BoxRec

An arrogant little shite. He dodged Marquez and if he was as good as he thought he would have challenged Floyd Mayweather who was campaigning only 4 lbs north.

I was glad when Barrera handed him his ass, the man had no class.

Hey Quix, i see u've turned over as well!

This is simple, naz stopped fighting on his toes and started looking for the 1 punch finish.

The change in trainers didnt help cos they didnt understand the ingle method.

He stopped jabbing and instead just threw out a measuring stick, stopped training properly.

We will never know how good he could have been cos he George Bested it, but lets face it, he didnt do bad did he?

I think Naz gets a rough ride from historians that say he was "all flash". He did unify afterall. And beat some good names. Medina was good enough to beat scott harrison FIVE YEARS later!

Naz was the reason I got off my sofa and started going to live shows. Those big Naz nights were absolute electric.

allegedly put on some of the best bills ever seen in Britain, but things started to go down hill for both Naz and Warren after their split in my opinion.

Naz believed his own hype and Warren went too defensive with the match making of the fighters in his stable and the electric fizzled out for both. Shame.

stevieb_8006 wrote:Hey Quix, i see u've turned over as well!

This is simple, naz stopped fighting on his toes and started looking for the 1 punch finish.

The change in trainers didnt help cos they didnt understand the ingle method.

He stopped jabbing and instead just threw out a measuring stick, stopped training properly.

We will never know how good he could have been cos he George Bested it, but lets face it, he didnt do bad did he?

I think Naz gets a rough ride from historians that say he was "all flash". He did unify afterall. And beat some good names. Medina was good enough to beat scott harrison FIVE YEARS later!

Good post, and where I have bolded is my concern for David Haye... since the Bonin fight.

stevieb_8006 wrote:Hey Quix, i see u've turned over as well!

This is simple, naz stopped fighting on his toes and started looking for the 1 punch finish.

The change in trainers didnt help cos they didnt understand the ingle method.

He stopped jabbing and instead just threw out a measuring stick, stopped training properly.

We will never know how good he could have been cos he George Bested it, but lets face it, he didnt do bad did he?

I think Naz gets a rough ride from historians that say he was "all flash". He did unify afterall. And beat some good names. Medina was good enough to beat scott harrison FIVE YEARS later!

Hey Stevie,

Good to hear from you mate. Have you abandoned the pound aswell ?

I agree with a lot of your sentiments. Hamed was a very good fighter who beat some very good fighters, but in my opinion he fell short of being called an elite fighter. Some people get transfixed on his image and personality, which was a large part of why he was good box office, but the facts are thatb he did'nt fight either Morales or Marquez, lost to Barrera and declined the chance of a re-match.

stujones wrote:

stevieb_8006 wrote:Hey Quix, i see u've turned over as well!

This is simple, naz stopped fighting on his toes and started looking for the 1 punch finish.

The change in trainers didnt help cos they didnt understand the ingle method.

He stopped jabbing and instead just threw out a measuring stick, stopped training properly.

We will never know how good he could have been cos he George Bested it, but lets face it, he didnt do bad did he?

I think Naz gets a rough ride from historians that say he was "all flash". He did unify afterall. And beat some good names. Medina was good enough to beat scott harrison FIVE YEARS later!

Good post, and where I have bolded is my concern for David Haye... since the Bonin fight.

Very true about David Haye and even Carl Froch seems to be going down the same route now.

Terence wrote:Haye used body shots and patience to open Mormeck up. He blasted Macca, and looked over-eager in the Monte fight, he has not gone the Naz route just yet, Naz was pretty poor by the time he got to the Marco fight, although he would never have beaten Barrera.

Iv'e often said, that the Naz who turned up to fight Barrera would have struggled with the Steve Robisnon that he beat years earlier....

Barrera was 1 of the best 122 and 126lb fighters EVER. He beat Morales worse than he beat Hamed, but Morales got the gift decision. Against Morales 1 and Hamed was his peak, he faded by the time he goto Pacquaio and probably underestimated him seeing bigger fights round the corner. In the early rounds of Pacquaio 2 he outboxed the Phillipino, so image how a prime barrera could have taken the Great Pacman

Hamed did fade from his previous best, abandoning boxing after figuring out he could time massive counter punches to KO his opponent, this was a regression. He certainly never fullfilled his enormous potential. Despite all that he beat the WBO, WBC, WBA and IBF champions, was champion for 6years in a division that wasn't really his best, Hamed was only 5'4 and could have made 118-122 for the rest of his caree. He beat the most proven 122lber in Bungu, he beat a 3weight champ in Vasquez, beat a 5time champion in Medina, beat the top 2 Americans in Kelly and Johnson. plus all in he fought 10 champions and had 17 World Title fights. Not to mention he fought about 5 opponents in common with Morales stopping them all quicker (some went 12 with Morales). Yet retired at 27.

