Page 2 of 5
Re: A Look Back at Naseem Hamed
Posted: 29 Feb 2012, 13:16
by Wrists
The Belcastro fight makes me laugh.
Naz gets slaughtered for taking the mick yet when Belcastro sticks the nut in (which he did in every fight) it was because he was a 'wily old pro'
Naz started to lose it for me around the Johnson fight - a peak Naz would have done Boom Boom inside 3-4 rounds. A peak Naz also stops McCullough and Soto and doesnt go to hell and back with Ingle. All still good results which could have looked even better.
Probably the biggest shame since I've been following the sport. Naz could have become an absolute great.
Re: A Look Back at Naseem Hamed
Posted: 29 Feb 2012, 13:45
by Counter-puncher
Wrists wrote:Naz's list of opponents at the top level would look great nowadays:
Robinson
Ingle
Vasquez
Hardy
McCulloch
Kelley
Soto
Bungu
Barrerra
Johnson
Even lower grade fighters like Sanchez, Badillo and Alicea are decent opponents.
This has been done to death but Naz was brilliant, unified his divisions and beat (and knocked out) a lot of very good fighters. Bear in mind he went to MSG fought a New yorker on his home turf, who was 47-1 at the time and knocked him out. The Kelley fight for me is criminally under rated as a result.
Bungu was unbeaten in years, Soto and Johnson were belt holders (as in essence was Vasquez). Hardy, McCulloch and Ingle were the best the UK had to offer.
He's a hall of famer and only a win against a Barrera, Morales or JMM stop him from being an all time great
i partially agree but i think with manhy of Naz's opponents, the more pertinent question is what did they go on to do AFTER they lost to Naz, ie what did they have left when they fought him.
if you look at Kelley Johnson Bungu Vasquez Robinson i'd struggle to name a top level win any of them had after they fought Naz (open to correction here but i am pretty sure there weren't any), he clearly got them at absolutely the right time in their careers.
Re: A Look Back at Naseem Hamed
Posted: 29 Feb 2012, 13:57
by Counter-puncher
ok, checking a little, after they fought Naz:
Kelley beat a green Soto and that's all she wrote
Bungu beat nobody
fvcking hell to be fair Vasquez went 9 rounds with Lazcano at 135, hmm. but basically he did feck-all of note.
Johnson, i look at his record after Naz and the one word that comes to mind is 'ouch'. basically getting beat up by 130lbers and lightweights
so yeah i am happy with my original point, just about every one of Naz's best wins came against guys who never won another world level fight.
Re: A Look Back at Naseem Hamed
Posted: 29 Feb 2012, 14:17
by orbtastic
There is an element of that to it but all of them were long-time belt holders and pretty long in the tooth. Had he not faced them, then you'd get people chipping in with "oh but he ducked...". He can't win really.
I personally think he ducked Marquez, who was the WBO mandatory for the best part of about 18-24 months and the word on the street was that he was unknown but pretty good aka risk/reward. The Marquez went on to chase another title and lost to Norwood.
He also didn't face his other WBO mandatory, but chose to fight MAB...so he can't be criticised there.
I'd have liked to have seen him in with Espinoza, but he lost to Soto, so that's his funeral.
Re: A Look Back at Naseem Hamed
Posted: 29 Feb 2012, 14:19
by Counter-puncher
indeed, it'd just be nice if one or two of those best wins came without that qualification.
Re: A Look Back at Naseem Hamed
Posted: 29 Feb 2012, 14:31
by orbtastic
Johnson was looking a bit creaky in his fight beforehand - I saw it live on the Benn/Malinga II UC and he almost got stopped. He was there for the taking but certainly not a foregone conclusion. Vasquez also showing signs of age, not looking great in his last couple but still was unbeaten champ going in (and on some streak), as were the majority of the guys he faced.
Re: A Look Back at Naseem Hamed
Posted: 29 Feb 2012, 14:34
by Quixall
There is a video on you tube of Mayweather saying he would like to fight Hamed as his next opponent.............
Obviously some years ago !!
Re: A Look Back at Naseem Hamed
Posted: 29 Feb 2012, 15:50
by crusader
safeerah wrote:crusader wrote:safeerah wrote:no way ! ( Jr Jones )
Barrera improved (you think he was at his best in 97?) and eventually defeated better opponents than Jones, so I don't understand your point.
