BoxRec

Seriously.

Hamed cleaned up all four belts with KO's and fought lb4lbers at MSG and MGM (Kelley, Barrera) all in his mid-20's. Joe Calzaghe was the joke of boxing until his mid-30s.

Hamed's legacy is greater than Calzaghe's as far as I'm concerned.

Naz had one poor fight (McCullough). Calzaghe has had... uhh, wait there... (Giminez, Reid, Thornberry, Starie, Jiminez, Salem, Ashira, Bika).

And Reid (Joe's sole loss) is hardly Barrera.

Naz was also poor versus Soto and was far removed from his peak versus Sanchez, Calvo or Ingle for that matter.

STP wrote: Hamed cleaned up all four belts with KO's and fought lb4lbers at MSG and MGM (Kelley, Barrera) all in his mid-20's

Whats the obsession with America and these venues,though? And for the record,neither Kelley or Marco were in the magazine 'pound for pound' when they fought Nazeem. I could argue Joe Calzaghe after what he did to Eubank was in the 'pound for pound' mix,and from thereon(on ability atleast). I could argue Brewer and Mitchell were robbed against Ottke,and Calzaghe beat them,so he beat the real IBF/WBA champs,and I could argue they were just as good or better than Tom Johnson etc. Mikkel Kessler was not as good as Marco Barrera,but Calzaghe beat him and Nazeem lost,and Bernard Hopkins is a little more than Manuel Calvo,and Chris Eubank a little more than Stevie Robinson.

Its forgot that Naseem beat some good champions/belt holders.

Vasquez - lineal? WBA Feather and 3 weight champ
Kelly - ex-champ
Tom Johnson - IBF Champ
Bungu - IBF Super-Bantam, arguably more accomplished at 122 than Barrera and Morales
Soto - WBC Champ
McColough - ex Bantam champ
Steve Robinson - WBO but beat all the top British Feathers including 3 weight champ Mckenzie
Sanchez - top prospect who beat Mayweather in the amateurs
Ingle - future belt holder
Medina - 5 time champion (or did he make it upto 6?)

Bare in mind he was completely dominant against this competition and a champion from 1995-2001. Shame Hamed wasn't more focused on his career because he could have been the legend he believed he was

Both great fighters and top 5 p4pers (JC is now) but why start this thread? The point?

STP wrote:And Reid (Joe's sole loss) is hardly Barrera.

?? Do we go off what we perceive or what their record actually is?

Problem with Naz was that he never overcame the Barrera loss, just faded away. Calzaghe's legacy is all down to how he finishes really if you wanna compare the two. If Calzaghe takes Hopkins and then another one or two big wins vs Woods/Tarver/Pavlik... then there's no way Naz would touch Calzaghe.

Did Naz ever fight after the Barrera defeat?

Is he still in prison or what?

He fought Manuel Calvo and won.....he is out of prison, was rumoured to be making a comeback but it would have to be at cruiserweight. He's huge.

STP you have a strange fascination with Calzaghe - Why is this?

calzaghe has a better record.

simple as.

hamed peaked at 21 to 23.

last couple of years he was an accident waiting to happen.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:Its forgot that Naseem beat some good champions/belt holders.

Vasquez - lineal? WBA Feather and 3 weight champ
Kelly - ex-champ
Tom Johnson - IBF Champ
Bungu - IBF Super-Bantam, arguably more accomplished at 122 than Barrera and Morales
Soto - WBC Champ
McColough - ex Bantam champ
Steve Robinson - WBO but beat all the top British Feathers including 3 weight champ Mckenzie
Sanchez - top prospect who beat Mayweather in the amateurs
Ingle - future belt holder
Medina - 5 time champion (or did he make it upto 6?)

Bare in mind he was completely dominant against this competition and a champion from 1995-2001. Shame Hamed wasn't more focused on his career because he could have been the legend he believed he was

But at the same time this could be said.

Vasquez - Given possibly the worst decision I have EVER seen vs Rios on the Holyfield vs Moorer II bill, no way he should have been champion - and that was the fight before Hamed.

Kelly - Decent Scalp - even still not out of the picture, so good win. But Morales and Barrera delt with him far more easily.

Tom Johnson - A fair few thought he lost to Badillo, and looked poor for Belano before Hamed.... loses to Shepard a year or so after.

Bungu - Career long Super Bantam, 33 and with 13 months lay off.

Soto - Beats a shot Espinosa, and only wins 4 times after the Hamed loss.

McColough - Ex BANTAM champ, who was bashed around in his next meaningful featherweight fight.

Steve Robinson - 4 weeks to prepare, didn't look as sharp as before in his last 2 successful defences.

Sanchez - top prospect who was chinny.

Ingle - I loved Ingle, and I think he would have taken Hamed in a rematch BUT... fact is, he tasted the Canvas in all his world title fights.


Medina - Good scalp. Hamed's best.

stujones wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:Its forgot that Naseem beat some good champions/belt holders.