Bottom line Hamed>Calzaghe

For me Naz is lacking a Kessler or Tsyzu type fight on his record.

The Barrera fight will always leave a stain on him as well as the way he left the sport etc

However, Barrera is a P4P all time great and beat a shit Naz by 4 rounds or so................

For me though wins against:

Robinson
Medina
Kelley
Johnson
Ingle
McCulloch
Vasquez
Sanchez
Badillo
Hardy
Soto (remember Duke McKenzie picking him to beat Naz)
Bungu

Mark Naz as an excellent fighter - for me this stands up favourably against Calzaghe and Hatton's opponents.

As mentioned earlier he just lacks that 'great' win as opposed to 'very good' wins.

I miss him - was the reason I got into the sport, the only fighter where I would forego a Saturday night out on the lash and remember I am a geordie!!!



Regards

Wrists (Kevin)

As much I agree with with all the critical comments about him he was pretty much exceptional.

He brought a new generation into the fanbase of the sport. No bad thing. But I detested him and his arrogance whilst cheered when Barrera beat him. The one and only time I have never supported a British fighter in a world title fight.

Quixall wrote: What do you think the major differences were between the Naz of 2001 and the Naz of 1997/98 ?

What makes you think that version of Hamed would have sparked Barrera ?

Well the 97/98 version would have been at his very best, properly motivated and with a decent cornerman behind him he'd actually have listened too - as opposed to the watered down 2001 version, the one trick pony, looking to land a predictable hayemaker with every shot. A version almost embarassed by fairly average Augie Snachez a few months earlier.

I was thinking that if they'd met back then, Barrera would have likely know little about Naz, and not paid him so much respect. He would have been using his usual come forward, go to war style - so chances are he may have walked onto one. Would have been a great fight, whoever won.

An incredible, exciting talent and one of the hardest punchers in boxing, who also turned out to be one of its biggest disappointments. Certainly unique. We won't see his like again.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:Barrera was 1 of the best 122 and 126lb fighters EVER. He beat Morales worse than he beat Hamed, but Morales got the gift decision. Against Morales 1 and Hamed was his peak, he faded by the time he goto Pacquaio and probably underestimated him seeing bigger fights round the corner. In the early rounds of Pacquaio 2 he outboxed the Phillipino, so image how a prime barrera could have taken the Great Pacman

Hamed did fade from his previous best, abandoning boxing after figuring out he could time massive counter punches to KO his opponent, this was a regression. He certainly never fullfilled his enormous potential. Despite all that he beat the WBO, WBC, WBA and IBF champions, was champion for 6years in a division that wasn't really his best, Hamed was only 5'4 and could have made 118-122 for the rest of his caree. He beat the most proven 122lber in Bungu, he beat a 3weight champ in Vasquez, beat a 5time champion in Medina, beat the top 2 Americans in Kelly and Johnson. plus all in he fought 10 champions and had 17 World Title fights. Not to mention he fought about 5 opponents in common with Morales stopping them all quicker (some went 12 with Morales). Yet retired at 27.

Bottom line Hamed>Calzaghe

Good post.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:Barrera was 1 of the best 122 and 126lb fighters EVER. He beat Morales worse than he beat Hamed, but Morales got the gift decision. Against Morales 1 and Hamed was his peak, he faded by the time he goto Pacquaio and probably underestimated him seeing bigger fights round the corner. In the early rounds of Pacquaio 2 he outboxed the Phillipino, so image how a prime barrera could have taken the Great Pacman

Hamed did fade from his previous best, abandoning boxing after figuring out he could time massive counter punches to KO his opponent, this was a regression. He certainly never fullfilled his enormous potential. Despite all that he beat the WBO, WBC, WBA and IBF champions, was champion for 6years in a division that wasn't really his best, Hamed was only 5'4 and could have made 118-122 for the rest of his caree. He beat the most proven 122lber in Bungu, he beat a 3weight champ in Vasquez, beat a 5time champion in Medina, beat the top 2 Americans in Kelly and Johnson. plus all in he fought 10 champions and had 17 World Title fights. Not to mention he fought about 5 opponents in common with Morales stopping them all quicker (some went 12 with Morales). Yet retired at 27.

