BoxRec

Who would win and why. I"ll go with Morales with very close decision granted he doens't try to trade.

Morales would tear Hamed apart with fundamentals outbox him for 12 rounds I cant see Hamed winning this 1 dominent UD to Morales great fighter in his prime

I think Morales would outbox Hamed. Morales is a legend and Hamed is just hard hitter with a good record who never beat any great names. Morales would use his superior skills (and he can crack too) to win a clear decision.

Stylewise I think Hamed is made for Morales. In his prime he had a great fantastic chin, and can go inbetween Hamed's shots, plus when he got stunned Morales was the type to counter after he got hit hard. Hamed wasn't a combination guy like Pacquiao, so Morales would have time to counter and throw his shots. I say Morales by a solid but not wide UD, cuz I think Hamed would have his times because of his accuracy when he thew the jab well. One problem that guys that Ingle trains is that they lack combination punching which really would've helped guys like Hamed out, which really baffled him when he was behind against Barrera.

The Hamed who actually used his boxing skills would have been able to outbox Morales and jolt him with power shots.

The Naz who stopped using his skills and became just a one at a time puncher, many ppl are forgetting, still was able to KO fine champs like Wilfredo Vazquez, Vuyani Bungu, Tom Johnson.

Morales did not have smooth counter punching skills that Barrera had, and used to make Naz look foolish. This sounds like a load of, "MAB beat Naz so Morales would." Honestly, I don't know who would have won.

Next up: "Marquez would of exposed Hamed." Yawn. Yes, the Marquez who at the time lost to "Lil Hagler" Freddie Norwood and who wouldn't be a major player until 2004.

Naz was just a Hard Hitter?

He was one of the most awkward and unorthodox boxers ever, even for a southpaw.

Personally think Naz would UD this, possibly even late TKO.

Barrera beat a careless Naz. This win holds about as much water as as Leon Spinks v Ali I

That's total BS. That was by far the most important fight of his career. He also wasn't 36 years old and overlooking his opponent.
He lost because Barrera was a better fighter. He soon got out of boxing rather than fighting Barrera or someone else that was really good.

Ambling Alp wrote:That's total BS. That was by far the most important fight of his career. He also wasn't 36 years old and overlooking his opponent.
He lost because Barrera was a better fighter. He soon got out of boxing rather than fighting Barrera or someone else that was really good.

Idiotic. In retrospect, it was a big fight, but Barrera was a 3-to-1 underdog coming up from 122 and coming off THREE recent losses. Everyone who watched boxing at the time knew that Barrera had been declining for years. People just hate on Naz because he's Arab.

I don't care if he is an Arab. Stick to what is relevant.
There is no way that Hamed was overlooking Barrera. Three recent losses? Barrera had one loss in the previous four years; even that was a close split decision to Erik Morales.
Barrera had been declining for years? He was still considered a great fighter. Going into the fight I certainly thought he would beat Hamed.
Hamed didn't lose because he was "careless". It speaks volumes that he retired soon after losing rather than go for a rematch with Barrera or fight Morales. Hamed was only 27 years old.
He lost to Barrera because he was fighting a better fighter.

I think Hamed had the natural ability to be an ATG, I think he lacked mental toughness and discipline.
He was given a great deal of coverage in the British press, and it seems he read all of it and believed all of it.
The press coverage was understandable, Hamed looked sensational in some of his early ko wins. If he started to struggle when the opposition upgraded (Medina, Kelley, Ingle), that's for boxing fans to worry about - mainstream press needs to look after the bandwagon.
In short, I honestly believe Hamed took on Barrera believing that he only had to show up to win.
Some might see that as an excuse, I prefer to look at it from the angle of the fighters mental fitness. If he does not possess the discipline to take a contemporary rival seriously then what's the use hypothesizing 'if Hamed had taken a different approach'? In my mind he proved he is not capable of doing that, which makes him a lesser fighter.
Morales beats Hamed same as Barrera did.

So, you guys are all saying that the Erik Morales who should have lost to Guty Espadas when he moved to 126 would have easily beaten Naseem Hamed, had he made his featherweight championship debut against him, instead?

Amp, do you even know what happened to Naz in his late career?

He cared as much about the sport as KKK care about Black people

observer1 wrote:Amp, do you even know what happened to Naz in his late career?

He cared as much about the sport as KKK care about Black people

Thats the thing everyone remembers the Barrera fight and how awful he was and forget how good Naz was when with Ingle and actually interested in the game. Great shame really.

even know hamed hits like a wetler weight i think a prime morales with his amazing chin would walk through hamed

danieljenkins wrote:even know hamed hits like a wetler weight i think a prime morales with his amazing chin would walk through hamed

Morales would walk through him? Like he did against Guty Espadas Jr?