He was a monster before he lost to jones, after Jones he was more entertaining because people pushed him closer, so people assume he was at his best because of that, but he was beaten my morales and destroyed by Pacman later on, though he did make a come back as top flight fighter for Naz, can you emagine what Mayweather would have done with him, as Jones proved a boxer with a punch will always beat him. When Barrera fought Naz they where at different stages, the hands of Naz had gone and his interest in boxing had wavered, Naz was a shell of the man that terroriised the division, Barrera had just had lease of life and come off a great performance in his last fight, Naz did not even look good bodywise. Naz should have boxed Barrera not go looking for the one punch ko with bad hands, Barrera showed the respect he had for the power of Naz, because he boxed instead of his usual brawling style. For me both in top form Naz would box Barreras ears off then win by Ko.
Barrera significantly improved his boxing skills after fighting Jones; he used his jab and footwork more frequently, set up punches rather than impetuously unloading, and attempted to block with something other than his face. He was never a pure boxer, but his adoption of a more intelligent style would serve him well against any version of Hamed.
I disagree that Naz would 'box Barreras ears off then win by KO.' Naz lost several rounds to each of Medina, McCullough, and Soto, in addition to being dropped three times against Kelley. Prime Barrera was significantly better than any opponent Naz faced, which many people overlook when explaining the outcome of their bout, even though a clear positive correlation exists between the ability of a fighter and the difficulty they provide.
In their optimal forms, I can envision Naz defeating Barrera, but I disagree with your extrapolation of the Jones' fights to a Naz-Barrera showdown and the one-sided nature of your prediction; prime Barrera was better equipped to deal with skilled boxers than he was in 97 and Hamed never proved that he could beat great fighters, let alone outclass and stop them.
Re: A Look Back at Naseem Hamed
Posted: 29 Feb 2012, 17:02
by wesley05
1 massive word!!! LEGEND
Re: A Look Back at Naseem Hamed
Posted: 01 Mar 2012, 11:09
by Bricks
I wish we wouldnt see any more of these threads.....Hameds a ffucking lost cause.....from the very beggining....a lost cause.
He promised so much and delivered so little except bullying type obnoxious performaces (breaking Lawals nose when a jab would have put him down)
Re: A Look Back at Naseem Hamed
Posted: 01 Mar 2012, 12:26
by Emmseegee
mugabi wrote:He promised so much and delivered so little except bullying type obnoxious performaces (breaking Lawals nose when a jab would have put him down)
I wouldn't hold that against a fighter, its the referees responsibility to look after the safety of another fighter.
Would see your point if he hit him whilst he was on his knees or something.
He only threw about 3 punches in that fight.
Re: A Look Back at Naseem Hamed
Posted: 01 Mar 2012, 15:28
by Quixall
mugabi wrote:
I wish we wouldnt see any more of these threads.....Hameds a ffucking lost cause.....from the very beggining....a lost cause.
He promised so much and delivered so little except bullying type obnoxious performaces (breaking Lawals nose when a jab would have put him down)
He certainly wasn't a lost cause from the start.........
People will always want to raise threads about Naz because some are new to the forum perhaps ?
No-one says that Ricky Hatton was a lot cause and Naz equalled what he did in the ring.
Re: A Look Back at Naseem Hamed
Posted: 02 Mar 2012, 06:17
by mahatma
yes he was a great entertainer and puncher but his bubble was well and truly burst by MAB.He clearly lost the fight and was given a lesson by the great Mexican but he shouldnt of retired at that point ( barrera morales pacman etc had all lost fights )- he could of took a rematch or had a fight with Morales, he should of learned from the defeat adapted his style and came back- instead he walked away attempted a half baked comeback later on but he'd lost more than the fight when he fought barrera
Re: A Look Back at Naseem Hamed
Posted: 02 Mar 2012, 07:50
by tonyevs
Gosh ..... is this thread a wind-up?
The best names on Naz record were all a few years past their best.
Lots point to his fight with Robinson as his peak, but Robinson was seriously shop worn....just watch his last few defences before Naz if you doubt me..
Kelly gave him a scare. But the Kelly who beat Goyo Vargas woulda destroyed the peak Naz.
And don't forget that Barrera was supposed to be the appetizer for Naz to fight the (seemingly) better Morales.
Once again he called out a smaller weight fighter and ignored the guys one weight up ...
And Barrera didn't even see himself as a featherweight and moved back down..
Naz was good. He certainly wasn't great ....not even special.