Bottom line Hamed>Calzaghe

Some people can't help but get a dig in at Calzaghe even though this thread isn't even about him.
Are you a politician? You're very good at spin.
Look, I'm a fan of Naz but you can twist his achievements back and forth to match Calzaghes. But for the sake of comparison, I'll take your post at face value.

1. Hamed beat the most proven 122lber in Bungu
Calzaghe beat the most proven 160lber in Hopkins. Was Hopkins faded? He was winning the most impressive fights of his life before and after facing Calzaghe, he was definitely no more shot than Bungu who, to be on a level with the Hopkins victory, should have had success at Super Feather. He didn't.

2. He beat a 3 weight champ in Vasquez.
Calzaghe beat a 4 weight champ in Roy Jones Junior, who was also a lb for lb legend. Sure Jones was past it at the time, but seriously, was vasquez in his prime when he fought Hamed? I don't think so.

3. Beat a 5 time Champion in Medina
Great spin. He was a 2 time champ when he fought Naz and already sported 7 losses by the time they fought. Not doubting this was a good win and Medina was always a good contender, but after losing to Naz he was sparked by Espinosa and Gainer, lost on points to Ingle, his next two title wins were against the highly average Lizarraga and Frank Toledo (who Barrera battered in 2rds at Super bantam) and then he edged out a win over the highly erratic Harrison before losing the rematch. Medina is a great fighter but was always going to be nothing more than a passable but tough test for Naz.

4. Beat the top 2 Americans in kelly and Johnson.
Yes they were the top 2 Americans at featherweight at the time Naz fought them, just like Mitchell and Brewer were the top two Americans at Super Middle when Calzaghe beat them, no matter how faded they were (Johnson was in his prime of course ). Oh i forgot, Brewer lost to Echols (although it was hardly convincing with the 3 knockdowns and all). But ok then replace Brewer with Lacy. Still did the top two Americans.

5. Hamed fought 10 champions. If you mean world champions at the time of the fight, Hamed only actually fought 4 officially. If you mean world champions including ex world champs then Hamed fought Polo Perez, Robinson, Medina, Johnson, Kelley, Vasquez, McCullough (at Bantam), Ingle (won title after losing to Naz), Soto, Bungu and Barrera (loss). I make that 10 because I don't count Ingle as he wasn't a world champ when Hamed fought him.
Calzaghe fought Eubank, Reid, Woodhall, Brewer, Mitchell, Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins and Jones. Thats 9 with 2 unifications, Joe didn't get the chance to fight Collins for the WBO title so beating Eubank for the vacant title doesn't count as beating a current champ, whereas I counted Hamed beating Robinson in his 4 champs at the time of the fight.

6. Hamed had 17 world title fights. Joe had 24 officially. I know you'll say he fought a lot of dross, but you're basing your arguments on bare statistics so it's only fair you give Joe the same credit.

The argument about stopping people quicker than Morales doesn't mean a hell of a lot. That owes to the style of fight. Morales wasn't a concussive puncher and he beat one common opponent that Naz failed against.

7. Retired at 27. All that says to me was he had so much more to offer, but couldn't rebound from a loss. We'll never be able to evaluate Calzaghe on that though, because he never lost.

Quixall wrote:

big lennox wrote:How good was he? Very.

the naz who last to barerra shouldnt be confused with the naz of few years earlier.

Interesting Lennox,

Because for a lot of people, they would say that it was the same Naseem Hamed of a few years before, the only difference being that he was fighting better quality opposition, who could negate his skills and out-box him, as was the case with the Barrera fight.....

What would your reply be to those that assert that argument ?

I would argue that his reflexes had dulled significantly, he was starting to fight too square on, was loading up with one shot at a time -he used to throw wonderful combinations, and I think he simply lost interest in the game.He was bored stiff before the Barrera fight, and I think if he had beaten him, he would have boxed Morales next and then retired.Its a shame, I think 4-5 years previously he would have done a job on both of them.For me,in terms of raw talent, he is one of the best Ive seen.

