BoxRec

he scored a shutout against manuel calvo 13 months after the barerra fight.....

where would he have been in 2004-2005 if he had stayed active?

The talk at the time was of fights with Brodie and Tapia.

I think even the shell of the fighter he was back then would've sneaked past those two on points 115-113 style. If he'd faced MAB or Morales after that he'd have got stopped, on his feet, protesting.

Brodie or Tapia would have been very entertaining.

But Hamed was past his best by then.

The naz vs Sanchez was pretty thrilling, thsi showed that when naz becomes engaged in an offensive battle he could bang and get out of jail..

Brodie and Tapia would've gave him that fight...

Tapia was past his prime then anyway. 2001 version would've given him hell, though. Provided he'd have stayed clean up to the fight.

Shame we never got to see Naz-Morales. That would have been a much more exciting fight than Naz-Barrera.

Naz would have stopped Brodie and Tapia inside 8 rounds.

Would have had one more easy fight then MAB again where he would have got beat again in a closer fight - although never rule out that he could have gotten his head sorted out and stopped MAB.

Its a shame that we never found out - but Hamed should be remembered as an excellent fighter as he beat a lot of good names:

Kelley
Ingle
Johnson
Medina
Soto
McCullough
Sanchez
Vasquez
Belcastro
Robinson
Badillo

To me as a collective thats as good if not better then Hatton or Calzaghe's resumes, although the one thing against Naz is that he has not got a Tsyzu or a Kessler on his record where he won a fight that people picked him to lose?

Great fighter though and criminally underrated and underappreciated by too many on here

Regards

Wrists

johnswan1 wrote:Shame we never got to see Naz-Morales. That would have been a much more exciting fight than Naz-Barrera.

I think Morales beats Hamed. If Naz didn't get Morales out of there early, the fight becomes Morales'. Only thing that concerns me with Erik is that he might try to punch it out with Hamed which I do not think would be adviseable. Naz hit much harder.

Erik had the stomach to really go into the trenches, put it all on the line.

Wasn't the reason we didn't see Morales because although Erik won the first Barrera fight, Hamed's camp felt Barrera won it so he got the shot?

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:Wasn't the reason we didn't see Morales because although Erik won the first Barrera fight, Hamed's camp felt Barrera won it so he got the shot?

this is true, Riath came to the conclusion that Naz should face the true winner in the eyes of the audience/fans. Wrong decision.

Was there any truth that Manny Stew commented about the Fight should be postponed to another 3-4 weeks as Naz was not ready? (against barrera)

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:Wasn't the reason we didn't see Morales because although Erik won the first Barrera fight, Hamed's camp felt Barrera won it so he got the shot?

Thought Barrera won? Disgraceful decision!!! Barrera beat Morales senseless in that bout, there was only 1 fighter getting beat onto the ropes and landing effective powerful shots and that man wasnt Morales, plus the KD should have been legit, that was a robbery and then some. Barrera put a bigger beating Morales than he did on Hamed for my money, Morales looked close to being stopped at times

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:Wasn't the reason we didn't see Morales because although Erik won the first Barrera fight, Hamed's camp felt Barrera won it so he got the shot?

Thought Barrera won? Disgraceful decision!!! Barrera beat Morales senseless in that bout, there was only 1 fighter getting beat onto the ropes and landing effective powerful shots and that man wasnt Morales, plus the KD should have been legit, that was a robbery and then some. Barrera put a bigger beating Morales than he did on Hamed for my money, Morales looked close to being stopped at times

Agreed, I had Barrera winning by four rounds, even if you don't include the knock down at the end. Second best fight I've ever seen.

BAMBI wrote:

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:Wasn't the reason we didn't see Morales because although Erik won the first Barrera fight, Hamed's camp felt Barrera won it so he got the shot?

this is true, Riath came to the conclusion that Naz should face the true winner in the eyes of the audience/fans. Wrong decision.

Was there any truth that Manny Stew commented about the Fight should be postponed to another 3-4 weeks as Naz was not ready? (against barrera)

I have the C4 doc on the buildup and after the Barrera fight and it's not mentioned on there. However, that's not to say it didn't happen.

Ant - if you really think Brodie would have taken Naz apart you are deluded.

Naz's power v Brodie's punch resistance - only one outcome

And you got paid to write this rubbish

Captain Hook wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:Wasn't the reason we didn't see Morales because although Erik won the first Barrera fight, Hamed's camp felt Barrera won it so he got the shot?

