BoxRec

from 1-10, 1 being rubbish.

Bruno
Benn
Eubank
Mcguigan
Naseem
Lewis
Woodall.

emma wrote:from 1-10, 1 being rubbish.

Bruno
Benn
Eubank
Mcguigan
Naseem
Lewis
Woodall.

Boxababe01..

Bruno 7/10
Benn 8/10
Eubank 7/10
Mcguigan 8/10
Naseem 8/10
Lewis 9/10
Woodall. 7/10

emma wrote:from 1-10, 1 being rubbish.

Bruno
Benn
Eubank
Mcguigan
Naseem
Lewis
Woodall.

Bruno 7
Benn 8
Eubank 8
Mcguigan 8
Naz 9
Lewis 11
Woodhall 7

emma wrote:from 1-10, 1 being rubbish.

Bruno
Benn
Eubank
Mcguigan
Naseem
Lewis
Woodall.

Okay, if you consider the likes of Ali, Robinson etc at 10's.

Bruno - 3
Benn - 6
Eubank - 7
Finbar McGuigan - 7
Naseem - 7
Lewis - 8
Woodhall - 6.

I would rather 'rate your rack', if you wouldnt mind...

emma wrote:from 1-10, 1 being rubbish.

Bruno
Benn
Eubank
Mcguigan
Naseem
Lewis
Woodall.

6 for sheer hard work only.
9 excitement value
7 nothing more to say than he has said already.
8 Genuine
5 Exposed
10 Brilliant, when interested
7 Blue Collar fighter

Bruno - 5/10
Benn - 7/10
Eubank 7/10
Mcguigan 8/10
Naseem 8/10
Lewis - 9/10
Woodall - 7/10

Andy Mac wrote:

emma wrote:from 1-10, 1 being rubbish.

Bruno
Benn
Eubank
Mcguigan
Naseem
Lewis
Woodall.

6 for sheer hard work only.
9 excitement value
7 nothing more to say than he has said already.
8 Genuine
5 Exposed
10 Brilliant, when interested
7 Blue Collar fighter

Being beat by MAB by 3 points does not qualify as being exposed IMO

Andy Mac wrote:

emma wrote:from 1-10, 1 being rubbish.

Bruno
Benn
Eubank
Mcguigan
Naseem
Lewis
Woodall.

6 for sheer hard work only.
9 excitement value
7 nothing more to say than he has said already.
8 Genuine
5 Exposed
10 Brilliant, when interested
7 Blue Collar fighter

So Woodhall and Bruno are better fighters than Hamed, whose sole loss was to Barrera!? You obviously based your list on who you liked the most and nothing else.

Bruno 5 - trier who would have done better today.
Benn 7 Overachiever who cut the mustard againt the odds.
Eubank 7 hot and cold, but proved his worth in wars with Benn, Watson and Thompson, at his best deserved to be rated higher, but too inconsistent against ordinary opposition.
McGuigan 6 perhaps viewed with rose tinted spectacles, won his title against a faded champ looking for a last payday, and everything unravelled pretty quickly after that, popular, but not a particularly great champ.
Lewis 8- patchy career, but longevity and best performances earn him the rating one of the most enduring heavyweights of the modern era, albeit in an era where the best didn't all face eachother. Had he got his hands on Bowe or Holyfield earlier and beaten then, would rate even higher.
Woodhall 6 - decent fighter, alright career, but nothing really sensational that stands out about him.

Chambers2 wrote:

Andy Mac wrote:

emma wrote:from 1-10, 1 being rubbish.

Bruno
Benn
Eubank
Mcguigan
Naseem
Lewis
Woodall.