Think he was truly world class, although his legacy definately tarnished by not continuing at elite level after losing and having a MAB rematch. He always had a tendancy to get caught when he moved up a level which made for more exciting fights, always loaded up and got caught (augie sanchez fight was cracking action because hamed was loading up getting caught).
Bottom line for me is he could have hung with anyone around feather and could have gone down as a world great with probably a few more losses on his record instead its all ifs and buts. Although i do reckon any version of hamed would have got schooled that night by barrera, loved to have seen a rematch and how naz could come back from defeat but thats all history now :(

DaveyH wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:Barrera was 1 of the best 122 and 126lb fighters EVER. He beat Morales worse than he beat Hamed, but Morales got the gift decision. Against Morales 1 and Hamed was his peak, he faded by the time he goto Pacquaio and probably underestimated him seeing bigger fights round the corner. In the early rounds of Pacquaio 2 he outboxed the Phillipino, so image how a prime barrera could have taken the Great Pacman

Hamed did fade from his previous best, abandoning boxing after figuring out he could time massive counter punches to KO his opponent, this was a regression. He certainly never fullfilled his enormous potential. Despite all that he beat the WBO, WBC, WBA and IBF champions, was champion for 6years in a division that wasn't really his best, Hamed was only 5'4 and could have made 118-122 for the rest of his caree. He beat the most proven 122lber in Bungu, he beat a 3weight champ in Vasquez, beat a 5time champion in Medina, beat the top 2 Americans in Kelly and Johnson. plus all in he fought 10 champions and had 17 World Title fights. Not to mention he fought about 5 opponents in common with Morales stopping them all quicker (some went 12 with Morales). Yet retired at 27.

Bottom line Hamed>Calzaghe

Some people can't help but get a dig in at Calzaghe even though this thread isn't even about him.
Are you a politician? You're very good at spin.
Look, I'm a fan of Naz but you can twist his achievements back and forth to match Calzaghes. But for the sake of comparison, I'll take your post at face value.

1. Hamed beat the most proven 122lber in Bungu
Calzaghe beat the most proven 160lber in Hopkins. Was Hopkins faded? He was winning the most impressive fights of his life before and after facing Calzaghe, he was definitely no more shot than Bungu who, to be on a level with the Hopkins victory, should have had success at Super Feather. He didn't.

2. He beat a 3 weight champ in Vasquez.
Calzaghe beat a 4 weight champ in Roy Jones Junior, who was also a lb for lb legend. Sure Jones was past it at the time, but seriously, was vasquez in his prime when he fought Hamed? I don't think so.

3. Beat a 5 time Champion in Medina
Great spin. He was a 2 time champ when he fought Naz and already sported 7 losses by the time they fought. Not doubting this was a good win and Medina was always a good contender, but after losing to Naz he was sparked by Espinosa and Gainer, lost on points to Ingle, his next two title wins were against the highly average Lizarraga and Frank Toledo (who Barrera battered in 2rds at Super bantam) and then he edged out a win over the highly erratic Harrison before losing the rematch. Medina is a great fighter but was always going to be nothing more than a passable but tough test for Naz.

4. Beat the top 2 Americans in kelly and Johnson.
Yes they were the top 2 Americans at featherweight at the time Naz fought them, just like Mitchell and Brewer were the top two Americans at Super Middle when Calzaghe beat them, no matter how faded they were (Johnson was in his prime of course ). Oh i forgot, Brewer lost to Echols (although it was hardly convincing with the 3 knockdowns and all). But ok then replace Brewer with Lacy. Still did the top two Americans.

5. Hamed fought 10 champions. If you mean world champions at the time of the fight, Hamed only actually fought 4 officially. If you mean world champions including ex world champs then Hamed fought Polo Perez, Robinson, Medina, Johnson, Kelley, Vasquez, McCullough (at Bantam), Ingle (won title after losing to Naz), Soto, Bungu and Barrera (loss). I make that 10 because I don't count Ingle as he wasn't a world champ when Hamed fought him.
Calzaghe fought Eubank, Reid, Woodhall, Brewer, Mitchell, Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins and Jones. Thats 9 with 2 unifications, Joe didn't get the chance to fight Collins for the WBO title so beating Eubank for the vacant title doesn't count as beating a current champ, whereas I counted Hamed beating Robinson in his 4 champs at the time of the fight.

