BoxRec

magwitch wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:

magwitch wrote:Naz was good.

Thanks for that insight

It’s okay We overcomplicate things sometimes. Naz was a very good boxer and a nice little exciting rollercoaster for us British boxing fans - if maybe not “quite” the unquestioned, elite fighter.
Someone remind me who were the dominant world champs in their prime who he beat - would Mr Robinson be one of the better ones?
Kevin Kelley was like a razor that night, to my amateur eye.
What about Wayne McCulloch.....or Paul Ingle?

Who would like to rate Naseem Hamed’s four or five greatest wins?

Historically, is he in the top echelon? Yes or no?

He fought loads of world class fighters often in consecutive fights. Stopped most of them as well. Kelley, Johnson, Vazquez, Bungu, Ingle. And so on. Not all were in their athletic primes but some were not far off big wins - Kelley over Gainer, Vazquez over Rojas - etc. When I read posters complaining about shallow talent pools, such as the one Anthony Joshua is in at heavyweight with Martin and Breazeale - I look back,at the Naz era to when things were far better. It was a strong time domestically and there was a lot of quality on the world scene. Naz Scored some big knockouts and had some memorable fights- Kelley, the prospect Augie Sanchez, the very brave and determined Ingle - though he won a stinker over McCullough and was decisively outboxed by Barrera.

Naz was a very good boxer; but great he was not.
His reputation was built on fighting well passed their best or smaller guys.

Lots forget that the Barrera fight was an appetiser for Naz fighting Morales ...

tonyevs wrote:Naz was a very good boxer; but great he was not.
His reputation was built on fighting well passed their best or smaller guys.

Lots forget that the Barrera fight was an appetiser for Naz fighting Morales ...

Have to agree with that. Also, an important measure of greatness, imo, is the way that someone handles losing and comes back from it. Naz utterly failed in that regard.

Boxerbeetle wrote:

tonyevs wrote:Naz was a very good boxer; but great he was not.
His reputation was built on fighting well passed their best or smaller guys.

Lots forget that the Barrera fight was an appetiser for Naz fighting Morales ...

Have to agree with that. Also, an important measure of greatness, imo, is the way that someone handles losing and comes back from it. Naz utterly failed in that regard.

Naz was small for the weight, a lot of the times his opponents were bigger and his hands were getting worse each fight, when he fought Barrerra his hands were already gone, plus they set him up for the Barrerra fight, he was given short notice, was overweight and had to kill himself in the sauna before the fight. Look at his body for the fight, it was terrible and he could not hit as hard because of his hands. No doubt in my mind Naz would have knocked out Barrera at his best, after every fight Naz was in agony with his hands and he had also lost his dedication and love for the sport, the reason he did not come back was because his hands were gone, not because of defeat.

Anzi wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:

tonyevs wrote:Naz was a very good boxer; but great he was not.
His reputation was built on fighting well passed their best or smaller guys.

Lots forget that the Barrera fight was an appetiser for Naz fighting Morales ...

Have to agree with that. Also, an important measure of greatness, imo, is the way that someone handles losing and comes back from it. Naz utterly failed in that regard.

Naz was small for the weight, a lot of the times his opponents were bigger and his hands were getting worse each fight, when he fought Barrerra his hands were already gone, plus they set him up for the Barrerra fight, he was given short notice, was overweight and had to kill himself in the sauna before the fight. Look at his body for the fight, it was terrible and he could not hit as hard because of his hands. No doubt in my mind Naz would have knocked out Barrera at his best, after every fight Naz was in agony with his hands and he had also lost his dedication and love for the sport, the reason he did not come back was because his hands were gone, not because of defeat.

Yeah maybe, but Calzaghe's hands were in a terrible state for years and he changed his style to compensate for it. Many other boxers have done similar, so Naz shouldn't get a free pass just for that.

The old age debate - how good was Nas and would he have beaten Barrera at his best?

It's been done to death. All I'll say it that it's clear Nas wasn't his best in the Barrera fight: just look at his body compared to say, the Robinson fight where he was a little ball of muscle.

black panther wrote:The old age debate - how good was Nas and would he have beaten Barrera at his best?

In my opinion he was very good but he still wouldn't have beaten Barrera (assuming BOTH at their best).

Like a lot of outwardly very confident people I think that the bragadacio masked his insecurities.

black panther wrote:The old age debate - how good was Nas and would he have beaten Barrera at his best?

It's been done to death. All I'll say it that it's clear Nas wasn't his best in the Barrera fight: just look at his body compared to say, the Robinson fight where he was a little ball of muscle.

Exactly

bripez wrote:

black panther wrote:The old age debate - how good was Nas and would he have beaten Barrera at his best?

