BoxRec

I always thought Alex Arthur was.

How many fighters are allowed to be classed as world class in each weight? top 2?Top five?top ten?
It seems harsh to say Benn or some of the others mentioned world class etc because Toney and Jones were around,
Surely if your rated in the top ten or twenty by all the orgs and fans alike that makes you a world class fighter?
Not being number 1 dosn`t mean your not world class.

thaibox uk wrote:How many fighters are allowed to be classed as world class in each weight? top 2?Top five?top ten?
It seems harsh to say Benn or some of the others mentioned world class etc because Toney and Jones were around,
Surely if your rated in the top ten or twenty by all the orgs and fans alike that makes you a world class fighter?
Not being number 1 dosn`t mean your not world class.

Agree ;;-)

King Geedorah wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

davie wrote: he had just turned 27 when he fought barrera, he retired at 28.

Age and peak are not the same for all. Tyson was past his best by 23. I'd agree that Naz had peaked long before the Barrera fight, although how much of that was physical and how much of it was mental (i.e complacency), who knows.

The problem with Naz and Mike is that unlike other boxers they don't get judges as harshly as people believe they peaked early then threw it all away. Big wins such as Spinks and Naz's victims are cited when arguing for how great they were yet no one wants to listen when you point out that Mike's decision wins saw him display all the flaws that he showed in his defeats and Hamed looked pretty poor in some of his 'prime' fights.

Being a Naz or Tyson fan is similar to looking back on a teenage relationship, you strip away all the bad stuff, boost the happy memories forward and place it on a pedestal as a golden time.

Great point re. Tyson. If Tucker/Bruno/Smith had the fortitude that Douglas displayed, they may well have bagged that result for themselves. As for Naz, though, when you talk about his prime, you are probably referring to his early world title days, but I'd say his best form concluded with his world title win. He was sloppy and beatable against Johnson, Kelly, and clearly Soto, but the Naz who whipped the likes of Belcastro and Robinson from here to the back of beyond would have stood a chance against anybody. Yes, Belcastro and Robinson were hardly Barrera and Morales, but they were world class and Naz played with them. I'd hear an argument that Naz peaked at 21.

Morales and Marquez would have executed Hamed.

Wouldn't have been pretty at all.

I'm not a Hamed fan in or out of the ring, but can appreciate the ability that he had. But frankly, he just wasn't on that level, though of course that's nothing at all to be ashamed of.

Barrera was the easiest fight of the three Mexicans and he was well beaten, and would have been at any stage by any of them.

davie wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:I actualy reckon Naz is probably the best British fighter of all time, so cant go along with you there.

At his peak and in the mood he was "unplayable"


By the time he fought Barrera, he was 4 years past his best.

he had just turned 27 when he fought barrera, he retired at 28.

Yeah, so what?

Are you trying to say that everyone reaches their peak at the same age?

Naz had stopped training, properly and had long stopped listening to his trainer (which he changed), and was clearly past his best.

At his best, he was awesome, and he's probably the only British fighter I can remember since I started watching boxing who had a chance to be pound for pound number one. (And perhaps might have been).

People forget, because of Barerra, that he had basically cleaned out the featherweight division, beating, Marquez aside, every credible opponent. He would have unified the belts, too, had it not been for the usual sanctioning body shenanigans.

There's also the suspicion that he was fighting above his natural weight. I suspect that he ate himself up the weights far more than has ever been accepted.

For me, he was the most talented British boxer of the last 25 years and the greatest disappointment.

Totally biased - but delighted to be so.
I'm well in my fifties now, and in the thirty plus years I've followed boxing, never have I seen anyone with so much natural talent as Naz.
I could walk out of the gym with my gob wide open and think did that lad really do that ? - and he was 15.
Mature fighters several weight divisions above couldn't live with him - and he was performing well within himself.
I still wince and wonder if only ?
If only the hype didn't get to him, if only he'd listened - not just to family.
If only he'd kept his training regime right.
And on and on .......
Having said all of that I'll never forget the ride in the early days as a fan.
A privelege to pay to watch the lad.
Over rated - never.
He was the real deal for eight years of his pro life.

King Geedorah wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

davie wrote: he had just turned 27 when he fought barrera, he retired at 28.

Age and peak are not the same for all. Tyson was past his best by 23. I'd agree that Naz had peaked long before the Barrera fight, although how much of that was physical and how much of it was mental (i.e complacency), who knows.

The problem with Naz and Mike is that unlike other boxers they don't get judges as harshly as people believe they peaked early then threw it all away. Big wins such as Spinks and Naz's victims are cited when arguing for how great they were yet no one wants to listen when you point out that Mike's decision wins saw him display all the flaws that he showed in his defeats and Hamed looked pretty poor in some of his 'prime' fights.

Being a Naz or Tyson fan is similar to looking back on a teenage relationship, you strip away all the bad stuff, boost the happy memories forward and place it on a pedestal as a golden time.