Re: A Look Back at Naseem Hamed
Posted: 02 Mar 2012, 08:06
by MightyWarrior
tonyevs wrote:
And don't forget that Barrera was supposed to be the appetizer for Naz to fight the (seemingly) better Morales.
Not true. Barrera was generally seen as the better fighter at the time, most people thought he won that 1st fight with Morales - he'd looked brilliant and backed it up with another few wins before taking on Naz.
Re: A Look Back at Naseem Hamed
Posted: 02 Mar 2012, 09:08
by Datsue
MightyWarrior wrote:tonyevs wrote:
And don't forget that Barrera was supposed to be the appetizer for Naz to fight the (seemingly) better Morales.
Not true. Barrera was generally seen as the better fighter at the time, most people thought he won that 1st fight with Morales - he'd looked brilliant and backed it up with another few wins before taking on Naz.
Yeah, in fact I think it was more that the Barrera fight was supposed to be an appetiser for Morales before Naz took on Erik. People were talking about Naz-Morales about the time Erik beat McCullough, yet after the close call vs. Barrera, it was decided that Naz should face the popular choice as winner, as Barrera's stock rose hugely whilst Morales' dipped.
Re: A Look Back at Naseem Hamed
Posted: 02 Mar 2012, 09:53
by Datsue
King Geedorah wrote:safeerah wrote:crusader wrote:
Barrera improved (you think he was at his best in 97?) and eventually defeated better opponents than Jones, so I don't understand your point.
He was a monster before he lost to jones, after Jones he was more entertaining because people pushed him closer, so people assume he was at his best because of that, but he was beaten my morales and destroyed by Pacman later on, though he did make a come back as top flight fighter for Naz, can you emagine what Mayweather would have done with him, as Jones proved a boxer with a punch will always beat him. When Barrera fought Naz they where at different stages, the hands of Naz had gone and his interest in boxing had wavered, Naz was a shell of the man that terroriised the division, Barrera had just had lease of life and come off a great performance in his last fight, Naz did not even look good bodywise. Naz should have boxed Barrera not go looking for the one punch ko with bad hands, Barrera showed the respect he had for the power of Naz, because he boxed instead of his usual brawling style. For me both in top form Naz would box Barreras ears off then win by Ko.
Barrera was actually less entertaining after Jones, in the main, because he employed a different style. As for the assertion that Morales beat him, he did, but there was no shame as it was a close fight. As for what Mayweather would do to Barrera, what would he have done to Naz or anyone in the modern game for that matter? Answer, beaten them fairly handily.
Fair enough if you want to argue Naz's corner, but a little due care when it comes to the facts as well as pointing out that Barrera later beat Morales twice would be nice.
I always pegged Barrera over Naz, even at SBW, as he is a far better boxer. Naseem was viewed as seeking to right a wrong when he uttered the famous, "I want the winner, I want Barrera", line yet it is likely that he went for Marco because he felt it was an easier fight over a guy who had just burned brightly for the last time, the reality is that he got the opposite. Unfit or not, his tactic of extending a glove for Barrera to touch in the hope he could then clock him was piss poor, ironically it may have worked on Morales.
Naz went for the wrong Mexican. Barrera beats him all day long in my mind, JMM also, Morales is touch and go.
Boxing isn't just a physical game, if a guy, Naz, has no respect for his next foe and fusses about over goat skin gloves instead of working hard then it is a cop out to use this lack of focus as an excuse when analysing his career.
Naz had elite level ability and punch, he did not have the mentality or drive. Floyd is where he is because he got rich but still wants to beat everyone, Naz lost his edge. This is why he's not a great fighter, just a very good and exciting one.
You can pit a prime NAz in mythical match ups against the top guys but in order to get there he'd have had to earn enough dough to blunt his edge, this is what seperates Naz from Ali, Lennox, Hagler etc.
Re: A Look Back at Naseem Hamed
Posted: 02 Mar 2012, 10:10
by tonyevs
King Geedorah wrote:
Barrera was actually less entertaining after Jones, in the main, because he employed a different style. As for the assertion that Morales beat him, he did, but there was no shame as it was a close fight. As for what Mayweather would do to Barrera, what would he have done to Naz or anyone in the modern game for that matter? Answer, beaten them fairly handily.
Fair enough if you want to argue Naz's corner, but a little due care when it comes to the facts as well as pointing out that Barrera later beat Morales twice would be nice.
