BoxRec

Posted: **30 Jul 2020, 13:36**

What do you think Hamed's highest purse was?

Posted: **30 Jul 2020, 13:37**

Bungu was good, but if Naz were to ever have taken the next step up to Barrera/JMM/Morales level he needed wins beyond that. Looking great vs B level is good but only says so much, we saw that when Naz stepped up to MAB

Posted: **30 Jul 2020, 13:44**

Roco wrote: ↑30 Jul 2020, 13:36 What do you think Hamed's highest purse was?

kevin kelly i would of thought

Posted: **30 Jul 2020, 14:44**

Floyd Sr sums up Naz in 2001, post Barrera:

'He can't fight. The money he made is unbelievable for a guy who can just punch. He don't even throw two punches at a time. He can't even throw combinations. If he catches you with one punch, he might throw another, but they're single punches at a time.
'It was a circus, a comedy act. I can teach Naseem--but what can I do if this man don't want to learn?
'He'll never beat Barrera. He can't beat this guy, and the next time, it will be all over.'

Judging by loud mouth Hamed's sheepish retirement, he shared Floyd Sr's view.

Posted: **30 Jul 2020, 15:07**

Onamastus wrote: ↑30 Jul 2020, 14:44 Floyd Sr sums up Naz in 2001, post Barrera:

'He can't fight. The money he made is unbelievable for a guy who can just punch. He don't even throw two punches at a time. He can't even throw combinations. If he catches you with one punch, he might throw another, but they're single punches at a time.
'It was a circus, a comedy act. I can teach Naseem--but what can I do if this man don't want to learn?
'He'll never beat Barrera. He can't beat this guy, and the next time, it will be all over.'

Judging by loud mouth Hamed's sheepish retirement, he shared Floyd Sr's view.

dont think that is fare , i watched naz v marco back lot closer than i thought and i was a barrea fan ,

Posted: **30 Jul 2020, 15:08**

There is no way you can give Naz more than 4 rounds in that fight, and Barrera won his rounds much bigger. 9-3 for me and with all the big moments coming from Mab

Not like it was a 12-0 rout but comfortable Barrera win with a level between them

Posted: **30 Jul 2020, 15:36**

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑30 Jul 2020, 15:08 There is no way you can give Naz more than 4 rounds in that fight, and Barrera won his rounds much bigger. 9-3 for me and with all the big moments coming from Mab

Not like it was a 12-0 rout but comfortable Barrera win with a level between them

kinda of agree but they were close rds and it wasnt an easy win is what i was getting at and naz wasnt at his best in that fight , god i cant belive iam defending naz

Posted: **30 Jul 2020, 15:39**

I thought MAB won most or all of his rounds clearly, his biggest round may have been the last where he got the point off

9-3 or 8-4, with bigger rounds for MAB. No doubt closer than the people saying it was an ass whooping suggest, but still a clear comfy win for Barrera, made Naz look like a 2nd rung guy, not a Morales or JMM or Pac

Posted: **30 Jul 2020, 16:04**

And its important to remember that MAB was seen as the warm up before putting Naz in against Morales who was seen as the top guy back then.

I dont buy the excuse that Naz wasnt at his best etc ... every boxer who ever loses says that; bad camp - bad hands - even a bad toe has been used. Simple truth is Naz just got found out.

Posted: **30 Jul 2020, 18:40**

tonyevs wrote: ↑30 Jul 2020, 16:04 And its important to remember that MAB was seen as the warm up before putting Naz in against Morales who was seen as the top guy back then.

I dont buy the excuse that Naz wasnt at his best etc ... every boxer who ever loses says that; bad camp - bad hands - even a bad toe has been used. Simple truth is Naz just got found out.

it was the full out with brendan ingle

Posted: **30 Jul 2020, 21:09**

Bungu was a faded little guy coming up

Posted: **31 Jul 2020, 04:59**

tonyevs wrote: ↑30 Jul 2020, 16:04 And its important to remember that MAB was seen as the warm up before putting Naz in against Morales who was seen as the top guy back then.

I dont buy the excuse that Naz wasnt at his best etc ... every boxer who ever loses says that; bad camp - bad hands - even a bad toe has been used. Simple truth is Naz just got found out.

Thats an opinion. Even if you look at Naz's body in the MAB compared to his earlier fights he was soft - earlier fights he was a ball of muscle.

Then you see his style - later in his career he stopped going to the body and throwing combinations and was just looking for a big punch.

So I don't buy Naz got found out. But again thats just my opinion.

Posted: **31 Jul 2020, 05:47**

Naz had turned into a one shot machine before he faced off against Barrera, the signs where there in the Kelly fight. He had become reliant on his punch power, and sacrificed a lot of his excellent skills to go head hunting with pot shots. We all remember the corkscrew uppercut.

