Naz & Barrera

[stujones]

Alot of the threads you read now make this fight out to be a massacre. As if Hamed was beaten from pillar to post. Definitely not the case. I would like to ask these people what they consider the Pac-man Barrera fight? Now that was a onesided affair.

But not the affair in question, so a pointless statement.

Hamed was taken to school face it. His style was exposed, and an example was made that the most effective boxing style is a CORRECT style. Not a flashy Ingle style. Barrera by a mile!!

My point in mentioning Pac-man was that you don't hear people ranting that Barrera is a fraud etc after that fight. Yet Hamed is for his performance against Barrera.

Huge difference between Barrera and Hamed though is in their level of opposition they have beaten.

People were calling Barrera a fraud after Junior Jones, right up untill the Morales fight. There he beat (according to most) an assured all time great, a shoing future hall of famer at the peak of his powers.

Name me 1 fighter who Hamed fought that you could call an A grade fighter at the top of his game - the closest I see is Medina, yet if I would have suggested Medina vs Morales a few years back people would have been calling it a massacre and a horrible match.

I have the utmost respect for Medina, he is a 5 time world champion, but he also lost the title 5 times and never really beat an outstanding champion himself. I would call him a high level B grade fighter, similar level to the likes of Gatti, Fernando Vargas (prime) fighter of that ilk.

Hamed fought Kelley and Johnson as geniune A grade opposition, but they were past their prime. The rest were either not in the right weight devision (Bungu, McCullough) not experienced enough (Sanchez, Ingle) ill prepared (Robinson) and not good enough (rest of them).

I think was only Medina and Ingle who (thus far) have gone on to win a world title from Hamed's successful title defences.

The Morales trilogy and the win over Hamed - means he has beaten A grade fighters - something I don't think Hamed has done. Hamed's wins over the B grade opposition made him more than a B grade fighter (definately an A grader) but he lacks that top top draw win that most A graders achieve - hence the fraud claims.

Barrera has had at least 3 fighters who have gone ON to win a big four version of the world title (Toledo at Feather, Sanchez at Super Bantam, McKinney at Super Bantam). Also fought a stack of ex world champions, has been involved in a fair few unification fights - titles not on the line in all of them (Tapia, Peden, Morales)

But it the series with Morales that will mean he can never be called a fraud - before that people were calling him a fraud.

As for the Barrera vs Pacquiao fight, people say that Hamed wasn't right for his bout with Barrera if that is some kind of excuse. Hamed has one person and one person only to blame for his training "regime" - thats himself. Barerra had to deal with environmental problems (fires up in big bear), a coach going public on a health scare and a split (that might have been Barrera's fault, but the going public on a health problem must have effected him). Do you think that was the Barrera who beat up Peden, that beat Morales - I don't.

The What if's brigade about Hamed's display vs Barrera means nothing. Hamed lost, he could have prepared better but he didn't - so that means nothing. He knew what he had to do, he had nothing stopping him from doing it - but he didn't. He had know excuses, so I don't know why people continue making them about that fight.

[fist]

But not the affair in question, so a pointless statement.

Hamed was taken to school face it. His style was exposed, and an example was made that the most effective boxing style is a CORRECT style. Not a flashy Ingle style. Barrera by a mile!!

My point in mentioning Pac-man was that you don't hear people ranting that Barrera is a fraud etc after that fight. Yet Hamed is for his performance against Barrera.

Huge difference between Barrera and Hamed though is in their level of opposition they have beaten.

People were calling Barrera a fraud after Junior Jones, right up untill the Morales fight. There he beat (according to most) an assured all time great, a shoing future hall of famer at the peak of his powers.

Name me 1 fighter who Hamed fought that you could call an A grade fighter at the top of his game - the closest I see is Medina, yet if I would have suggested Medina vs Morales a few years back people would have been calling it a massacre and a horrible match.

I have the utmost respect for Medina, he is a 5 time world champion, but he also lost the title 5 times and never really beat an outstanding champion himself. I would call him a high level B grade fighter, similar level to the likes of Gatti, Fernando Vargas (prime) fighter of that ilk.

