BoxRec

Naz was quality - despite the late career wobbles

Welsh Devil,
Regarding Nelson, I think you'll find most Boxing fans called it about right, so how can you say over rated ? Over rated by who precisely ?
I can't think of anyone who ever hyped up Nelson.
Whether you like him or loathe him, he got on his bike, fought all over the World, often got robbed as the fighter on the right hand side of the card, and never ducked anyone.
He defended his title 13 times, as many times away from home as at home, and won them all except a draw against a drugs cheat.
Nobody has ever made out he was the second coming - unlike numerous other examples on this thread.
I assume you're a Welsh lad.
Do you regard Nathan cleverly as a fighter defending a mickey mouse title - the WBO ?

King Geedorah wrote:Agree on the Naz shout in terms of what he did in the ring. Hamed was entertaining, great for the fans etc. but he would never have beaten Barrera, would have looked foolish against Marquez and you can argue that he was unbeatable in his prime, as people do for Tyson, but as soon as he lost his '0' he was a done deal.

I'd throw Eubank in as well. Eccentric, entertaining etc. but his fights were often poor affairs lifted by the scoring controversies and you'd have to be off your peanut to think he was a genuine world class boxer given that Toney and Jones were about.

I do agree on these. Especially Eubank.

He was a wonderful fighter but his output in the ring just seemed to get less and less. He won so many poor decisions.

I think he was world class. You had to be good to beat him but he only really fought domestic opposition (yes, top quality but still).

Matthew macklin and Andy lee, sorry !

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:So many to chose from, Barry McGuigan, Henry Cooper, Kirkland Laing..

I'd have to go for Nigel Benn

Fondly remembered for all those great nights he have us in the 90's, but he was waaaaaay short of top class.

Schooled by Michael Watson and Chris Eubank early on, very very fortunate to get past Iran Barkley (punching on the floor and bogus knock-downs) and well beaten by Malinga and Collins, when he was past his best.

1 amazing performance against Gerald McClellan, (although he was aided by the referee, who had a shocker) and an impressive win against Doug DeWitt and that's your lot.

If it wasn't for Chris Eubank, he would have been forgotten years ago.

Dark, unpleasant character to boot.

a bit suprised to read this bro. Benn fought in a incredibly talented 160-168 era. I dont think the benn who lost to watson was as good as the benn who lost to eubank a year and a half later. there was incredible improvment inbetween. and after he lost to eubank. the guy who was unbeaten till march 96 was a hell of an improvement, the finished article not the crude fast powerpuncher with stamina issues of his early years but a guy with excellent bobbing and weaving defence, who could box with lateral movement and had great stamina.That finished benn was world class. Its a shame his career ended slightly prematurely, the collins defeats were both bizarre benn quit and the second defeat in particular seemed very suspicious to me. I agree benn is one of the most unpleasent characters the british scene has had tho.

I dont think u can say he was "lucky" to get past barkley. he did to barkley what no one ever did. Even the great hearns and toney couldnt . That win looks a lot more impressive in retrospect. no doubt if fighting today barkley would clean up at 160. I agree tho it was stopped prematurely. So many of benns fights (barkley, collins) we were robbed of a great fight. Benn and barkley should have fougght again.

LeedsLad wrote:To be fair I think Hearns pretty much accounted for Barkley at the top level in those two and a half rounds before he got nailed.

It was one of the most one-sided fights I've ever seen.

it was a brutal beatdown by hearns but mate, barkley went on to lose a fight that could go either way with duran, pushed nunn very close, beat hearns and van horn.....but still i get the impression you are right.

MachoMan09 wrote:I'm a little surprised that the only mention of Barry McGuigan was in the opening post. I believe Barry was very good and I was a fan but I also believe he was seriously overrated at the time and even more so since.

McGuigan is the poster boy for non deserving fighters in the hall of fame for most people. I'd say he is a long way from being overrated currently.

For KG asking who rates Hide. He is officially a two time world champion who still gets that bloody Bowe quote brought out every time a thread about him reaches 3 pages. Truth is he didn't beat anybody, but even up until a couple of years ago all he had to do was land to beat the likes of Haye according to some

Naz vs. the MAB that got iced by Poison Jones?

Tyson Fury, although you could argue he is more overhyped than overrated.

milpool wrote:

tonyevs wrote: David Haye is well over-rated too. His fights at heavyweight were plain terrible!!

The only person that overrated David Haye was himself!

Haye was overrated by many, but underrated by a similar number, so it kind of balanced out. Prior to the Klit fight I rarely read an assesment of Haye that fell in the middle of this spectrum.