I always pegged Barrera over Naz, even at SBW, as he is a far better boxer. Naseem was viewed as seeking to right a wrong when he uttered the famous, "I want the winner, I want Barrera", line yet it is likely that he went for Marco because he felt it was an easier fight over a guy who had just burned brightly for the last time, the reality is that he got the opposite. Unfit or not, his tactic of extending a glove for Barrera to touch in the hope he could then clock him was piss poor, ironically it may have worked on Morales.
Naz went for the wrong Mexican. Barrera beats him all day long in my mind, JMM also, Morales is touch and go.
Boxing isn't just a physical game, if a guy, Naz, has no respect for his next foe and fusses about over goat skin gloves instead of working hard then it is a cop out to use this lack of focus as an excuse when analysing his career.
Naz had elite level ability and punch, he did not have the mentality or drive. Floyd is where he is because he got rich but still wants to beat everyone, Naz lost his edge. This is why he's not a great fighter, just a very good and exciting one.
You can pit a prime NAz in mythical match ups against the top guys but in order to get there he'd have had to earn enough dough to blunt his edge, this is what seperates Naz from Ali, Lennox, Hagler etc.
Good post mate
I did put in brackets, that Morales was seemed to be better than Barrera ..
Either way anyways. Naz simply wasn`t as good as he and lots of others thought (or still think ..) certainly not good enough to have beaten Barrera.
Names on records tells you as much as actual fight records .. very little unless you look at them closely.
Yes - Naz had some good names on there .. but it is when he fought them that really matters.
For me, Naz whole ring walk thing was chavvy and classless .. some can make such things work and seem cool .. alot of Naz`s entrances just made me cringe
Re: A Look Back at Naseem Hamed
Posted: 02 Mar 2012, 10:21
by Quixall
King Geedorah wrote:safeerah wrote:crusader wrote:
Barrera improved (you think he was at his best in 97?) and eventually defeated better opponents than Jones, so I don't understand your point.
He was a monster before he lost to jones, after Jones he was more entertaining because people pushed him closer, so people assume he was at his best because of that, but he was beaten my morales and destroyed by Pacman later on, though he did make a come back as top flight fighter for Naz, can you emagine what Mayweather would have done with him, as Jones proved a boxer with a punch will always beat him. When Barrera fought Naz they where at different stages, the hands of Naz had gone and his interest in boxing had wavered, Naz was a shell of the man that terroriised the division, Barrera had just had lease of life and come off a great performance in his last fight, Naz did not even look good bodywise. Naz should have boxed Barrera not go looking for the one punch ko with bad hands, Barrera showed the respect he had for the power of Naz, because he boxed instead of his usual brawling style. For me both in top form Naz would box Barreras ears off then win by Ko.
Barrera was actually less entertaining after Jones, in the main, because he employed a different style. As for the assertion that Morales beat him, he did, but there was no shame as it was a close fight. As for what Mayweather would do to Barrera, what would he have done to Naz or anyone in the modern game for that matter? Answer, beaten them fairly handily.
Fair enough if you want to argue Naz's corner, but a little due care when it comes to the facts as well as pointing out that Barrera later beat Morales twice would be nice.
I always pegged Barrera over Naz, even at SBW, as he is a far better boxer. Naseem was viewed as seeking to right a wrong when he uttered the famous, "I want the winner, I want Barrera", line yet it is likely that he went for Marco because he felt it was an easier fight over a guy who had just burned brightly for the last time, the reality is that he got the opposite. Unfit or not, his tactic of extending a glove for Barrera to touch in the hope he could then clock him was piss poor, ironically it may have worked on Morales.
Naz went for the wrong Mexican. Barrera beats him all day long in my mind, JMM also, Morales is touch and go.
Boxing isn't just a physical game, if a guy, Naz, has no respect for his next foe and fusses about over goat skin gloves instead of working hard then it is a cop out to use this lack of focus as an excuse when analysing his career.
Naz had elite level ability and punch, he did not have the mentality or drive. Floyd is where he is because he got rich but still wants to beat everyone, Naz lost his edge. This is why he's not a great fighter, just a very good and exciting one.
You can pit a prime NAz in mythical match ups against the top guys but in order to get there he'd have had to earn enough dough to blunt his edge, this is what seperates Naz from Ali, Lennox, Hagler etc.