Hamed fought Kelley and Johnson as geniune A grade opposition, but they were past their prime. The rest were either not in the right weight devision (Bungu, McCullough) not experienced enough (Sanchez, Ingle) ill prepared (Robinson) and not good enough (rest of them).

I think was only Medina and Ingle who (thus far) have gone on to win a world title from Hamed's successful title defences.

The Morales trilogy and the win over Hamed - means he has beaten A grade fighters - something I don't think Hamed has done. Hamed's wins over the B grade opposition made him more than a B grade fighter (definately an A grader) but he lacks that top top draw win that most A graders achieve - hence the fraud claims.

Barrera has had at least 3 fighters who have gone ON to win a big four version of the world title (Toledo at Feather, Sanchez at Super Bantam, McKinney at Super Bantam). Also fought a stack of ex world champions, has been involved in a fair few unification fights - titles not on the line in all of them (Tapia, Peden, Morales)

But it the series with Morales that will mean he can never be called a fraud - before that people were calling him a fraud.

As for the Barrera vs Pacquiao fight, people say that Hamed wasn't right for his bout with Barrera if that is some kind of excuse. Hamed has one person and one person only to blame for his training "regime" - thats himself. Barerra had to deal with environmental problems (fires up in big bear), a coach going public on a health scare and a split (that might have been Barrera's fault, but the going public on a health problem must have effected him). Do you think that was the Barrera who beat up Peden, that beat Morales - I don't.

The What if's brigade about Hamed's display vs Barrera means nothing. Hamed lost, he could have prepared better but he didn't - so that means nothing. He knew what he had to do, he had nothing stopping him from doing it - but he didn't. He had know excuses, so I don't know why people continue making them about that fight.

I completely disagree. The notion that Hamed did not fight to the best of his abilities is a fair one and supported by the points you disregard. Hamed fought some excellent competition and would have no doubt gone on to fight other top class boxers if he had not retired. And the theme of this thread was whether or not the Barrera Naz fight was as one sided as come Naz critics say it was, which IMO it clearly wasn't. There were many many tell tale signs as outlined in previous posts that indicated Naseem was not at his best. A win was within his capabilties, he suffered no knockout and without doubt had the power to knock Barrera cold.

[s9s]

I think once Naz realised that he was fighting someone who was not crapping his pants before the fight, the mental battle was lost and unlike great champions he could not adjust or adapt.

[stujones]

Fist,

But there is a just reason why Barrera didn't prepare properly for the Pacquiao fight - his training camp was interupted by environmental issues he couldn't control and his health worries were made public in the build up to the fight. There was NO reason why Hamed shouldn't have prepared properly, he was at his physical peak at 27 and had no reason why he prepared like he did. Other than believing his own hype, the hunger had gone or underestimating Bareera. I don't think that people here saying "what if" - he could have, but didn't. You could say what if there wasn't forrest fires up in big bear for the Barrera vs Pacquiao fight.

My post was in response to RobD's who argued why don't people call Barerra a fraud after getting KO'd by Hamed.

As for your arguement that Hamed could have beaten Barerra or was better in his "prime" than Bareera, it all what if's again. My arguement that he isn't is based on 36 minutes of action. You can argue that the fight wasn't as one sided as critics make out, and you may have a point - but then surely that also dimishes some of your arguement for a rematch.

At the time the majority of the critics thought it was a one sided schooling and people argued that if Hamed was better prepared then he would have tagged Barrera and "knock him out cold". However, as you say the fight wasn't as clear as critics say, thats because Hamed did win a few rounds. That means (and he did especially in the 7th) that Hamed tagged Barrera, and Marco didn't flinch. Barerra knew that Hamed hit him thats why he is so adamant that he felt the best of Hamed and thats why he promised he would walk through him in a rematch.