Ingle was starting to undo Naz late in their fight until Naz landed the big shot in the 11th to get himself out of trouble.

His footwork in the Barrera fight was terrible, he was staying in the pocket too long after launching his big bombs and Barrera was clipping him each time. For sure his out of the ring shenanigans played a part too.

If we take the stance that Naz was not an elite fighter and Barrera was, then that was a poor performance by Barrera (the fight was pretty dull actually)

Posted: **31 Jul 2020, 08:54**

Twinkle Toes wrote: ↑31 Jul 2020, 05:47 Naz had turned into a one shot machine before he faced off against Barrera, the signs where there in the Kelly fight. He had become reliant on his punch power, and sacrificed a lot of his excellent skills to go head hunting with pot shots.

Much the same as Froch had these apparent great boxing skills against the lower level guys he faced on way up - as he met the better skilled guys his own skills were very difficult to identify, and what was more noticeable was his superb strength and stamina to wear guys down.
Naz`s apparent excellent skills faded as his opposition got better; all he had left was the big punch.

There were elite guys about when Naz was at the height of his hype; Mayweather and Pacman were either side of his weight division ... I think it is fair to say that both of those guys would have been fully expected to have stopped Naz fairly routinely.

Naz was great for British boxing; the kids loved his silly arrogance etc ... but ultimately it was typical over hyped British guy who was well short of elite level.

Posted: **31 Jul 2020, 09:54**

tonyevs wrote: ↑31 Jul 2020, 08:54
Twinkle Toes wrote: ↑31 Jul 2020, 05:47 Naz had turned into a one shot machine before he faced off against Barrera, the signs where there in the Kelly fight. He had become reliant on his punch power, and sacrificed a lot of his excellent skills to go head hunting with pot shots.
Much the same as Froch had these apparent great boxing skills against the lower level guys he faced on way up - as he met the better skilled guys his own skills were very difficult to identify, and what was more noticeable was his superb strength and stamina to wear guys down.
Naz`s apparent excellent skills faded as his opposition got better; all he had left was the big punch.

There were elite guys about when Naz was at the height of his hype; Mayweather and Pacman were either side of his weight division ... I think it is fair to say that both of those guys would have been fully expected to have stopped Naz fairly routinely.

Naz was great for British boxing; the kids loved his silly arrogance etc ... but ultimately it was typical over hyped British guy who was well short of elite level.

That's a bizarre interpretation of events, especially the comparison with Froch.

Whether Naz could have cut it at elite level will always be open to question, but surely no one is questioning what twinkle toes is rightly saying about how Naz's skill-set deteriorated as he abandoned his elusiveness and just used his 'get out of jail' card in the form of his power? That decline was very obvious and pronounced.

Posted: **31 Jul 2020, 11:17**

It's okay to think Barrera was always a bit better at the same time as feeling Hamed wasn't firing on all cylinders that night. Hamed turned out to be the little Tyson, with a self-lost prime that ceded to less agile KO-hunting. I think MAB-Naz would've been really close in '96.

I also think it's unfair to mention Pacquiao and Mayweather, who didn't hit the bigtime until Naz was done. Was Marquez well-known to many fans in the '90s? Morales and Barrera came to fame a year before Hamed lost to the latter, consequently not fighting the former, so again I think it's unfair to say he avoided them. Norwood stands out as someone he should've fought.

Posted: **31 Jul 2020, 11:49**

Roco wrote: ↑30 Jul 2020, 13:36 What do you think Hamed's highest purse was?

A lot for that time. Barrera for the casino site fee and Sky PPV. I don't think HBO did PPV at the time though.

Posted: **31 Jul 2020, 11:52**

Sweet P Whitaker described Naz as 'a joke' after the scrap with a shot Kelley.

Posted: **31 Jul 2020, 11:59**

black panther wrote: ↑31 Jul 2020, 04:59
tonyevs wrote: ↑30 Jul 2020, 16:04 And its important to remember that MAB was seen as the warm up before putting Naz in against Morales who was seen as the top guy back then.

I dont buy the excuse that Naz wasnt at his best etc ... every boxer who ever loses says that; bad camp - bad hands - even a bad toe has been used. Simple truth is Naz just got found out.

Thats an opinion. Even if you look at Naz's body in the MAB compared to his earlier fights he was soft - earlier fights he was a ball of muscle.

Then you see his style - later in his career he stopped going to the body and throwing combinations and was just looking for a big punch.

So I don't buy Naz got found out. But again thats just my opinion.

