BoxRec

1 word EXPLOSIVE !!! am tippin Naz just because natural power ,Broner can bang but can he take a shot ?? what ya think guys

wesley05 wrote:1 word EXPLOSIVE !!! am tippin Naz just because natural power ,Broner can bang but can he take a shot ?? what ya think guys

Naz.

Naz easily

I think Naz in a shootout but am not sure who'd have the barmiest and most cringeworthy ring walk; both have had their minutes there.

palooka wrote:I think Naz in a shootout but am not sure who'd have the barmiest and most cringeworthy ring walk; both have had their minutes there.

No one touches Naz with the ring walk he was the daddy

Naz has advantages in power, one puch power and speed. Throw in the unorthadox style and punches and its bye bye Broner.

Well, it is for me.

Naz with ease.

hard to say

no one really knows how far broner can go yet

people are saying hes the next p4p #1

lets ask this question again in 4 or 5 years

wesley05 wrote:

palooka wrote:I think Naz in a shootout but am not sure who'd have the barmiest and most cringeworthy ring walk; both have had their minutes there.

No one touches Naz with the ring walk he was the daddy

I reckon they would do away with the undercard as it would take about half an hour for both in the main event to reach the ring D

Too early in my opinion to tell how good (or not as the case may be) that Broner is.

Greavesy wrote:hard to say

no one really knows how far broner can go yet

people are saying hes the next p4p #1

lets ask this question again in 4 or 5 years

I was a big fan of Naseem's, but Broner is expected to be the next mayweather, so difficult one to call, if Broner does achieve great things then NO, but Nas has a punchers chance and if Broner is overrated and does not become the new star, then Nas could knock him out.

Broner would be to big for Naz in my eyes. Not sure how good he will be but i think i'd slightly favour him in tis bout due to the hysical advantages alone.

funtime wrote:Broner would be to big for Naz in my eyes. Not sure how good he will be but i think i'd slightly favour him in tis bout due to the hysical advantages alone.

I think Nas was usually the smaller man in his fights, so nothing new for him, I think defense is the key for Broner if anything.

Interesting question.

The Prince takes this one, but it certainly would be exciting.

safeerah wrote:

funtime wrote:Broner would be to big for Naz in my eyes. Not sure how good he will be but i think i'd slightly favour him in tis bout due to the hysical advantages alone.

I think Nas was usually the smaller man in his fights, so nothing new for him, I think defense is the key for Broner if anything.

Maybe Naz was usually smaller, but Broner is practically a 140'er come fight night, and thats a huge difference.

At the same stages of their career, new champs etc, Naz wipes Broner aside I'm afraid

Naz all the way. Peak Naz was virtually untouchable, it was only when things started to go wrong behind the scenes that cracks started to appear. Bloody shame.

Glyn Leach wrote:Naz all the way. Peak Naz was virtually untouchable, it was only when things started to go wrong behind the scenes that cracks started to appear. Bloody shame.

Great call Glyn

Things went wrong when Naz started to lose his reflexes. He then became more gun-shy.

thepocketrocket wrote:Things went wrong when Naz started to lose his reflexes. He then became more gun-shy.

No, things went wrong when Naz fell in love with his power and abandoned his killer combination of unorthodox punching and elusiveness in favour of sitting in the pocket and loading up on single shots. This coupled with his loss of 'hunger' in terms of his training routine (leaving Brendan etc), was what led to his decline, not a loss in reflexes.

Naz, and it's not even close imo.

Glyn Leach wrote:Naz all the way. Peak Naz was virtually untouchable, it was only when things started to go wrong behind the scenes that cracks started to appear. Bloody shame.

That's a good shout TBH.

It's a real shame than Prince Naseem never really learnt to 'box' & was so over reliant on his power, because he could have been special.

Deserter wrote:

thepocketrocket wrote:Things went wrong when Naz started to lose his reflexes. He then became more gun-shy.

No, things went wrong when Naz fell in love with his power and abandoned his killer combination of unorthodox punching and elusiveness in favour of sitting in the pocket and loading up on single shots. This coupled with his loss of 'hunger' in terms of his training routine (leaving Brendan etc), was what led to his decline, not a loss in reflexes.

We will have to disagree, though as always I respect your opinion. Naz's decline was more prolonged than some people think. It culminated in his defensive performance against Manuel Calvo, a man who he would have beaten in a round in his prime.

I'm not saying Naz turned into a slowcoach, it was mili-seconds, but was enough for him to know he was more likely to get caught.

His style was never designed for longevity, the unorthodoxy will only last into later years if you are willing to go defensive and pot shot (like Calvo), but if you have buit a reputation on being 'Mr Excitment' and staying in range, then you are naturally not going to want to make that transformation

As for the thread, lets have a look at Broner in a few years, we know nothing about him yet.

thepocketrocket wrote:As for the thread, lets have a look at Broner in a few years, we know nothing about him yet.

The decline was certainly a protracted process which lasted a good few years. The weaknesses in Naz seemed to grow proportionally with his growing distraction and loss of dedication - the longer it went on, the weaker he got. The prime years of his career went to waste. He was a young man when he stopped fighting but he hadn't developed for years and he had lost much of what he once had, much the same as Mike Tyson after Buster Douglas, when he became preoccupied with landing big punches but neglected what once set those punches up and made them so effective. Naz did exactly that.

What a bizarre thread