said Lawal, Augie Sanchez and Vuyani Bungu cant all have been rubbish, overrated fighters, surely?
.

The only tough opponents were Barrera and Kelley, the others were not that good and many like Bungu or Sanchez were rubbish like you say. He could have easily beaten guys like Paul Ingle or Augie Sanchez but made it difficult fights because he was so lazy and careless. Hell even Kelley was no good and he almost KOed Hamed. Sanchez was total crap and had nothing but good power, yet he really hurt Hamed and had him nearly out in the early rounds.
Hamed was good but totally wasted his talent and you cant compare his career to Tyson"s.

Absolute rubbish, Medina, Johnson, Vazquez, McCullough and Bungu were established world class fighters, not great fighters by any means but definitely amongst the best around that weight class at the time.

gizmo1 wrote:In his prime Hamed would cause anyone serious problems. Anyone who knew Hamed knows that he started to lose interest and full commitment to boxing well before he fought Barrera. He was spending more and more time on his numerous business ventures and new family. Add that to the problems he had been having with his hands and the fact that the fight took place in Las Vegas. Taking everything into account, losing by 3 points to a prime Barrera wasn't that bad a result. One thing no one can deny about Hamed was that he brought excitement into the ring. I wouldn't however, have fancied his chances against the skill and defence of Mayweather and at only 5'4", he may have been a too small for some of the other big names being mentioned, but I have no doubt he had the potential to cause serious problems for all. We need more fighters like Hamed to create that atmosphere which brings out even non hardcore boxing fans to watch fights.

To me he was a smaller version of RJJ , pretty much same techniques of fighting , he would knock out his opponents almost same way as prime RJJ .

banjo wrote:

Raff The Frenchman wrote:

bengulnaci1 wrote:
Kevin Kelley, Marco Antonio Barrera, Vincenzo Belcastro, Freddy Cruz, Steve Robinson, Manuel Medina, Tom Johnson, Wilfredo Vazquez, Wayne McCullough, Paul Ingle, Said Lawal, Augie Sanchez and Vuyani Bungu cant all have been rubbish, overrated fighters, surely?
.

The only tough opponents were Barrera and Kelley, the others were not that good and many like Bungu or Sanchez were rubbish like you say. He could have easily beaten guys like Paul Ingle or Augie Sanchez but made it difficult fights because he was so lazy and careless. Hell even Kelley was no good and he almost KOed Hamed. Sanchez was total crap and had nothing but good power, yet he really hurt Hamed and had him nearly out in the early rounds.
Hamed was good but totally wasted his talent and you cant compare his career to Tyson"s.

Absolute rubbish, Medina, Johnson, Vazquez, McCullough and Bungu were established world class fighters, not great fighters by any means but definitely amongst the best around that weight class at the time.

Raff, come on, Bungu rubbish? The guy beat an undefeated Kennedy McKinney for he IBF title (Mckinney subsequently gave Barrera a heck of a fight, even flooring and hurting the baby faced assasin) and had defended the title thirteen times! Damn I mean I respect you and your posts but that post is obviously that of a Hamed hater and just as biased as Hamed "homers" as verb would put it. That or you just weren't aware or hadn't seen Bungu et al in action.

cj wrote:If he did not retire and kept boxing with his unique style(where he left off) , where would you place him among all the others, maybe shifted him couple division up or down or who he might have stopped from going ahead or made a difference in any current's fighter's resume, my guess is that he was not gonna change much with Eric Morales or Antonio Barrera, but might have done a different in pac's and Mayweather's resume ! or at least Ricky Hatton's for sure !

The Prince had such a unique & unorthodox style that I believe he could not have been successful much longer.

He relied so much on his reflexes & athleticism & you just cannot move your body the way he did for too long in your life.

Your spine begins to fuse a little as you hit your late 20s & that renders it more difficult to box like Naz used to.

If he changed his style, then maybe, but I could never see The Prince changing his style.

I think he was right to retire when he did, although I have missed him terribly, as he was the most exciting fighter this country had produced in years.