In my opinion he was very good but he still wouldn't have beaten Barrera (assuming BOTH at their best).

Like a lot of outwardly very confident people I think that the bragadacio masked his insecurities.

barrera was taken out by Junior Junes, when Naz was going to fight him, Naz would done worse to him. Barrera at his best still could not stop Naz, can you imagine if Naz had been at his best.

Boxerbeetle wrote:

Anzi wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:
Have to agree with that. Also, an important measure of greatness, imo, is the way that someone handles losing and comes back from it. Naz utterly failed in that regard.

Naz was small for the weight, a lot of the times his opponents were bigger and his hands were getting worse each fight, when he fought Barrerra his hands were already gone, plus they set him up for the Barrerra fight, he was given short notice, was overweight and had to kill himself in the sauna before the fight. Look at his body for the fight, it was terrible and he could not hit as hard because of his hands. No doubt in my mind Naz would have knocked out Barrera at his best, after every fight Naz was in agony with his hands and he had also lost his dedication and love for the sport, the reason he did not come back was because his hands were gone, not because of defeat.

Yeah maybe, but Calzaghe's hands were in a terrible state for years and he changed his style to compensate for it. Many other boxers have done similar, so Naz shouldn't get a free pass just for that.

you cannot compare the two, Naz was a big puncher, Calzaghie was not and Naz was in a harder division, though Calzaghe was an excellent boxer.

Anzi wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:

Anzi wrote: Naz was small for the weight, a lot of the times his opponents were bigger and his hands were getting worse each fight, when he fought Barrerra his hands were already gone, plus they set him up for the Barrerra fight, he was given short notice, was overweight and had to kill himself in the sauna before the fight. Look at his body for the fight, it was terrible and he could not hit as hard because of his hands. No doubt in my mind Naz would have knocked out Barrera at his best, after every fight Naz was in agony with his hands and he had also lost his dedication and love for the sport, the reason he did not come back was because his hands were gone, not because of defeat.

Yeah maybe, but Calzaghe's hands were in a terrible state for years and he changed his style to compensate for it. Many other boxers have done similar, so Naz shouldn't get a free pass just for that.

you cannot compare the two, Naz was a big puncher, Calzaghie was not and Naz was in a harder division, though Calzaghe was an excellent boxer.

Calzaghe was a huge puncher before his hands went.
All but 1 ended early before the Eubank fight.
He had to reinvent himself because of the Injurys.

PredatorHayds wrote:

Anzi wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:
Yeah maybe, but Calzaghe's hands were in a terrible state for years and he changed his style to compensate for it. Many other boxers have done similar, so Naz shouldn't get a free pass just for that.

you cannot compare the two, Naz was a big puncher, Calzaghie was not and Naz was in a harder division, though Calzaghe was an excellent boxer.

Calzaghe was a huge puncher before his hands went.
All but 1 ended early before the Eubank fight.
He had to reinvent himself because of the Injurys.

He was heavy handed yes, but not a huge puncher.

I suggest you watch his fights Pre-Eubank.

He was a big puncher. He was actually thought of as a knock out artist as opposed to a silky boxer in his early years.

Predator - but who did Calzaghe fight pre Eubank? Calzaghe jumped about 10 levels when he fought Eubank - so was it hands or was it standard of opposition? Mark Delaney was by far his toughest ask pre Eubank.

PredatorHayds wrote:I suggest you watch his fights Pre-Eubank.

He was a big puncher. He was actually thought of as a knock out artist as opposed to a silky boxer in his early years.

Fair point, but Naz was different, he danced to the ring, flipped over the rope, intimidated his opponents, then knocked them out in spectacular fashion, asking Naz to changed his style is like asking Tyson to jab and move, some fighters are the knockout.

Show me a boxer that doesn't have bad hands.

Anzi wrote:

bripez wrote:

black panther wrote:The old age debate - how good was Nas and would he have beaten Barrera at his best?

In my opinion he was very good but he still wouldn't have beaten Barrera (assuming BOTH at their best).

Like a lot of outwardly very confident people I think that the bragadacio masked his insecurities.

barrera was taken out by Junior Junes, when Naz was going to fight him, Naz would done worse to him. Barrera at his best still could not stop Naz, can you imagine if Naz had been at his best.

No.

Barrera is on a different level to Naz, better all round fighter. Tough as hell, every punch in the book, excellent stamina, determined as hell. The Barrera that fought Morales, would have beaten Naz all day long. Naz was just short of greatness, Barrera was the real deal.

As for Naz being small at the weight, no way, the guy had legs like tree trunks, he was short, but no way was he small at the weight.

bripez wrote:

black panther wrote:The old age debate - how good was Nas and would he have beaten Barrera at his best?

