BoxRec

black panther wrote:Yid14, if you really think Naz was a "fraud" and "couldn't back it up on the big stage" you either have be:

1.Trolling
2. Not know much about Naseem Hamed.

He unified the division and look at the list of fighters he beat (thanks banjo ). Sure he lost to a great in Barrera, but even the most most ardent Hamed critic must admit that was not the "best" Naseem Hamed. For one look at his training camp leading up to the fight. Secondly, you cannot possibly tell me the Nas that was a ball of muscle throwing body shots and 3,4, 5 punch-combinations in the Robinson fight was the same "soft-looking" fighter who head-hunted and pot-shotted his way to victory(and defeat) later in his career.

Ps.

Great Ad. Nas brought the spotlight back to boxing round the world, never mind Britain. IMHO.

yid14 wrote:

black panther wrote:Yid14, if you really think Naz was a "fraud" and "couldn't back it up on the big stage" you either have be:

1.Trolling
2. Not know much about Naseem Hamed.

He unified the division and look at the list of fighters he beat (thanks banjo ). Sure he lost to a great in Barrera, but even the most most ardent Hamed critic must admit that was not the "best" Naseem Hamed. For one look at his training camp leading up to the fight. Secondly, you cannot possibly tell me the Nas that was a ball of muscle throwing body shots and 3,4, 5 punch-combinations in the Robinson fight was the same "soft-looking" fighter who head-hunted and pot-shotted his way to victory(and defeat) later in his career.

Ps.

Great Ad. Nas brought the spotlight back to boxing round the world, never mind Britain. IMHO.

I never once said he was a fraud, just said I thought he was overated. He thought he was the second coming of Ali or Sugar ray Robinson, just seems abit silly him and us thinking that now. When I saw the list of the fighters he beat that Banjo put up I honestly thought it was worse than I remembered, There wasn't one approaching greatness there. To tell you the truth I would have been shocked if Hamed would have lost to any of them, and I hate the word troll it's a simple way of you saying that not only do you not agree with my opinion but your simply going to dismiss it. weak. I followed all of Hameds career and as I've said on a few occasions I paid to see him twice, just looking back onit now he seemed better at the time.

yid14 wrote:

black panther wrote:Yid14, if you really think Naz was a "fraud" and "couldn't back it up on the big stage" you either have be:

1.Trolling
2. Not know much about Naseem Hamed.

He unified the division and look at the list of fighters he beat (thanks banjo ). Sure he lost to a great in Barrera, but even the most most ardent Hamed critic must admit that was not the "best" Naseem Hamed. For one look at his training camp leading up to the fight. Secondly, you cannot possibly tell me the Nas that was a ball of muscle throwing body shots and 3,4, 5 punch-combinations in the Robinson fight was the same "soft-looking" fighter who head-hunted and pot-shotted his way to victory(and defeat) later in his career.

Ps.

Great Ad. Nas brought the spotlight back to boxing round the world, never mind Britain. IMHO.

I never once said he was a fraud, just said I thought he was overated. [b]He thought he was the second coming of Ali or Sugar ray Robinson[/b], just seems abit silly him and us thinking that now. When I saw the list of the fighters he beat that Banjo put up I honestly thought it was worse than I remembered, There wasn't one approaching greatness there. To tell you the truth I would have been shocked if Hamed would have lost to any of them, and I hate the word troll it's a simple way of you saying that not only do you not agree with my opinion but your simply going to dismiss it. weak. I followed all of Hameds career and as I've said on a few occasions I paid to see him twice, just looking back onit now he seemed better at the time.

yid14 wrote:

THE MESSIAH wrote:NAZ WAS A ONE OFF FOR THESE SHORES.

INCREDIBLE IMPACT ON THE SCENE AT THE TIME.

But like David Haye couldn't back it up on the big stage after all the talk. Let's face it looked a mug in the end, and now he looks like an umpa lumpa.

mugabi wrote:

yid14 wrote:

THE MESSIAH wrote:NAZ WAS A ONE OFF FOR THESE SHORES.

INCREDIBLE IMPACT ON THE SCENE AT THE TIME.

But like David Haye couldn't back it up on the big stage after all the talk. Let's face it looked a mug in the end, and now he looks like an umpa lumpa.

great analysis. i do get sick of these random Hamed threads cluttering things up every couple of months

crusader wrote:The actual fight wasn't close but the deduction makes the cards appear somewhat close. Hamed won 4 rounds at best and he won those rounds less convincingly than Barrera did his.

observer1 wrote:

yid14 wrote:

black panther wrote:Yid14, if you really think Naz was a "fraud" and "couldn't back it up on the big stage" you either have be:

1.Trolling
2. Not know much about Naseem Hamed.