I totally agree, especially with tyson as he is rated much higher than Naz by most.

twenty six wrote:Totally biased - but delighted to be so.
I'm well in my fifties now, and in the thirty plus years I've followed boxing, never have I seen anyone with so much natural talent as Naz.
I could walk out of the gym with my gob wide open and think did that lad really do that ? - and he was 15.
Mature fighters several weight divisions above couldn't live with him - and he was performing well within himself.
I still wince and wonder if only ?
If only the hype didn't get to him, if only he'd listened - not just to family.
If only he'd kept his training regime right.
And on and on .......
Having said all of that I'll never forget the ride in the early days as a fan.
A privelege to pay to watch the lad.
Over rated - never.
He was the real deal for eight years of his pro life.

There was a while where I thought Naz was unbeatable too.

I agree on Benn. Why people give him credit for that back-and-forth win over Doug Dewitt (!!!) is beyond me. Guy had heart in abundance but seriously, Lou Gent? Nicky Piper? That Italian scrub Robin Reid beat? That Argentinian bum Calzaghe beat?

Take away a McClellan that was bearing battle scars from the Julian Jackson wars and what kind of resume of wins does Benn have, seriously, and who on there wouldn't Froch deal with with ease.

Can you imagine what RJJ would have done to Benn, it would have been ugly.

ryanst1982 wrote: For overrated Il look to
Henry Cooper (heralded because he knocked down Ali and for not much else)
Frank Bruno (lost nearly all meaningful fights he was involved in)
AUdley Harrison (although most dont really rate hm, I dont think people rate him low enough. Terrible,negative, poor, poor boxer)

Thats exactly what I was going to say but someone beat me to it!

Carbo wrote:

davie wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:I actualy reckon Naz is probably the best British fighter of all time, so cant go along with you there.

At his peak and in the mood he was "unplayable"


By the time he fought Barrera, he was 4 years past his best.

he had just turned 27 when he fought barrera, he retired at 28.

Yeah, so what?

Are you trying to say that everyone reaches their peak at the same age?

Naz had stopped training, properly and had long stopped listening to his trainer (which he changed), and was clearly past his best.

At his best, he was awesome, and he's probably the only British fighter I can remember since I started watching boxing who had a chance to be pound for pound number one. (And perhaps might have been).

People forget, because of Barerra, that he had basically cleaned out the featherweight division, beating, Marquez aside, every credible opponent. He would have unified the belts, too, had it not been for the usual sanctioning body shenanigans.

There's also the suspicion that he was fighting above his natural weight. I suspect that he ate himself up the weights far more than has ever been accepted.

For me, he was the most talented British boxer of the last 25 years and the greatest disappointment.

Not exactly, there was a guy called Luis Espinosa who was WBC champ at the time - many saw him as the second best champion at the time. Derrick Gainer also.

There was also a fella named Junior Jones who offensively could have given Naz fits.

The Dark Destroyer wrote:Was it Junior Jones who fought Paul Ingle?

Yep, but more importantly it was Junior Jones who twice beat Marco Antonio Barrera and was in many (inflated) p4p lists for a brief period at Super Bantam.

fightfaninfrance wrote:

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

Fat Git wrote:If I remember rightly, wasn't it boxing news or the daily mirror who wrote that the Benn vs Barkley fight was a disgrace and that Barkley should be banned for his own good?

Overrated - Ricky Burns, Scott Harrison, Dave McAuley and it has to be said - Duke McKenzie - a good fighter and a world class flyweight - but became a '4 time world champion' on the back of some of the worst champions known to boxing.

How is Ricky Burns overrated? Who are overrating him? If anything the lad is severely underrated.

Couldnt agree more, if he hasnt proved by now that Martinez was no fluke then im sure he will in his next few fights. Im a massive Crolla fan but I dont see why he deserves to get in with Burns. Burns should be challenging for full world honours which completely deserves.

Love watching back Naz but I cant help thinking that his best moments came against poor opposition.

x2 Burns is my fav fighter at the mo, he has a good chin, throws good combos and never in a poor fight. he gives everything in the ring.

King Geedorah wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

davie wrote: he had just turned 27 when he fought barrera, he retired at 28.

Age and peak are not the same for all. Tyson was past his best by 23. I'd agree that Naz had peaked long before the Barrera fight, although how much of that was physical and how much of it was mental (i.e complacency), who knows.

The problem with Naz and Mike is that unlike other boxers they don't get judges as harshly as people believe they peaked early then threw it all away. Big wins such as Spinks and Naz's victims are cited when arguing for how great they were yet no one wants to listen when you point out that Mike's decision wins saw him display all the flaws that he showed in his defeats and Hamed looked pretty poor in some of his 'prime' fights.

Being a Naz or Tyson fan is similar to looking back on a teenage relationship, you strip away all the bad stuff, boost the happy memories forward and place it on a pedestal as a golden time.

Bang on the money.