I also agree to an extent about Naz. I read far too many comments along the lines of ''he would have beat Barrera if ______.' No, that is simply what happens when a very good boxer fights a great one.

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:Guys, who ever "rated" Herbie Hide, Audley Harrison or Scott Harrison?



Lloyd honeyghan, now there is an overrated fighter.

can`t see why honeyghan is overrated he beat the living s**t of out of don curry ffs

id`e have to go for enzo maccerinelli,gavin rees and from my youth alan minter or errol christie

I'd say Kirkland Laing.

No British fighter is more overrated than he is. He lost to a shitload of domestic/fringe Euro level kinda fighters, and has his name off the back of beating a disinterested Duran.

Benn rid of Sims and Barkley where many failed (including extreme talents like Kalambay, Hearns, Nunn, Duran), annihilated Doug DeWitt who was coming off a great win over Matthew Hilton (Hilton couldn't put a dent in DeWitt with the 'best left hook in boxing').

Benn was damn, damn good in his prime.

(He fought like a crazed retard against Watson, and Eubank was the only fighter in the business probably who had the chin to stand up to him.)

Most over rated for me is Henry Cooper.

Most underrated for me has to be Ken Buchanan. Buchanan was one of the absolute best ever to come out of the UK.

Wether anyone rated my list I find

Glen McCrory
Johnny Nelson
Audley Harrison
possibly Frank Bruno
maybe Richie Woodhall
Gary Stretch

ill think of some more.

yid14 wrote: It's a shame alot of todays boxers arn't as exciting to watch as Benn. Are you really that bored?

I don't agree with KG's opening post, but this very comment is a prime example of why some fighters become overrated. If they are exciting to watch, that makes them good in many fans' eyes, and vice versa. Take Arturo Gatti, for example - less exciting boxers than Gatti have beaten Ward more comfortably, but it is Gatti who is "rated" due to being exciting, with the fact of him struggling mightily against a technically limited fringe contender rendered a moot point.

davie wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:I actualy reckon Naz is probably the best British fighter of all time, so cant go along with you there.

At his peak and in the mood he was "unplayable"


By the time he fought Barrera, he was 4 years past his best.

he had just turned 27 when he fought barrera, he retired at 28.

Age and peak are not the same for all. Tyson was past his best by 23. I'd agree that Naz had peaked long before the Barrera fight, although how much of that was physical and how much of it was mental (i.e complacency), who knows.

twenty six wrote:Welsh Devil,
Regarding Nelson, I think you'll find most Boxing fans called it about right, so how can you say over rated ? Over rated by who precisely ?
I can't think of anyone who ever hyped up Nelson.
Whether you like him or loathe him, he got on his bike, fought all over the World, often got robbed as the fighter on the right hand side of the card, and never ducked anyone.
He defended his title 13 times, as many times away from home as at home, and won them all except a draw against a drugs cheat.
Nobody has ever made out he was the second coming - unlike numerous other examples on this thread.

Great post and a prime example of what I mentioned earlier - fans assessing fighters based on their entertainment value rather than their achievements. Nelson was sorely UNDERrated if anything, because people would be bored by his fights and equate that boredom with a lack of quality.

MachoMan09 wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

twenty six wrote:Welsh Devil,
Regarding Nelson, I think you'll find most Boxing fans called it about right, so how can you say over rated ? Over rated by who precisely ?
I can't think of anyone who ever hyped up Nelson.
Whether you like him or loathe him, he got on his bike, fought all over the World, often got robbed as the fighter on the right hand side of the card, and never ducked anyone.
He defended his title 13 times, as many times away from home as at home, and won them all except a draw against a drugs cheat.
Nobody has ever made out he was the second coming - unlike numerous other examples on this thread.

Great post and a prime example of what I mentioned earlier - fans assessing fighters based on their entertainment value rather than their achievements. Nelson was sorely UNDERrated if anything, because people would be bored by his fights and equate that boredom with a lack of quality.

You're probably about right. I think Nelson is a touch underrated. He did things the hard way and deserves all he got out of the game - almost; the ref jumped in far too soon when he took the belt from Carl Thompson. Carl had been down in the previous round but the barrage of punches that led to the stoppage did not justify calling the fight off and taking a man's title off him. No way. A terrible decision that still niggles me 12 years on.

I'd agree with that but you can't blame the fighter for the referee's decision. As champion he was OK. As to be expected for anyone with a lengthy WBO reign, there was some "filler" on his ledger, but a enough decent wins to proved he was a worthy champion.

oliverfennell wrote:

davie wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:I actualy reckon Naz is probably the best British fighter of all time, so cant go along with you there.

