BoxRec

This fight has been spoken about quite a bit on various forums, and was the subject of a very good article on BBN..but my god, how much revisionism is there when it comes tio this particular bout???????

From what im hearing now this was Naz's acid test against the monster, no, experienced monster Kevin Kelley, the man who was going to 'shatter Naz's dream' and who many thought would 'just have too much experience' for Hamed.....

OK< lets go back to fight time, from, what I remember Kelley hadnt held a respected title since Gonzalez had made him retire on his stool years before...Kelley was the big American name who was over the hill and was there to be knocked out...

Fight night comes and Kelley is flooring Hamed, not with the big shot people remember but just knocking Hamed off balance, a blueprint Barerra would use years later!! Kelley then gets sparked out when he tries to brawl with Naz...

My memory isnt failing me is it, that is what the consensus logic was and how the fight materialised????

Its the same with Calzaghe-Eubank...these days all we hear is how great Joe was against an amazing Eubank..not how Eubank had to shift christ knows how much weight and had lost Twice to Steve Collins!!!

Kelley was ex-cellent around '91-'94 (didn't look like he'd ever lose), but somehow just fell off completely, think he lost confidence and control. Though seemed really up for the Hamed fight, like he wanted to roll back the years.

Anyway, what people forget is that Kelley had a seven-inch reach advantage over Naz (that's a fornicating lot), and to fight a New Yorker in New York on your American debut and spend 15 mins on your ring entrance and concentrate your efforts into your dancing routine, walking routine, flip over the ropes and in-ring showboating, rather than your boxing strategy, is not too wise. All the KD's against Naz were balance issues, while the KD's against Kelley were clean, timed KD's.

It's an underrated performance, from Naz. It didn't expose him because we already knew he could be hit by a decent, unscared operator and taken down. And that he had balance issues all-around.

STP wrote:It didn't expose him because we already knew he could be hit by a decent, unscared operator and taken down. And that he had balance issues all-around.

i think it showed his limitations as a fighter.

it showed him to be too defensively flawed to ever beat the very best.

thepocketrocket wrote:This fight has been spoken about quite a bit on various forums, and was the subject of a very good article on BBN..but my god, how much revisionism is there when it comes tio this particular bout???????

From what im hearing now this was Naz's acid test against the monster, no, experienced monster Kevin Kelley, the man who was going to 'shatter Naz's dream' and who many thought would 'just have too much experience' for Hamed.....

OK< lets go back to fight time, from, what I remember Kelley hadnt held a respected title since Gonzalez had made him retire on his stool years before...Kelley was the big American name who was over the hill and was there to be knocked out...

Fight night comes and Kelley is flooring Hamed, not with the big shot people remember but just knocking Hamed off balance, a blueprint Bareera would use years later!! Kelley then gets sparked out when he tries to braul with Naz...

My memory isnt failing me is it, that is what the consensus logic was and how the fight materialised????

Its the same with Calzaghe-Eubank...these days all we hear is how great Joe was against an amazing Eubank..not how Eubank had to shift christ knows how much weight and had lost Twice to Steve Collins!!!

You make some good points.

Unfortunately; revising history is common amongst all sports fans.

It's an inevitabe consequence of bias &/or prejudice unfortunately.

STP wrote:Kelley was ex-cellent around '91-'94 (didn't look like he'd ever lose), but somehow just fell off completely, think he lost confidence and control. Though seemed really up for the Hamed fight, like he wanted to roll back the years.

Anyway, what people forget is that Kelley had a seven-inch reach advantage over Naz (that's a effing lot), and to fight a New Yorker in New York on your American debut and spend 15 mins on your ring entrance and concentrate your efforts into your dancing routine, walking routine, flip over the ropes and in-ring showboating, rather than your boxing strategy, is not too wise. All the KD's against Naz were balance issues, while the KD's against Kelley were clean, timed KD's.

It's an underrated performance, from Naz. It didn't expose him because we already knew he could be hit by a decent, unscared operator and taken down. And that he had balance issues all-around.

Good points. This win illustrates what potential Hamed had, what confidence and what power. As for the balance, its was a fine line - the way he fought, the unorthodox angles mean that he had extremelly good balance to make it all work; the way he would virtually limbo backwards out of harm way. The dounside is that it seemed precarious and that on an off night his balance could be off kilter and therefore, his whole performance could be flawed. Thats what it felt like against Barrera; the balance wasnt there, as wasnt the training, the focus, the strategic direction from his corner, a plan to actually box for a win, etc etc etc. Shame.

Syntax Error wrote:

thepocketrocket wrote:This fight has been spoken about quite a bit on various forums, and was the subject of a very good article on BBN..but my god, how much revisionism is there when it comes tio this particular bout???????

From what im hearing now this was Naz's acid test against the monster, no, experienced monster Kevin Kelley, the man who was going to 'shatter Naz's dream' and who many thought would 'just have too much experience' for Hamed.....

OK< lets go back to fight time, from, what I remember Kelley hadnt held a respected title since Gonzalez had made him retire on his stool years before...Kelley was the big American name who was over the hill and was there to be knocked out...

Fight night comes and Kelley is flooring Hamed, not with the big shot people remember but just knocking Hamed off balance, a blueprint Bareera would use years later!! Kelley then gets sparked out when he tries to braul with Naz...

My memory isnt failing me is it, that is what the consensus logic was and how the fight materialised????

Its the same with Calzaghe-Eubank...these days all we hear is how great Joe was against an amazing Eubank..not how Eubank had to shift christ knows how much weight and had lost Twice to Steve Collins!!!

You make some good points.

Unfortunately; revising history is common amongst all sports fans.

It's an inevitabe consequence of bias &/or prejudice unfortunately.

True.

--

I think it is, and always will be a Huge Fight, at least considered by British Boxing anyway.

Anyone who watches the fight will know that Naz had Talent