6. Hamed had 17 world title fights. Joe had 24 officially. I know you'll say he fought a lot of dross, but you're basing your arguments on bare statistics so it's only fair you give Joe the same credit.

The argument about stopping people quicker than Morales doesn't mean a hell of a lot. That owes to the style of fight. Morales wasn't a concussive puncher and he beat one common opponent that Naz failed against.

7. Retired at 27. All that says to me was he had so much more to offer, but couldn't rebound from a loss. We'll never be able to evaluate Calzaghe on that though, because he never lost.

Its not a Calzaghe dig, Joe is being touted as the best Britain ever and has to be measured against the best. I rate Hamed higher not just on achievement, which is not clearly above Joe, but his amazing talent at his best and some claim Hamed didn't achieve much, I was showing he achieved allot, on par with Joe despite Hamed not fulfilling his potential. If Hamed got 39 and 43yo versions of Barrera and Morales he wouldn't just have got an SD and a UD

1. Well I had Hopkins winning that and Hopkins was 43 and out the ring for 13months. Bungu wasnt prime but he is never talked about for Hamed though, everyone says 'when Hamed stepped up he lost' yet Bungu beat Mkkinney twice and beat him before Barrera did

2. Jones is a decent win, but he never redeemed himself from 2. Vasquez isn't necessarily a better P4P win but the 'he never beat anyone good before Barrera' statement is clearly bollox, a 3 weight champ is a big win

3. Its not a spin Medina is a 5 time win, he took on everyone, often going to opponents back yards to win. Medina isnt an ATG but hes very good

4. I don't think Brewer could be ranked 'top2 American' when he got sparked in 2 by Echols. For the most part he took on the best Americans although all past their prime.

5. Well I rate in terms of future and past champions. Isn't it impressive that Hamed packed in more champions into 6years while it took Joe 11years to do the same?

6. I had Barrera beating Morales 3 times, no way Morales won the first fight, that was BS, if you want to argue Morales won a fight against MAB, the second is your best bet, but you'll struggle. Comparatively quick stoppages is impressive imo and Morales was a decent puncher.

7. Yes I was a fan always hoping Naz would make a comeback, I still say he achieved as much as Calzaghe and looked better doing it. Joe could easily have 2losses on his sheet and he never faced a prime ATG like Barrera either. Its a real shame Hamed didn't get Pacquaio, Morales, Gatti or Corrales. He would have done far better against them then MAB. I say he gets to Marquez's questionable chin too but Marquez was busy losing to Norwood

sg1985 wrote:hopkins was out of the ring 13 months? try 9

OK that 1 was off the top of my head, still only 2 fights in 29months and 43, reckon he looked better against Pavlik for having a fight the same year and rebounding from a loss

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:[
Its not a Calzaghe dig, Joe is being touted as the best Britain ever and has to be measured against the best. I rate Hamed higher not just on achievement, which is not clearly above Joe, but his amazing talent at his best and some claim Hamed didn't achieve much, I was showing he achieved allot, on par with Joe despite Hamed not fulfilling his potential. If Hamed got 39 and 43yo versions of Barrera and Morales he wouldn't just have got an SD and a UD

1. Well I had Hopkins winning that and Hopkins was 43 and out the ring for 13months. Bungu wasnt prime but he is never talked about for Hamed though, everyone says 'when Hamed stepped up he lost' yet Bungu beat Mkkinney twice and beat him before Barrera did

2. Jones is a decent win, but he never redeemed himself from 2. Vasquez isn't necessarily a better P4P win but the 'he never beat anyone good before Barrera' statement is clearly bollox, a 3 weight champ is a big win

3. Its not a spin Medina is a 5 time win, he took on everyone, often going to opponents back yards to win. Medina isnt an ATG but hes very good

4. I don't think Brewer could be ranked 'top2 American' when he got sparked in 2 by Echols. For the most part he took on the best Americans although all past their prime.

5. Well I rate in terms of future and past champions. Isn't it impressive that Hamed packed in more champions into 6years while it took Joe 11years to do the same?

6. I had Barrera beating Morales 3 times, no way Morales won the first fight, that was BS, if you want to argue Morales won a fight against MAB, the second is your best bet, but you'll struggle. Comparatively quick stoppages is impressive imo and Morales was a decent puncher.