At his peak and in the mood he was "unplayable"


By the time he fought Barrera, he was 4 years past his best.

he had just turned 27 when he fought barrera, he retired at 28.

Age and peak are not the same for all. Tyson was past his best by 23. I'd agree that Naz had peaked long before the Barrera fight, although how much of that was physical and how much of it was mental (i.e complacency), who knows.

True he was hyped as a kid amateur at 13!!! i remember reading about him on ceefax when he was 13!!!

MachoMan09 wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

twenty six wrote:Welsh Devil,
Regarding Nelson, I think you'll find most Boxing fans called it about right, so how can you say over rated ? Over rated by who precisely ?
I can't think of anyone who ever hyped up Nelson.
Whether you like him or loathe him, he got on his bike, fought all over the World, often got robbed as the fighter on the right hand side of the card, and never ducked anyone.
He defended his title 13 times, as many times away from home as at home, and won them all except a draw against a drugs cheat.
Nobody has ever made out he was the second coming - unlike numerous other examples on this thread.

Great post and a prime example of what I mentioned earlier - fans assessing fighters based on their entertainment value rather than their achievements. Nelson was sorely UNDERrated if anything, because people would be bored by his fights and equate that boredom with a lack of quality.

You're probably about right. I think Nelson is a touch underrated. He did things the hard way and deserves all he got out of the game - almost; the ref jumped in far too soon when he took the belt from Carl Thompson. Carl had been down in the previous round but the barrage of punches that led to the stoppage did not justify calling the fight off and taking a man's title off him. No way. A terrible decision that still niggles me 12 years on.

He was as dull as dishwater, was Nelson, but he was probably as good as anyone at 190 pounds during his peak.

I remember when FW was trying to put Nelson in with Tyson at Old Trafford after Tyson fought Julius Francis and thinking Nelson would stop Tyson if they ever fought.

Anyway, the poster boy for overrated British boxers has to be Herol Graham.

His standout win would be, ummmmmmmm Chris Johnson?

oliverfennell wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:

oliverfennell wrote: Great post and a prime example of what I mentioned earlier - fans assessing fighters based on their entertainment value rather than their achievements. Nelson was sorely UNDERrated if anything, because people would be bored by his fights and equate that boredom with a lack of quality.

You're probably about right. I think Nelson is a touch underrated. He did things the hard way and deserves all he got out of the game - almost; the ref jumped in far too soon when he took the belt from Carl Thompson. Carl had been down in the previous round but the barrage of punches that led to the stoppage did not justify calling the fight off and taking a man's title off him. No way. A terrible decision that still niggles me 12 years on.

I'd agree with that but you can't blame the fighter for the referee's decision. As champion he was OK. As to be expected for anyone with a lengthy WBO reign, there was some "filler" on his ledger, but a enough decent wins to proved he was a worthy champion.

Nelson was never much rated as a puncher, but he had genuine 1 punch knockout power, which is sometimes forgotten.

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote: You're probably about right. I think Nelson is a touch underrated. He did things the hard way and deserves all he got out of the game - almost; the ref jumped in far too soon when he took the belt from Carl Thompson. Carl had been down in the previous round but the barrage of punches that led to the stoppage did not justify calling the fight off and taking a man's title off him. No way. A terrible decision that still niggles me 12 years on.

I'd agree with that but you can't blame the fighter for the referee's decision. As champion he was OK. As to be expected for anyone with a lengthy WBO reign, there was some "filler" on his ledger, but a enough decent wins to proved he was a worthy champion.

Nelson was never much rated as a puncher, but he had genuine 1 punch knockout power, which is sometimes forgotten.

Against Adam Watt he almost achieved what young Tyson wanted to do, in wanting to push a nose bone into the brain. It was "only" Adam Watt but that was a horrible KO with an awful injury. Watt's nose was almost inverted.

If Nigel Benn was overrated then so is every British Fighter fighting now.
He fought in a ridiculously tough era for MW and SMW and more than held his own. The man was an absolute warrior and a joy to behold in his prime. Surely the most exciting British fighter of living memory. Not having that he was overrated. No way.

For overrated Il look to
Henry Cooper (heralded because he knocked down Ali and for not much else)
Frank Bruno (lost nearly all meaningful fights he was involved in)
AUdley Harrison (although most dont really rate hm, I dont think people rate him low enough. Terrible,negative, poor, poor boxer)

Colin McMillan.