BoxRec

Hamed was the best featherweight of the 90's, FACT!!

Jabba The Nut wrote:Although I liked Naz, he was limited and we all knew he would get beat when he faced someone like Bazza.

Yeah, I think that was the first (and only) fight I've ever betted on. He was good to watch - he put on a good show - but flaws in character and technical ability were always going to let him down at some point near the top.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:The guys you mentioned are not just A class, they are hall of famers, you don't have to be a hall of famer to be an A class fighter.

There's a ridiculous notion in boxing that everyone outside of the absolute elite in the world are somehow 'bums' which is very ignorant. Anyone good enough to live with the likes of an Erik Morales, Barrera, etc is obviously a very good fighter, because they fall short does not make them bums.

The 40 year old McCulloch happened to be Daniel Zaragoza, himself a hall of famer who pulled out one last big win. He was still good enough to extend Morales 11 rounds in his next fight and was not far behind on the cards at the time of the stoppage.

McCulloch is hardly C class, C class is journeymen not former fornicating champs.

Well put

Jabba The Nut wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:The guys you mentioned are not just A class, they are hall of famers, you don't have to be a hall of famer to be an A class fighter.

There's a ridiculous notion in boxing that everyone outside of the absolute elite in the world are somehow 'bums' which is very ignorant. Anyone good enough to live with the likes of an Erik Morales, Barrera, etc is obviously a very good fighter, because they fall short does not make them bums.

The 40 year old McCulloch happened to be Daniel Zaragoza, himself a hall of famer who pulled out one last big win. He was still good enough to extend Morales 11 rounds in his next fight and was not far behind on the cards at the time of the stoppage.

McCulloch is hardly C class, C class is journeymen not former fornicating champs.

Get in the real world man,

Have a look as some boxers from the 1920's, 30's,40's etc etc and then compare them to Naz! Hall of famers my hairy ass!

Watch Sanchez vs Gomez, compare it to any of Naz's fight and then mention hall of fame

I think the point is that these guys don't nessasseraly belong in the hall of fame, but that doesn't make them bums.

BTW I agree that there were feathers in the 20s, 30s, and 40s that were better than Naz but what does that prove, I think the lightweights of the 30s are better that today but that doesn't make Castillo and Corrales bums.

Could Naz have fought better opposition than he did? - yes probably. Does he belong in the hall of fame - no. But for people to say he fought nobody just because his record doesn't look like Roberto Duran's is just wrong.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:The guys you mentioned are not just A class, they are hall of famers, you don't have to be a hall of famer to be an A class fighter.

There's a ridiculous notion in boxing that everyone outside of the absolute elite in the world are somehow 'bums' which is very ignorant. Anyone good enough to live with the likes of an Erik Morales, Barrera, etc is obviously a very good fighter, because they fall short does not make them bums.

The 40 year old McCulloch happened to be Daniel Zaragoza, himself a hall of famer who pulled out one last big win. He was still good enough to extend Morales 11 rounds in his next fight and was not far behind on the cards at the time of the stoppage.

McCulloch is hardly C class, C class is journeymen not former fornicating champs.

Good post - thank you! Some of the negative posts on this site do my head - for a kick off even a talentless unskilled boxer deserves respect for just getting in the ring. As for ex world champions liks Naz who had flaws (just as every boxer does!) its crazy to discredit his talent and achievements with such negative sweeping statements. It makes me wonder why some of the posters on this site watch boxing cos clearly you only rate or enjoy watching the FEW elite! Hardly anyone is good enough! Its like the criticism for Khan, one thing we can all agree on is that he is relatively untested and unproven in pro boxing, whether u like him or not, so it amazes me when people can say definitively that he is no good and will achieve nothing! Even the best boxers / trainers with the best boxing minds could not and do not make such remarks. Anything can happen in boxing! And besides, the lad is entertaining. Why not just enjoy the fights and be patient. But no, no boxer is good enough unless u fight every possible oppopnant and win every match.

Tiger says---------FIST...you sure belive the hype------i bet you were 1 of Bruno`s army-----------paying good money to watch crap------pathetic----

tigerpomfret wrote:Tiger says---------FIST...you sure belive the hype------i bet you were 1 of Bruno`s army-----------paying good money to watch crap------pathetic----

You see, thats a really silly comment to make - meaningless and inacurate. Hype is irrlevant to me. To date, I am and have to be undecided about Khan until he gets more experience and harder tests. As for my opinion on what what he has acheived so far, well he should be proud of his Olympc achievements and so far I've enjoyed what I've seen of him.

Marc says - Tiger is a 12 year old.

Jabba The Nut wrote:Although I liked Naz, he was limited and we all knew he would get beat when he faced someone like Bazza.

From what I remember opinion was quite divided about the outcome of the Hamed - Barrera fight.

Of course with hindsight it is easy to pick holes in Hameds career and fighting abilities. But at one time he was generating a lot of press and excitment around the Boxing world.

Sadly Hamed from a fans point of view started to lose focus and started believing his own KO hype around 97/98 just at the time he should have been getting into the real Superfights. He neglected his training and all most gave up on any kind of defence in the ring. By the time he fought Barrera the willo-the-wisp type defence had long gone. A great shame but the blame for that is Hameds alone

However when Hamed was on form I believe he was one of the most dangerous Featherweights of the modern era.

fornicate me - Naz was a great fighter and was beaten by an all time great

Naz beat a lot of very good fighters simple as that

Anyone who says naz was a fraud knows jack shit about the sport.

Some people should just stay on the Current Scene forum.