7. Yes I was a fan always hoping Naz would make a comeback, I still say he achieved as much as Calzaghe and looked better doing it. Joe could easily have 2losses on his sheet and he never faced a prime ATG like Barrera either. Its a real shame Hamed didn't get Pacquaio, Morales, Gatti or Corrales. He would have done far better against them then MAB. I say he gets to Marquez's questionable chin too but Marquez was busy losing to Norwood

OK first off if you read my post further up this thread you'll see I'm full of admiration for Hamed. He definitely belongs up there with the best of the Brits however it just seems there's a lot of double standards on this board when it comes to Calzaghe. People will talk fondly about Eubank and Hamed and then slate Calzaghe, but if you compare their records like I have you'll find there's not a vast amount of difference. For what it's worth I think all 3 of the above were unbelievable talents, but all three fell short of their potential and yes that includes Joe.
Your point regarding Hamed getting 39 and 43 year old versions of Barrera and Morales is bordering on ridiculous. For one it's just your opinion but you term it like it's a proven fact. Secondly Joe was 36 and nearing the end of his career when he fought Hopkins and Jones. For the comparison to be fair in terms of career point you'd have to say the Hamed who wrestled with Soto or struggled with Sanchez would be fighting the 39 year old Barrera and 43 year old Morales. I don't think that version of Hamed would beat either! Seriously, he's probably be losing the UD he looked so bad in those fights. But just my opinion.
On to the numbers game.

1. Bungu was shot to shit when he fought Hamed and Bungu had never fought at Featherweight previously. It was a great "name" win for Naz just like Roy Jones was for Calzaghe but how do you think Naz would have fared against Bungu a few years earlier AND in South Africa? My opinion is Naz would have won a good fight but Bungu was ready to be taken when he fought Naz. Also just because you had Hopkins winning doesn't actually change the result of the fight you know. I had Joe winning a very very close fight. But hey even if Joe had lost, the fight was still extremely close and that in itself is not a bad thing when you consider how Hopkins dominated Tarver and Pavlik and clearly beat Winky Wright.

2. No ones knocking the Vasquez win but again, he was well past his best. All i was trying to do was point out that people slate Calzaghe for beating a faded Roy Jones but then praise Hamed for beating a faded Vasquez. Both were good wins.

3. Was Medina a 5 time champion at the time he fought Naz? No. Like I said Medina was a great road warrior and had some great success on his travels and he sure gave Naz a tough battle. But he wasn't a 5 time champ when he fought Naz thats all I'm saying. I mean for example if Sakio Bika goes on to clean out the Super Middle division in the next 2 years would you be say Calzaghe defeated the undisputed Super Middle Champ? I doubt it.

4. For what it's worth, Echols should have been stopped in round 2 when Brewer dropped him three times. It was hardly a convincing win but thats why I swapped Brewer for Jeff Lacy in the top American stake. It's funny you should mention Norwood at the end of your post because I feel he was perhaps better than Kevin Kelley. He was certainly a top American in his prime, who Naz didn't face.

5. Yes it's very impressive what Naz packed into 6 years. But Naz essentially did in those 6 years what Calzaghe SHOULD have done earlier in his career. He unified a weak division (the three champs Naz beat at Feather had 18 losses between them) and showed he was the man of the moment. However he never took his career to the very top level. Yes he did fight a prime ATG in Barrera but he unfortunately lost. Calzaghe drifted through the early part of his career but the wins over Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins (despite the age and the closeness of the fight) took Calzaghe beyond the level of alphabet title. Put it this way, if Calzaghe had done it a little different and beat Ottke, Liles and Beyer then retired no one would remember him now, even though he would have effectively unified his division.

6. Naz took a lot of risks to get the KO. He was a KO artist and was great at it. Morales was a decent puncher no doubt but my point was you shouldn't downgrade a Morales victory just because he didn't knock a fighter out. Is the Barrera masterclass against Hamed any less impressive because there was no KO? Personally I don't think so.

7. Well we agree on something. Naz should have made a comeback and had so much more to offer. But maybe thats why he never came back, because the fact he didn't leaves us all wondering what could have been. Whereas there's a chance he could have come back and been utterly embarrassed. We just don't know and I think thats the way Naz would prefer it. That way we focus on the positives of his career.