I was recently reading some contemporary news articles from Tyson's prime and was actually surprised at how critical some of it was, given today's common line that he was indestructable at that point.

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:1 amazing performance against Gerald McClellan, (although he was aided by the referee, who had a shocker)

You think the ref had a shocker then do you? In what way was the referee's performance bad?
(and before you say anything, Benn made it back into the ring before the 10 count, everyone acknowledges this).

Champ1982 wrote:Got to be Naz, who did he really fight? Was all talk and hype, when push came to it.He fell short. All thou, i did enjoy watching him.

The Prince is certainly up there. But I do think that he let his mouth run too much and let his success go to his head.

He could've been much more succesful if he had kept quiet.

Belcastro as truly world class is a bit of a stretch? offhand he won 2 world title fights, maybe? if that?

okay so i had to check it, belcastro lost both his world tilts that i could find.

Jamie Moore banjo'd guys with better records

Carbo wrote:

davie wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:I actualy reckon Naz is probably the best British fighter of all time, so cant go along with you there.

At his peak and in the mood he was "unplayable"


By the time he fought Barrera, he was 4 years past his best.

he had just turned 27 when he fought barrera, he retired at 28.

Yeah, so what?

Are you trying to say that everyone reaches their peak at the same age?

Naz had stopped training, properly and had long stopped listening to his trainer (which he changed), and was clearly past his best.

At his best, he was awesome, and he's probably the only British fighter I can remember since I started watching boxing who had a chance to be pound for pound number one. (And perhaps might have been).

People forget, because of Barerra, that he had basically cleaned out the featherweight division, beating, Marquez aside, every credible opponent. He would have unified the belts, too, had it not been for the usual sanctioning body shenanigans.

There's also the suspicion that he was fighting above his natural weight. I suspect that he ate himself up the weights far more than has ever been accepted.

For me, he was the most talented British boxer of the last 25 years and the greatest disappointment.

Yes, i hadn't thought about that, he was a disappointment when you consider how he started off. By the time he got to Barerra he didnt even pretend to be interested.

Even when he got sloppy he was great to watch, if i find myself bored in an airport lounge somewhere one of the 1st thins i watch on youtube is Naz - Kelly.

Great fun all round.

MachoMan09 wrote:Tyson's win over Spinks is one of the most overrated sporting performances ever. If I had a pound for every time I've heard a fight fan tell me that no heavyweight in history could've lived with Tyson that night, I'd be minted. Spinks fucked up big time, Tyson was just going through the motions.

Oh yes, I agree with that.

Tyson - Spinks fight reminds me of Vitali - Herbie Hide in some ways, both winners were made to look like gods by virtue of their oponents falling over from glancing blows.

the definitive Tyson performance for me is the Buster Douglas or 1st Holyfield fight.

oliverfennell wrote:

King Geedorah wrote:

oliverfennell wrote: Age and peak are not the same for all. Tyson was past his best by 23. I'd agree that Naz had peaked long before the Barrera fight, although how much of that was physical and how much of it was mental (i.e complacency), who knows.

The problem with Naz and Mike is that unlike other boxers they don't get judges as harshly as people believe they peaked early then threw it all away. Big wins such as Spinks and Naz's victims are cited when arguing for how great they were yet no one wants to listen when you point out that Mike's decision wins saw him display all the flaws that he showed in his defeats and Hamed looked pretty poor in some of his 'prime' fights.

Being a Naz or Tyson fan is similar to looking back on a teenage relationship, you strip away all the bad stuff, boost the happy memories forward and place it on a pedestal as a golden time.

Great point re. Tyson. If Tucker/Bruno/Smith had the fortitude that Douglas displayed, they may well have bagged that result for themselves. .

If Larry Holmes fought Tyson 2 years earlier, we would have been spared all this Tyson talk.

MachoMan09 wrote:The Ingle style has always flattered to deceive when pitched against inferior opposition. The Harlem Globetrotters of boxing. That's not to say I think the style is ineffective, I don't.

I think it should be called the Bomber Graham style, rather than Ingle. I think Ingle is probably the most fortunate trainer in boxing, I always thought his fighters succeeded inspite of him, rather than because of him.

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

King Geedorah wrote: The problem with Naz and Mike is that unlike other boxers they don't get judges as harshly as people believe they peaked early then threw it all away. Big wins such as Spinks and Naz's victims are cited when arguing for how great they were yet no one wants to listen when you point out that Mike's decision wins saw him display all the flaws that he showed in his defeats and Hamed looked pretty poor in some of his 'prime' fights.

Being a Naz or Tyson fan is similar to looking back on a teenage relationship, you strip away all the bad stuff, boost the happy memories forward and place it on a pedestal as a golden time.

Great point re. Tyson. If Tucker/Bruno/Smith had the fortitude that Douglas displayed, they may well have bagged that result for themselves. .

If Larry Holmes fought Tyson 2 years earlier, we would have been spared all this Tyson talk.