Regardless of whether Naz became one dimensional or not as his career developed, it is a simple fact that as his career progressed he fought more competant fighters that could deal with his style and negate alot of the things that Naz did. I also agree that Naz took his eye off the ball and was getting dissolusioned with boxing. Manny Steward has remarked in several interviews regarding Naz, that he was difficult to handle and at time simply wouldn't listen to the advice that was given. Naz became a bit of a monster and believed he was invincible and that his punch power would always get him through and he essentially paid the price for that blind faith.
Re: A Look Back at Naseem Hamed
Posted: 02 Mar 2012, 12:58
by milpool
tonyevs wrote:For me, Naz whole ring walk thing was chavvy and classless .. some can make such things work and seem cool .. alot of Naz`s entrances just made me cringe
I think Adrien Broner has been watching some of Naz's old fights. His little dance on Saturday night was very Naz-esque!
Re: A Look Back at Naseem Hamed
Posted: 02 Mar 2012, 16:25
by Bricks
Emmseegee wrote:mugabi wrote:He promised so much and delivered so little except bullying type obnoxious performaces (breaking Lawals nose when a jab would have put him down)
I wouldn't hold that against a fighter, its the referees responsibility to look after the safety of another fighter.
Would see your point if he hit him whilst he was on his knees or something.
He only threw about 3 punches in that fight.
Hamed and his management knew beforehand this guy Lawal didnt have any business being a Naz sparring partner let alone main event for a world title. The fact as u pointed out Naz only threw 3 punches, yet it was such a brutal beating says it all. Most of the time Naz had his hands by his knees pulling silly faces and mocking his terrified and impovrished foe.... that fight and my 2 posts pretty much encapsulate Hameds career.
He loved playing the big time charlie with weak foes a big fish in a small pond with a big mouth but when the real competition he claimed to crave arrived he bailed out quick time.
He used to scream he would win world titles in 6 weights and fight Steve Collins for the 168 title in Dublin...but look at the foes in and around his weight who all loved fighting each other who he never fought......Morales,Ayala, Tapia, JM Marquez, Mayweather, Corrales, Mosley,Freitas,Casamayor,Gatti....the only guy he fought was Barrera
and we all know what happened there.
Still he was a nice family man outside the ring and he did his family proud he accumalated a 40 million pound fortune and paid his way for his beloved father. As a man there are few greater compliments you can pay a son. But in the ring for all his talent and big talk he didnt turn out a success from a ATG perspective....in terms of finances he was a tremendous success.
I just didnt like the mocking of LAwal one of his fellow muslims wasnt he?
Re: A Look Back at Naseem Hamed
Posted: 03 Mar 2012, 14:35
by tonyevs
mugabi wrote:
I just didnt like the mocking of LAwal one of his fellow muslims wasnt he?
Not sure if Lawal was. But didn`t naz make a statement that he would never fight a fellow muslim
So he may well have been, because Naz wasn`t too clever really was he ..
Re: A Look Back at Naseem Hamed
Posted: 03 Mar 2012, 14:41
by reggaereggae
Hamed was a fantastic talent and lit up boxing. I'm not sure what I think of his ahcievements - he looked amazing in some fights; but was he a guy who looked amazing against inferior fighters but would struggle against the best? (EG like a better Witter.)
I'm not sure. But I do miss the excitement, the boasting, the skills.............
Re: A Look Back at Naseem Hamed
Posted: 03 Mar 2012, 19:19
by fist
IMO the best British boxer there's been. And certainly the most entertaining. loved his style. Amazing power. Shame he retired so young. As for Barrera, for me it was within Naseem to beat him. Not a certainty, but quite possible. Naseem fought terrible in that fight, balance was off, he looked nervous, strategy was all wrong and as for the preperation... Was a shame. All that and it was a points loss, with clear scope for improvement.
Nonetheless, he acheived a huge amount overall. One of the best.
Re: A Look Back at Naseem Hamed
Posted: 04 Mar 2012, 06:48
by tonyevs
fist wrote:IMO the best British boxer there's been. And certainly the most entertaining. loved his style. Amazing power. Shame he retired so young. As for Barrera, for me it was within Naseem to beat him. Not a certainty, but quite possible. Naseem fought terrible in that fight, balance was off, he looked nervous, strategy was all wrong and as for the preperation... Was a shame. All that and it was a points loss, with clear scope for improvement.
Nonetheless, he acheived a huge amount overall. One of the best.
Sorry mate. Simply can`t agree with most of your post. Especially when you finish off contradicting yourself.
The best British boxer theres been
Then you say
One of the best