BoxRec

stujones wrote:Agree on the superior head movement, but Hatton did things better than Ingle also.

I just think his chin would have been too sturdy not to fall in 2...

I think a prime Hatton makes it to 7 (max) but the guy who turned up against the Pac Monster would have got gobbled like Pacman by a prime Hamed.

Just my opinion.

Jon Saxon wrote:Hamed by a country mile, what a wast of talent though.

Here's the mad part, ask most Americans and they would think it's a toss up.

Some people just dont get it.

Most Americans weren't around for/aren't familiar with the early part of Hamed's career though, when he was literally a phenomenon. They really only think of him from the Kelley fight onwards, by which time he was already on the slide. His overall record up to then, though, taking into account the quality of his opponents and the manner in which he beat them, ranks him alongside the very finest British fighters of all time. For various reasons, Hatton's career has been more high profile internationally (and over a longer period of time), so more American fight fans have seen him at his best. I think that's the only reason why they think of him as being on a par with Hamed.

Naz imo.

Only difference is he got out when his heart was no longer in boxing.

Boxing is a mugs game, he made his money, and now is doing well.

I don't see why he should be criticized because of that.

observer1 wrote:Naz imo.

Only difference is he got out when his heart was no longer in boxing.

Boxing is a mugs game, he made his money, and now is doing well.

I don't see why he should be criticized because of that.

Fair point, but he' not being criticized for that you know, I think people think he's a bawbag and a waste of talent.

I could be wrong though

different weights , different era's , but i doubt very much a prime Hamed would off done any better against Pacman , on the night he flattened Hatton . the more i watch it the more , i cannot believe how easy it was for the Pacman

coneye wrote:different weights , different era's , but i doubt very much a prime Hamed would off done any better against Pacman , on the night he flattened Hatton . the more i watch it the more , i cannot believe how easy it was for the Pacman

Oh Pacquiao would have simply been too strong and too QUICK for Hamed. Hamed wouldn't have got out of the way from the punches.... and I don't think he would have had the power to take him out. I think Pacquiao would have systematically outclassed Naz.

However, the more I watch the Hatton vs Pacquiao fight the more I do think how 1) How Hatton was all wrong for him, anyone know if he is left handed.... he loves using his left does Ricky... but also 2) That things might, just might, have been different if it wasn't for that punch..... Ricky was catching Pacquiao clean also and hurting him... the alarming thing was how easy Pacquiao was hurting Hatton.

sg1985 wrote:

coneye wrote:different weights , different era's , but i doubt very much a prime Hamed would off done any better against Pacman , on the night he flattened Hatton . the more i watch it the more , i cannot believe how easy it was for the Pacman

i'd agree now, but if pacquaio had stepped up to featherweight when hamed was champion hamed would have won.

agreed pac would have been about 9 years old.

other than that no way does hamed live with pac. not a fornicating elephants fart in hells chance.

he had just become champion at bantam ....i was being sarcastic its a stupid comment to make, naz a champ for several years would have beaten much smaller novice in terms of world champ terms. STOP PRESS!

prime for prime pac smashes hamed to pieces.

you arent reading what I am writing dude, I said novice in world champ terms, he had been fighting nobodies in asia prior to fighting for the world flyweight title (at the time that hamed was cemented as featherwieght champ.) Hamed was coming to the end by the time he moved up to bantam weight to ledewebo (Naz fought mab around that time). He was too green too small and hamed would have been too experienced. Its like saying chuck in Khan in with Marquez now.

Its a no brainer.

ok if you say so there was a time when they coudl have fought and it would have been an awful match of seasoned world champ vs green stay at home, lighter smaller and younger fighter.

briliant let me know when you have anymore gems for us.

dont get your knickers in a twist Im merely pointing out it was mismatch at that juncture
I was actually giving you props for you post "sunshine" but if you wanna be an arsey twat go ahead.

outta here.

stujones wrote:

coneye wrote:different weights , different era's , but i doubt very much a prime Hamed would off done any better against Pacman , on the night he flattened Hatton . the more i watch it the more , i cannot believe how easy it was for the Pacman

.. Ricky was catching Pacquiao clean also and hurting him... the alarming thing was how easy Pacquiao was hurting Hatton.

You hit the nail on the head there , You know when you look at pictures off Ricky he looked gaunt and weight drained before that fight where Pacman looked strong,
Its no excuse but i do believe if Hatton was to fight at his age now going up in weight and staying there would be the only option .

Mind you i think Pacman would stil do a number on him at any weight , That guy just seems to be getting better all the time

kingfinn wrote:

So you've gone from Khan is probably better than Naz, to he's half (a better way of expressing 5/10!!) the fighter....

5/10 as in terms of acheivement. Note the world title shot on the 27th of june.

You are unbelievable mate.

Khan has had half the achievement of Hamed?

World title shot nothing, Khan has picked the weakest current World Champ and will lose comfortably to Kotelnik. He's been rocked and floored by Willie Limond and Michael Gomez, and sparked out inside a minute before even getting a world title shot in his only fight against a real lightweight. And you can compare him with Hamed??? You started by saying that they were on level par til I picked you up, now you're saying Khan has achieved half of what Naz did. Like it or not Hamed was the man at feather, and the fact he was head and shoulders above anyone else for a time didn't mean it was a really weak division. People like Medina and Kelley went on to fight at a higher level again, winning world titles and fighting Morales and Barrera some time later. They are so much better than anyone Khan's faced it's ludicrous; just the fact that Hamed beat them in good fights doesn't mean they were poor quality opposition.

This is ridiculous. I can understand Hatton v Hamed comparisons; they've both mixed it in top class and held world titles - but I personally think Hamed comes out on top... to even think of bringing Khan into the mix shows you for the newbie fairweather boxing fan you must be. Can anybody back me up on this?

Gray-Fox wrote:

nobby_nobbins wrote:Naz was the most physically talented fighter I've ever seen. At his peak he looked superhuman. Unfortunately, he committed the crime of becoming complacent.

This is just stupidity, unless you've never *seen* Roy Jones, FLoyd mayweather, Sugary Ray Leonard, Sugar Ray Robinson, Roberto Duran, etc.

Yes I have seen them all. And unlike you, I am able to tell the difference between physical gifts and achievements. Naz committed the crime of squandering his physical gifts, and therefore achieved considerably less than the boxers in your list.

J wrote: prime for prime pac smashes hamed to pieces.

PAcquaio isnt prime at 126 and Hamed could KTFO of Pacman at 126, especially the 1995 version. Pac was easier to hit and very very predictable. Hamed would have timed some big shots on him and both would eat the canvas multiple times in a war for the ages.

who said he was prime at 126? not me...i was merely pointing out a fight between the two when they were active wasnt prime for prime and pointless to make the parallel...read my posts please...new green champ fights seasoned p4p top tenner...and would get beat but prime for prime pac smashes Naz imo.

so in effect you are agreeing with me?