Vasquez - lineal? WBA Feather and 3 weight champ
Kelly - ex-champ
Tom Johnson - IBF Champ
Bungu - IBF Super-Bantam, arguably more accomplished at 122 than Barrera and Morales
Soto - WBC Champ
McColough - ex Bantam champ
Steve Robinson - WBO but beat all the top British Feathers including 3 weight champ Mckenzie
Sanchez - top prospect who beat Mayweather in the amateurs
Ingle - future belt holder
Medina - 5 time champion (or did he make it upto 6?)

Bare in mind he was completely dominant against this competition and a champion from 1995-2001. Shame Hamed wasn't more focused on his career because he could have been the legend he believed he was

But at the same time this could be said.

Vasquez - Given possibly the worst decision I have EVER seen vs Rios on the Holyfield vs Moorer II bill, no way he should have been champion - and that was the fight before Hamed.

Kelly - Decent Scalp - even still not out of the picture, so good win. But Morales and Barrera delt with him far more easily.

Tom Johnson - A fair few thought he lost to Badillo, and looked poor for Belano before Hamed.... loses to Shepard a year or so after.

Bungu - Career long Super Bantam, 33 and with 13 months lay off.

Soto - Beats a shot Espinosa, and only wins 4 times after the Hamed loss.

McColough - Ex BANTAM champ, who was bashed around in his next meaningful featherweight fight.

Steve Robinson - 4 weeks to prepare, didn't look as sharp as before in his last 2 successful defences.

Sanchez - top prospect who was chinny.

Ingle - I loved Ingle, and I think he would have taken Hamed in a rematch BUT... fact is, he tasted the Canvas in all his world title fights.

Medina - Good scalp. Hamed's best.

You can take many resumes apart. As for Kevin Kelly been beaten more easily by MAB and Morales, well yes but that was 3 and 6 years later when he had slipped allot. A few of the fighters may have got gifts, but they won't be the first or last world class fighters to get gifts.

All in all the opposition may not have been at its complete peak for the most part but it wasn't that far departed from its peak & it was top level fighters and it was taken care of in style for the most part

Although you look at their resumes post Hamed... then its only Kelly, Medina, Ingle and McCullough who you can say were still quite close to their prime.

The rest were a defeat waiting to happen, and this could be seen after.

stujones wrote:Although you look at their resumes post Hamed... then its only Kelly, Medina, Ingle and McCullough who you can say were still quite close to their prime.

The rest were a defeat waiting to happen, and this could be seen after.

You could do this with Calazages opponents:

Lacy - done after Calazage (you could make a case he lost his last 2 against none top10 opponents)
Eubank - no top wins after Calazage
Kessler - we'll have to see
Mitchell - lost to a journeyman after
Brewer - did nothing after
Woodhall - retired
Reid - lost his next fight

The question for both sets of opponents is 'Did the champ ruin them, was it their last roll of the dice, or where they shot to pieces in the first place?'

You can Analayse the negatives in Anyone's Fight Career.

the Prince did have a Colorful Career, no matter how much you hate the guy, he guy achieved!

Naz is more of a star, but Joe has more depth and substance. I believe he really can mix it with the best. His skills coupled with his toughness, and ability to fight more than one way, make him automatically better fighter, but whether he will go down in history better, that remains to be seen.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

stujones wrote:Although you look at their resumes post Hamed... then its only Kelly, Medina, Ingle and McCullough who you can say were still quite close to their prime.

The rest were a defeat waiting to happen, and this could be seen after.

You could do this with Calazages opponents:

Lacy - done after Calazage (you could make a case he lost his last 2 against none top10 opponents)
Eubank - no top wins after Calazage
Kessler - we'll have to see
Mitchell - lost to a journeyman after
Brewer - did nothing after
Woodhall - retired
Reid - lost his next fight

The question for both sets of opponents is 'Did the champ ruin them, was it their last roll of the dice, or where they shot to pieces in the first place?'

Yep, sorry I aint disputng that Hamed resume isn't better than Calzaghe's... don't get me started on Joe's. All I am saying is that Hamed's resume isn't Ali's.

Al Savani wrote: and Bernard Hopkins is a little more than Manuel Calvo

Sh#t the bed, we might have the all-time Worst Comment Ever on boxrec!!

Naz's fights are often watched again and again for the entertainment value..

..can't think of any of Joe's really that have that spark about them TBH.

Naz must have made more dough from his video alone, than Joe in all his career

G0mez wrote:
Naz must have made more dough from his video alone, than Joe in all his career

LOL. Doubt it.

Naz did well for himself. Exceptional for a brit.

The problem lies in him losing comprehensively to the only great fighter he ever fought. Whether his talent peaked early or not is irrelevant. He lost in his first superfight and never fought at that level again.

Calzaghe has about the same calibre of resume, but also has his lengthy reign as champ (albeit WBO), bolstering his legacy.

Neither man achieved as much as their talent warranted. If Calzaghe beats Hopkins he'll stack up as the highest achieving brit of recent times, Lewis excluded.

In the grand scheme, Naz achieved f*ck all really.

G0mez wrote:Naz's fights are often watched again and again for the entertainment value..

..can't think of any of Joe's really that have that spark about them TBH.

Naz must have made more dough from his video alone, than Joe in all his career

The Mitchell fight was pretty gripping, and his spanking of Veit (first fight). Sheika? Brewer.

I'm not going to mention Starie or Thornberry!