He unified the division and look at the list of fighters he beat (thanks banjo ). Sure he lost to a great in Barrera, but even the most most ardent Hamed critic must admit that was not the "best" Naseem Hamed. For one look at his training camp leading up to the fight. Secondly, you cannot possibly tell me the Nas that was a ball of muscle throwing body shots and 3,4, 5 punch-combinations in the Robinson fight was the same "soft-looking" fighter who head-hunted and pot-shotted his way to victory(and defeat) later in his career.

Ps.
'Naz took himself less serious than his fans did???' He used to come into the ring on a magic flying f*ckin carpet.
Great Ad. Nas brought the spotlight back to boxing round the world, never mind Britain. IMHO.

I never once said he was a fraud, just said I thought he was overated. [b]He thought he was the second coming of Ali or Sugar ray Robinson[/b], just seems abit silly him and us thinking that now. When I saw the list of the fighters he beat that Banjo put up I honestly thought it was worse than I remembered, There wasn't one approaching greatness there. To tell you the truth I would have been shocked if Hamed would have lost to any of them, and I hate the word troll it's a simple way of you saying that not only do you not agree with my opinion but your simply going to dismiss it. weak. I followed all of Hameds career and as I've said on a few occasions I paid to see him twice, just looking back onit now he seemed better at the time.

i really dont think he did though...

Naz took himself less serious than his fans did.

Also, he's not calling you a troll because you disagree with him, he's saying only a troll would say Naz got "battered" by Barrera, as its only said by Naz detractors who never even saw the fight.

It's a common trait in boxing "fans" who know nothing about the sport except what they see on the BoxRec records.

yid14 wrote:

observer1 wrote:

yid14 wrote:I never once said he was a fraud, just said I thought he was overated. [b]He thought he was the second coming of Ali or Sugar ray Robinson[/b], just seems abit silly him and us thinking that now. When I saw the list of the fighters he beat that Banjo put up I honestly thought it was worse than I remembered, There wasn't one approaching greatness there. To tell you the truth I would have been shocked if Hamed would have lost to any of them, and I hate the word troll it's a simple way of you saying that not only do you not agree with my opinion but your simply going to dismiss it. weak. I followed all of Hameds career and as I've said on a few occasions I paid to see him twice, just looking back onit now he seemed better at the time.

i really dont think he did though...

Naz took himself less serious than his fans did.

Also, he's not calling you a troll because you disagree with him, he's saying only a troll would say Naz got "battered" by Barrera, as its only said by Naz detractors who never even saw the fight.

It's a common trait in boxing "fans" who know nothing about the sport except what they see on the BoxRec records.

'Naz used to take himself less serious than his fans did'???? He used to come into the ring on a magic flying f*ckin carpet.

bad mamma jamma wrote:the naz who beat belcastro would have done barrera imo. barrera wouldnt have hit him...naz slowed so much during his mid 20's and then had to rely on one pucnh power.

hitman_hatton1 wrote:

bad mamma jamma wrote:the naz who beat belcastro would have done barrera imo. barrera wouldnt have hit him...naz slowed so much during his mid 20's and then had to rely on one pucnh power.

yeah that was the issue.

his style was all hair trigger reactions.

once they dulled he was f*cked really.

shame his promoter didn't have the balls to make a barrera fight when naz was mandatory in 95.

Deserter wrote: If he'd had less power he'd have kept with the style he employed against Belcastro and would have been more successful as a result IMO.

Counter-puncher wrote:

Deserter wrote: If he'd had less power he'd have kept with the style he employed against Belcastro and would have been more successful as a result IMO.

to be fair, its not like against Belcastro he didn't load up hugely on a number of shots- pushing Belcastro to the ground with the follow-through push after missing, on a few occasions.

he always always loaded up on big shots, IMO, its just that as he got less fit he did less 'boxing' in between the big shots. if that makes sense.

Counter-puncher wrote:heheh, yes probably. i just remember rewatching the Belcastro fight, a couple of months back, and thinking to myself before 'aah yes this'll be the younger Naz before he fell in love with his power this'll be interesting to watch', and his spending half the fight with his momentum lifting his body off the canvas with half the punches he threw

yid14 wrote:

mugabi wrote:

yid14 wrote: But like David Haye couldn't back it up on the big stage after all the talk. Let's face it looked a mug in the end, and now he looks like an umpa lumpa.

great analysis. i do get sick of these random Hamed threads cluttering things up every couple of months

So sick of them that you felt the need to prolong it by commenting on it.