Thought Barrera won? Disgraceful decision!!! Barrera beat Morales senseless in that bout, there was only 1 fighter getting beat onto the ropes and landing effective powerful shots and that man wasnt Morales, plus the KD should have been legit, that was a robbery and then some. Barrera put a bigger beating Morales than he did on Hamed for my money, Morales looked close to being stopped at times

Agreed, I had Barrera winning by four rounds, even if you don't include the knock down at the end. Second best fight I've ever seen.

I think I had it as wide as 9-3 to Barrera, who really was on another level for those couple of years. For what its worth Barrera never went deep into the trenches again after this fight, instread prefering to box and not get as involved. Barrera's defense and countering was so much better than his Jones/Mkkinney years, that version may have got ko'd/beat by Hamed. But as he didn't mix it up as aggressively he paid in the Morales rematch (which could be 7-5 either way) and paid against Pacquaio. The 2000 version of Barrera puts Pacquaio on the back foot and causes far more problems for the Phillipino.

As for Morales-Hamed I think thats a toss up, but 1 I favour Hamed on. Morales would be allot easier to hit and wouldnt have as much speed or power or beautiful counters Barrera had. But then again Hamed had become flat footed and easy to hit himself and Morales had the reach advantage

Retirement was the best thing for Naz, he was a shot fighter (mentally rather than physically) somewhere along the line he lost something, I'm not sure what it was (hunger maybe?) but ever since the Kelley fight he seemed to wind down. In his younger years he was a gym freak but as he got older, more successful and richer he spent less time training, maybe he wanted to spend more time with his wife and kids(which he is entitled to of course).

It's a shame really as he turned pro around the time I got into boxing so I kind of grew up with his career and he became my favourite fighter following Benns retirement. He deserves a lot more respect for his achievements in the ring, sure he supposedly "ducked" JMM but look at the rest of the fighters on his resume, far more impressive than JC or Hatton IMO.

I'm probably in the minority, but I always felt Morales was better than Barrera because of his physical attributes, mainly. Insane puncher as well. Transitioned the weight a lot better than Marco.

I asked Wayne in July who hit the harder between Nas and Erik and he said Morales by a mile. He also told me that Erik almost quit in their fight because he was exhausted at the end of round 10, but his trainer made him carry on. Erik calls him the mad Irishman.

Nas is definitely underrated - shame he didnt get in the HOF - whilst the likes of McGuigan did with only three world title wins. And the amazing thing was that he was actually a small featherweight - when he fought Robinson it was the first time Naz fought at feather - he probably only moved up because his promoter at the time owned Robinson as well. Its a fair enough coment to say the only truly "elite" fighter Naz fought, he lost to in Barrera but for me Naz was in decline at that point. Towards the end of his career he was getting hit more than he ever did as his reflexes faded and he headhunted with single shots far to much whilst earlier on in his career he would bang to the body and let the shots go in threes,fours and fives. He would have beat Barrera at his best IMO. And I'm a huge Morales and Barrera fan but I think at his best he would have beat Morales too - Morales at SB and FW took to many chances and was easyish to hit. But I suppose if ifs and buts mean nothing. At the end of the day he was a special talent but talent only gets you so far in boxing - once the discipline is gone its a downward spiral. Thats why Morales and Barrera are dead cert. Hall of famers whilst Naz's place is debatable.

No, no. no


Brodie - KO in anywhere from 4-10, no problem at all
Tapia - Same as above, but not quite as easy


Hamed is massively under-rated by a lot of people. Yup he was well past his best against Barrera (when he took a HoF'er and PfP top 5 fighter (at the time) to a 116-112 decision......)

But he still had enough in him to stick a striight left on someones chin and knock them clean out, Morales, Barrera included


Scott Harrison's career would have been over a lot soomer than it was if Hamed was still knocking about in 2004

Never fancied JMM though did he!

DavidPayne wrote:Never fancied JMM though did he!

He wasn't stupid, i'll give him that

Hamed VS Pacman would have been awesome

JMM turned his shot down didn't he?

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:Never fancied JMM though did he!

He wasn't stupid, i'll give him that

JMM actually turned down a fight with Hamed in summer 2000, but, to be fair to Marquez, it was offered at short notice. Naz fought Augie Sanchez instead.

I always thought Naz chose Barrera over Morales because he'd seen him KO'd by Jones.

Funny that Brendan Ingle blames Hamed's fake teeth for his downfall!