6 for sheer hard work only.
9 excitement value
7 nothing more to say than he has said already.
8 Genuine
5 Exposed
10 Brilliant, when interested
7 Blue Collar fighter

Being beat by MAB by 3 points does not qualify as being exposed IMO

No it does not. However it was the straw that broke the camels back. Hamed was exposed as a fraud, after 96 - 97 when he stopped taking the sport seriously and turned into a posing posturing tosser that thought all he needed to do was hit anyone and the fight would be over. I saw Hamed early in his career, when he fought as near to orthodox as was possible to him. When he stood in the pocket and slipped or blocked punches, and replied with lighning fast combo's, or single shots with brilliant accuracy. That IMO was when the rot set in. In fact i would say the last masterclass he put on was against Steve Robinson. So yes to answer others on here I do not like his attitude to the game post 96 and that is why i'd only give him 5. and that grudgingly.

Chambers2 wrote:

Andy Mac wrote:

emma wrote:from 1-10, 1 being rubbish.

Bruno
Benn
Eubank
Mcguigan
Naseem
Lewis
Woodall.

6 for sheer hard work only.
9 excitement value
7 nothing more to say than he has said already.
8 Genuine
5 Exposed
10 Brilliant, when interested
7 Blue Collar fighter

Being beat by MAB by 3 points does not qualify as being exposed IMO

Chambers, did MAB expose and outclass Rocky Juarez in the rematch?

well, he only won that fight by 2 points. I think the judges had it level going into the last round.

Barerra did outclass Naz... whether he was mentally right or not, that was the first and only time he faced an A class fighter at his peak. Kelley, Vasquez and Johnson were also A class fighters but not at their peak. Robinson, Medina and there rest were not A class fighters.

i will rate them in their prime
6
8
8
9
9
9
7

and, by the way emma, in the sack i rate as a big fat 10

Bruno 6
Benn 8
Eubank 7
Mcguigan 6
Naseem 8
Lewis 7
Woodall. 6

nigel benn better than mcguigan and lennox?
barry equal with richie woodhall?

to each his own

Bruno = 6
Benn = 8
Eubank = 7
Mcguigan = 8
Naseem = 9
Lewis = 10
Woodall = 5

harrygreb wrote:i will rate them in their prime
6
8
8
9
9
9
7

and, by the way emma, in the sack i rate as a big fat 10

Thats nice to know

Andy Mac wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:

Andy Mac wrote: 6 for sheer hard work only.
9 excitement value
7 nothing more to say than he has said already.
8 Genuine
5 Exposed
10 Brilliant, when interested
7 Blue Collar fighter

Being beat by MAB by 3 points does not qualify as being exposed IMO

No it does not. However it was the straw that broke the camels back. Hamed was exposed as a fraud, after 96 - 97 when he stopped taking the sport seriously and turned into a posing posturing tosser that thought all he needed to do was hit anyone and the fight would be over. I saw Hamed early in his career, when he fought as near to orthodox as was possible to him. When he stood in the pocket and slipped or blocked punches, and replied with lighning fast combo's, or single shots with brilliant accuracy. That IMO was when the rot set in. In fact i would say the last masterclass he put on was against Steve Robinson. So yes to answer others on here I do not like his attitude to the game post 96 and that is why i'd only give him 5. and that grudgingly.

I see and agree with what you and Stu are saying about Naz, but I don't think exposed is the right word to explain it, considering he defended the WBO title about 15 times and he also held the IBF and WBC belts at points in his career.

MAB outclassed Naz on the night, he got his tactics spot on and beat Naz by 3 points, I personally don't class that as being exposed (as a fraud), but I suppose its all terminology.

As you say, Naz's performances deteriated(sp) as time went on, due to his lack of focus and dedication and it pisses me off, especially as I'd been listening to him say "I'm gonna be a champ at 5 different weights" for god knows how long. If he could have kept his standards up to the exceptional level that he set when beating Robinson (absolutely breathtaking) then I'd have picked him over anybody that was around at the time, but he was an idle pudendum so we just have to dream of what could've been.

What a showman though

Re: Naz being "exposed". I think it boils down to where you rated Naz in the first place.

For me, MAB is at the elite level (like Morales, Pacman etc) and I suppose Naz did get exposed at that level (elite). However, anything below the "elite" and Naz was more than capable. Still a very high achievement IMO.