In my opinion he was very good but he still wouldn't have beaten Barrera (assuming BOTH at their best).

Like a lot of outwardly very confident people I think that the bragadacio masked his insecurities.

Bingo

PredatorHayds wrote:I suggest you watch his fights Pre-Eubank.

He was a big puncher. He was actually thought of as a knock out artist as opposed to a silky boxer in his early years.

Wasnt he a puncher in the ams as well? I mind when he turned pro reading about him being a KO puncher.

The Naz who beat Robinson, its difficult to imagine anyone having it easy with him.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Anzi wrote:

bripez wrote:
In my opinion he was very good but he still wouldn't have beaten Barrera (assuming BOTH at their best).

Like a lot of outwardly very confident people I think that the bragadacio masked his insecurities.

barrera was taken out by Junior Junes, when Naz was going to fight him, Naz would done worse to him. Barrera at his best still could not stop Naz, can you imagine if Naz had been at his best.

No.

Barrera is on a different level to Naz, better all round fighter. Tough as hell, every punch in the book, excellent stamina, determined as hell. The Barrera that fought Morales, would have beaten Naz all day long. Naz was just short of greatness, Barrera was the real deal.

As for Naz being small at the weight, no way, the guy had legs like tree trunks, he was short, but no way was he small at the weight.

He had massive legs, but he also was seemingly comfortable at Super Bantamweight - didn't seem tight at that weight.

Re Barrera - I think people discredit Junior Jones quite a bit.... sure he didn't have the greatest chin - but if he did.... I think we would be talking about him as a great of the generation also.... very quick fight and gangly.... awkward for a guy like Barrera who was used to being quite a big Super Bantamweight.

I would have loved to have seen Barrera vs Hamed 2, but with Hamed re-dedicated.... Remember there was a rematch clause and it was all suggested that Hamed would activate it. Barrera said time and time again after the first fight that now he released Hamed couldn't hurt him, he would put some serious pressure on him.... was this playing to Naz's hands? Or would Barrera stop him?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Anzi wrote:

bripez wrote:
In my opinion he was very good but he still wouldn't have beaten Barrera (assuming BOTH at their best).

Like a lot of outwardly very confident people I think that the bragadacio masked his insecurities.

barrera was taken out by Junior Junes, when Naz was going to fight him, Naz would done worse to him. Barrera at his best still could not stop Naz, can you imagine if Naz had been at his best.

No.

Barrera is on a different level to Naz, better all round fighter. Tough as hell, every punch in the book, excellent stamina, determined as hell. The Barrera that fought Morales, would have beaten Naz all day long. Naz was just short of greatness, Barrera was the real deal.

As for Naz being small at the weight, no way, the guy had legs like tree trunks, he was short, but no way was he small at the weight.

You need to do your research mate, Hamed had beat about 8 fighters who have been world champions at some stage and Hamed started his career as a pro at 114 Ibs, moved and jumped from super bantam to fight Robinson, Barrera has been beaten by a lot of guys and stopped, Hamed has never been stopped.

So what if Barrera was stopped a grand total of once in his long career? That didn't stop (hahahahah) him from beating Naz and never showing any signs of being hurt in the process.

Hamed's level of opposition didn't come close to MAB's either. When you've fought JMM, Pacquiao x2, and Morales x3 losses are almost sure to happen, and he was clearly wayyyyy past his best when he fought Khan.

crusader wrote:So what if Barrera was stopped a grand total of once in his long career? That didn't stop (hahahahah) him from beating Naz and never showing any signs of being hurt in the process.

Hamed's level of opposition didn't come close to MAB's either. When you've fought JMM, Pacquiao x2, and Morales x3 losses are almost sure to happen, and he was clearly wayyyyy past his best when he fought Khan.

Hamed could not get the big names, they would not fight him and being in Britain hindered him, Barrera's team refused Hamed, when Hamed was at his best and waited until he slipped a bit, when he was out of camp, unfit and overweight, they gave him a time limit that he should have turned down, but he knew he would never get Barrera again.

crusader wrote:So what if Barrera was stopped a grand total of once in his long career? That didn't stop (hahahahah) him from beating Naz and never showing any signs of being hurt in the process.

Hamed's level of opposition didn't come close to MAB's either. When you've fought JMM, Pacquiao x2, and Morales x3 losses are almost sure to happen, and he was clearly wayyyyy past his best when he fought Khan.

The one stoppage on his resume was on cuts too, and Khan never came close to hurting him, despite Barrera being way past it.

I just don't see any version of Naz beating Barrera, he was too good for him.