I don't actually think Barerra was at his uptmost best the night he beat Hamed. The Morales fight certainly took the old fighter from Barerra, it wasn't the Hamed fight were he elected to box - it was all fights between Morales 1 and Pacquiao. He had shown a more "negative" approach in the Valbuena and Salud fights.

[JimmyJamJerusalem]

Barrera had Hamed's beating from the opening bell.

Hamed was at his best, he was just made to look poor, that is why people say he was exposed.

Barreras defense was perfect that night, and Hameds was shit, as he never bothers to keep his hands up. IT SHOWED!!! And he was thoroughly outboxed.

If boxing with your hands around your waist was the most effective way to box, everybody would do it, but it isn't. Barrera proved that.

[fist]

Barrera had Hamed's beating from the opening bell.

Hamed was at his best, he was just made to look poor, that is why people say he was exposed.

Barreras defense was perfect that night, and Hameds was shit, as he never bothers to keep his hands up. IT SHOWED!!! And he was thoroughly outboxed.

If boxing with your hands around your waist was the most effective way to box, everybody would do it, but it isn't. Barrera proved that.

Disagree that Naz was at his best - as Steward recently said, he did't even spar in training. All his own fault of course, as well his trainer's. Nonetheless, Hameds peformance and focus were not an example of Naz at his best.

[fist]

Fist,

But there is a just reason why Barrera didn't prepare properly for the Pacquiao fight - his training camp was interupted by environmental issues he couldn't control and his health worries were made public in the build up to the fight. There was NO reason why Hamed shouldn't have prepared properly, he was at his physical peak at 27 and had no reason why he prepared like he did. Other than believing his own hype, the hunger had gone or underestimating Bareera. I don't think that people here saying "what if" - he could have, but didn't. You could say what if there wasn't forrest fires up in big bear for the Barrera vs Pacquiao fight.

My post was in response to RobD's who argued why don't people call Barerra a fraud after getting KO'd by Hamed.

As for your arguement that Hamed could have beaten Barerra or was better in his "prime" than Bareera, it all what if's again. My arguement that he isn't is based on 36 minutes of action. You can argue that the fight wasn't as one sided as critics make out, and you may have a point - but then surely that also dimishes some of your arguement for a rematch.

At the time the majority of the critics thought it was a one sided schooling and people argued that if Hamed was better prepared then he would have tagged Barrera and "knock him out cold". However, as you say the fight wasn't as clear as critics say, thats because Hamed did win a few rounds. That means (and he did especially in the 7th) that Hamed tagged Barrera, and Marco didn't flinch. Barerra knew that Hamed hit him thats why he is so adamant that he felt the best of Hamed and thats why he promised he would walk through him in a rematch.

I don't actually think Barerra was at his uptmost best the night he beat Hamed. The Morales fight certainly took the old fighter from Barerra, it wasn't the Hamed fight were he elected to box - it was all fights between Morales 1 and Pacquiao. He had shown a more "negative" approach in the Valbuena and Salud fights.

I agree with some of your points. My main issue is with the criticism that some people level at Hamed, that his performance was a revelation of poor non-world class ability. Your point about 'what ifs' is fair enough and I agree that there is no excuse for not preparing etc. However, these negative factors still flawed his performance. I just think it is unfair on Hamed to discredit his world title, previous successes and overall boxing ability because of one fight and I really do think had more to offer than what he gave in the Barrera fight. Anyway, truth is there is only one way for Naz to attempt to prove his critics wrong and that is to come back and beat the best. He may never do it, but it would be exciting and intriguiing if he attempted to.

[MightyWarrior]

I think once Naz realised that he was fighting someone who was not crapping his pants before the fight, the mental battle was lost and unlike great champions he could not adjust or adapt.

Naz beat plenty of fighters who weren't mentaly beat before the opening bell: Sanchez, Kelly, Ingle, Medina....

He was still trying to KO Barrera right up to the final bell, slinging single shots as he'd done all night. He was just clueless when it came to working out MAB's unexpected change of tactics.

Completely unprepared, that's what it came down to. Which makes Steward's latest offer to train him so hilarious.