Raff's a clown, probably never even the seen the guy, only heard of him through Boxrec Forums

Syntax Error wrote:

cj wrote:If he did not retire and kept boxing with his unique style(where he left off) , where would you place him among all the others, maybe shifted him couple division up or down or who he might have stopped from going ahead or made a difference in any current's fighter's resume, my guess is that he was not gonna change much with Eric Morales or Antonio Barrera, but might have done a different in pac's and Mayweather's resume ! or at least Ricky Hatton's for sure !

The Prince had such a unique & unorthodox style that I believe he could not have been successful much longer.

He relied so much on his reflexes & athleticism & you just cannot move your body the way he did for too long in your life.

Your spine begins to fuse a little as you hit your late 20s & that renders it more difficult to box like Naz used to.

If he changed his style, then maybe, but I could never see The Prince changing his style.

I think he was right to retire when he did, although I have missed him terribly, as he was the most exciting fighter this country had produced in years.

what is one loss in a boxer's rec, great fighters of all time had few, i don't think boxing is all about having 0 loss , i believe its more about the way a boxer achieves his victories, style , and entertainment is a big part of a successful boxer .
what made Ali for who he is today or was, or what Tyson for what he is or was ? the answer is their style of boxing , i don't think you watched many of Naz's fights.
the guy was full of entertainment , and a great boxer !

Loss means nothing.

Hopkins, probably the best p4p boxer in the Era lost his 1st pro bout!

verballistic wrote: bungu fit nicely into the carefully-crafted matchmaking scheme perfected by naz' handlers in the pre-barrera phase:

name fighters moving up in weight: bungu, mccullough (had no business even moving up to 126, fought at 122 SIX years LATER)

name fighters slightly past their peak: medina, kelley, johnson, bungu (was 33 and struggled with ordinary comp in his last 2 years at 122)

name fighters way past their peak: vazquez, cesar soto (despite soto's relatively young age he had barely edged the WBC title from faded espinoza & after going the full 12 rounds with naz without being hurt, went 0-8-1 in his next 9 fights)

guys who werent good enough to have ever HAD a peak: augie sanchez, cabrera, badillo, hardy, molina, alicea

You know, if you're going to look for "Flaws" in everyones career, you can do it with anyone.

Cotto, Pac, Mayweather etc.

observer1 wrote:Raff's a clown, probably never even the seen the guy, only heard of him through Boxrec Forums

I"ve seen hamed dozens of time you clown, and if you cared to read my posts you would have understood. Hamed was a very good fighter, but Tyson was an all time great, if you are too biased to admit that it just proves YOUR ignorance, Augie Sanchez was a bum and who cares if he beat Mayweather in the amateurs he did nothing as a pro else than beat an old Paez and didn't do anything either after losing to Hamed.
Hamed didn't beat any "great" fighters he beat lots of good fighters and the feeling that will remain for Hamed is unachievement.

observer1 wrote:

Raff The Frenchman wrote:

observer1 wrote:
You do know Augie Shanchez beat Mayweather in the Amatuers right?
.
dude, you dont know what you are talking about.

Yeah I also know Lawrence Clay bay almost beat Wlad Klitschko, and Chagaev beat Felix Savon. There was also a bum who beat Mike Tyson in the amateurs and went to the olympics instead of him.
Beating someone in the amateurs doesn't mean anything.

Yeah but none of those guys bar Tyson became P4P #1

Calling them "Bums" just further indicates your ignorance.

I think you don't even understand the post, you should spend more time reading. let me put it with simpler vocab :
Clay Bey was a very good amateur and nearly beat Wlad. Wlad is the best HW in the world today. so if I refer to your logic, I should give a lot of credit to Clifford Etienne because he beat Cley Bay?
Arguing that Sanchez is good because he beat Mayweather in the amateurs is absolute rubbish and you are shameless trying to defend your point by comparing 2 guys who who are not even half close in terms of talent and achievement show how full of shit you are.

verballistic wrote: ERIK MORALES: world titles at 122, 126, 130, 135

- In your hysteria to savage Hamed you have overplayed your hand as is typical by you.

In his only two lightweight bouts, Morales got his ears boxed off by Raheem and then got beaten up in a pier 6 brawl against Diaz.

Hamed eventually gets in the IBHOF since their are lesser fighters currently in. It's really not that exclusive of a club.

Hamed gets into the HOF because he had 10 or so VHS tapes
out during his 15 minutes.