You've just basically said he was found out. Lack of mental strength/dedication.

Posted: **31 Jul 2020, 12:15**

coghaugen11 wrote: ↑31 Jul 2020, 11:49
Roco wrote: ↑30 Jul 2020, 13:36 What do you think Hamed's highest purse was?
A lot for that time. Barrera for the casino site fee and Sky PPV. I don't think HBO did PPV at the time though.

HBO did PPV throughout the 1990s. It was called TVKO. Holyfield/Foreman was on TVKO.

Posted: **31 Jul 2020, 12:17**

Onamastus wrote: ↑31 Jul 2020, 12:15
coghaugen11 wrote: ↑31 Jul 2020, 11:49
Roco wrote: ↑30 Jul 2020, 13:36 What do you think Hamed's highest purse was?
A lot for that time. Barrera for the casino site fee and Sky PPV. I don't think HBO did PPV at the time though.
HBO did PPV throughout the 1990s. It was called TVKO. Holyfield/Foreman was on TVKO.

It was separate to HBO, for instance Jones-Toney has a HBO broadcast and a TVKO broadcast -where you didn't have to subscribe to HBO. Arum dropped it after Jones-Toney

Posted: **31 Jul 2020, 12:27**

Guy looks more limited as his opposition gets better, seems about right

Posted: **31 Jul 2020, 12:35**

coghaugen11 wrote: ↑31 Jul 2020, 12:17
Onamastus wrote: ↑31 Jul 2020, 12:15
coghaugen11 wrote: ↑31 Jul 2020, 11:49

A lot for that time. Barrera for the casino site fee and Sky PPV. I don't think HBO did PPV at the time though.
HBO did PPV throughout the 1990s. It was called TVKO. Holyfield/Foreman was on TVKO.
It was separate to HBO, for instance Jones-Toney has a HBO broadcast and a TVKO broadcast -where you didn't have to subscribe to HBO. Arum dropped it after Jones-Toney

TVKO was the PPV wing of HBO. HBO later changed the name to HBO PPV to remove needless confusion, what with all the alphabet soup in boxing. HBO/TVKO had loads of PPVs throughout the 1990s.

Posted: **31 Jul 2020, 13:38**

Grilling Machine wrote: ↑31 Jul 2020, 11:17 I think MAB-Naz would've been really close in '96.

I also think it's unfair to mention Pacquiao and Mayweather, who didn't hit the bigtime until Naz was done. Was Marquez well-known to many fans in the '90s? Morales and Barrera came to fame a year before Hamed lost to the latter, consequently not fighting the former, so again I think it's unfair to say he avoided them. Norwood stands out as someone he should've fought.

I only have to look at their level of opposition up to and during 96 to see the outcome was very likely to be the same.

Its true that Pacman was still an unknown quantity until he fought and beat MAB a couple years after MAB had beaten Naz ... but in 2001 the Pacman was a wrecking ball up at super-bantam. Of course we cannot say for definite .. but hindsight would allow us to imagine what carnage a buzz-saw wrecking machine Pacman would have done to the oft off balance single punch throwing Naz of 2001.
Mayweather had been a world title holder since 1998 ..

Posted: **31 Jul 2020, 13:45**

Onamastus wrote: ↑31 Jul 2020, 12:35
coghaugen11 wrote: ↑31 Jul 2020, 12:17
Onamastus wrote: ↑31 Jul 2020, 12:15

HBO did PPV throughout the 1990s. It was called TVKO. Holyfield/Foreman was on TVKO.
It was separate to HBO, for instance Jones-Toney has a HBO broadcast and a TVKO broadcast -where you didn't have to subscribe to HBO. Arum dropped it after Jones-Toney
TVKO was the PPV wing of HBO. HBO later changed the name to HBO PPV to remove needless confusion, what with all the alphabet soup in boxing. HBO/TVKO had loads of PPVs throughout the 1990s.

No

BoxRec

Naseem Hamed

Re: Naseem Hamed

Re: Naseem Hamed

Re: Naseem Hamed

Re: Naseem Hamed

Re: Naseem Hamed

Re: Naseem Hamed

Re: Naseem Hamed

Re: Naseem Hamed

Re: Naseem Hamed

Re: Naseem Hamed

Re: Naseem Hamed

Re: Naseem Hamed

Re: Naseem Hamed

Re: Naseem Hamed

Re: Naseem Hamed

Re: Naseem Hamed

Re: Naseem Hamed

Re: Naseem Hamed

Re: Naseem Hamed

Re: Naseem Hamed

Re: Naseem Hamed

Re: Naseem Hamed

Re: Naseem Hamed

Re: Naseem Hamed

Re: Naseem Hamed