Ok Naz didn't truly live up to the hype he surrounded himself with, but try removing all the verbal bollocks and you're still left with a hell of a boxer.

THEBUTCH wrote:Re: Naz being "exposed". I think it boils down to where you rated Naz in the first place.

For me, MAB is at the elite level (like Morales, Pacman etc) and I suppose Naz did get exposed at that level (elite). However, anything below the "elite" and Naz was more than capable. Still a very high achievement IMO.

Ok Naz didn't truly live up to the hype he surrounded himself with, but try removing all the verbal bollocks and you're still left with a hell of a boxer.

Thats damn good reasoning. Naz was a very, very good fighter but I tend to feel that the fight shows how good Barrera was rather than Naz being bad.

Chambers2 wrote:

Andy Mac wrote:

Chambers2 wrote: Being beat by MAB by 3 points does not qualify as being exposed IMO

No it does not. However it was the straw that broke the camels back. Hamed was exposed as a fraud, after 96 - 97 when he stopped taking the sport seriously and turned into a posing posturing tosser that thought all he needed to do was hit anyone and the fight would be over. I saw Hamed early in his career, when he fought as near to orthodox as was possible to him. When he stood in the pocket and slipped or blocked punches, and replied with lighning fast combo's, or single shots with brilliant accuracy. That IMO was when the rot set in. In fact i would say the last masterclass he put on was against Steve Robinson. So yes to answer others on here I do not like his attitude to the game post 96 and that is why i'd only give him 5. and that grudgingly.

I see and agree with what you and Stu are saying about Naz, but I don't think exposed is the right word to explain it, considering he defended the WBO title about 15 times and he also held the IBF and WBC belts at points in his career.

MAB outclassed Naz on the night, he got his tactics spot on and beat Naz by 3 points, I personally don't class that as being exposed (as a fraud), but I suppose its all terminology.

As you say, Naz's performances deteriated(sp) as time went on, due to his lack of focus and dedication and it pisses me off, especially as I'd been listening to him say "I'm gonna be a champ at 5 different weights" for god knows how long. If he could have kept his standards up to the exceptional level that he set when beating Robinson (absolutely breathtaking) then I'd have picked him over anybody that was around at the time, but he was an idle pudendum so we just have to dream of what could've been.



Naz was never as good as he thought he was, or the hype suggested. He was a very good but not a great fighter, who never really learned to fight effectively in an orthodox manner.

He was a fighter who thrived on making his opponents confused and traded on his huge ego and confidence. Early in his career he put his shots together a lot better, but I still think he was going to get found out at elite level by someone. Barrera fought the perfect fight, but Naz simply had no plan B and no other way to fight. Against lesser fighters (and let's face it, most fighters are lesser fighters compared to Barrera) he could get away with his technical deficiencies, but all it took was for Barrera to turn counterpuncher and Naz was completely befuddled.

That said, Hamed was still an exceptional fighter blessed with incredible power and speed and he could take a lick too. He was an A - where Barrera was an A+ but that gulf made a hell of a difference on the night.

It would have been interesting to have seen him in with a Marquez, or Morales type fighter, to see if they too would have had too much for him. Morales traded an awful lot on his toughness to get him through fights and could certainly be hit. How would he have stood up to Hamed's power?

harrygreb wrote:nigel benn better than mcguigan and lennox?
barry equal with richie woodhall?

to each his own

Benn had a better resume than McGuigan by some way, take away a win over faded and retirement fund seeking Pedroza, and suddenly McGuigan's career looks pretty ordinary.

barry was technically better than nigel and was far more adaptable when facing tricky opponents. both were true warriors with nigel nicking it by a nose in the heart dept.
i think barry had the best body attack of any british fighter i have seen. this made him a better fighter than benn against defensive boxers
nigel could destroy from very unorthodox angles but the way he was tamed by watson makes me give barry the edge.

I suppose you are right Chambers, its all in the terminology. IDLE pudendum isn't a bad starter for 10