Thoughts on Prince Naseem Hamad

One of the best entertainers ever to step into the ring, a fighter that either peaked to early or never reached his full potential, can`t decide which right now.

I was always into boxing but Naseem got me into it in a serious way & opened up the door for me to view guys like Morales & Barrera who I otherwise might not have seen much of because like most casual fans, I watched the mostly higher weight classes.

I think the Prince that defeated Steve Robinson in 1995 could have given any modern SBW or FW all they could handle, he relied too much on his power by the time he fought Barrera & let his reflexes diminish, big mistake because the younger Naz was tremendous viewing as well as a brilliant & dangerous fighter.

I thank him for introducing me to my fav fighter Morales.... I`ve seen some cracking fights thanks to following Naseem`s career.

 

Poor fundamentals, poor resume, great natural speed and power, not much else. Definitely not HOF class as I see it. Good fighter to watch though, as his technical deficiencies and his power equalled some explosive contests.

 

Thoughts on Prince Naseem Hamad?

he was a dick, still is!

 

:huh Bill do you really think young Naz could give Salvador Sanchez all he could handle on the basis of a win over a guy with a 21-9-1 record at the time Naz fought him? Really?

 

Judging Robinson on his boxrec numbers is like judging Pendleton or Augustus on their boxrec numbers

 

Judging a win over a 21-9-1 fighter as sufficient to suggest the victor would be able to really test proven ATGs like Sanchez is extreme folly, to say the least, irrespective of Robinson's form at the time.

 

I don't like him because of his behavior.I don't like him because he was completely overhyped and overrated by his fansboys even though he NEVER beat a great fighter.Just look at some of the comments on this thread.The Hamed that beat Steve Robinson would have given any featherweight in recent times a big fight?Do YOU really believe that?Sanchez and Arguello would have exposed him far worse than MAB did.

 

I liked Steve.He was a good fighter.But he wasn't elite and not close to it.He was not on MAB,PAC,JMM or Morales' level.

 

There is nothing to indicate in Hamed's resume that he's elite.Outside of MAB,his opposition was pretty good.That's it.MAB and Morales turned down a fight with Hamed right after their own because they had a barnburner and were taking time off.Even HBO Larry Merchant admitted this.Of course,MAB later signed and we all know the rest even though it's common knowledge Hamed thought Morales was better anyway.JMM was hamed's #1 WBO contender for at least 1 1/2 years and Hamed chose to fight lesser opponents.When Hamed finally made an offer to fight JMM,he expected JMM to be ready for a ridiculously short amount of time.JMM is still mad at him for it.Hamed was NEVER serious about a JMM fight.

 

He still is?That's funny

 

PowerPuncher,did I just read what I thought I read?Did you write here that the fighters that Hamed fought before he fought MAB were better than Morales and JMM?Just to whom are you referring?33 year old Bungu,way past it Kelley,bantamweight McCullough,3 time stretchered out of the ring Sanchez,33 year old Tom Johnson?Who?Which one or ones is/are better than Morales and JMM?

 

Robinson was a journeyman on the road, a bit like Glen Johnson, often losing the verdict to the hometown fighter, not always justly. Not elite, just a good top 10 contender

Kelley, Vasquez, Soto, Johnson, Medina, Robinson were all the top FWs at the time Hamed beat then, McColough and Bungu 2 of the best from the division below, Bungu a 7year champ, Mcolough a BW champ and by rights should have been a SBW for many. That sort of form makes him worthy of mention in such match ups.

I don't think Hamed beats Sanchez, no, I think he beats some of history's top FWs though

You keep mentioning this, many greats didn't beat a great fighter in their prime either. Monzon, Tyszu and Arguello himself all could be accused of this. Hagler and Hopkins only beat greats from lower divisions. But beating most of your division, all of which are very good world class fighters is still some achievement. A completely overhyped fighter wouldn't be able to do this.

 

I said Hamed's resume at the time were undoubtly better than Morales/Marquez's at that time in 2001, not that his opponents were better. As for your comments on Hamed fighting past prime opposition, that maybe true, but the same accusation can be levelled at many fighters:

Monzon: 33yo Griffith, 34yo Napoles, 32yo Benvenuti
Pacquaio: 38yo Mosley coming off a loss and draw, 38yo Marquez, Cotto coming off a brutal loss and controversal win, Morales coming into the fight in 1-2 form, coming off a shutout loss, Margarito coming off a brutal loss

See how easy that is? It can be done for most fighters

 

You rate Hamed higher than I do. I don't really bother about organization/magazine rankings when considering objectively how good fighters were at the times they fought, prefer to judge them on performances and/or results. I think Naz's resume is weak considering how long he was a world champion for.

 

He got his arse handed to him by mab and with hindsight a jmm victory would be amazing.

All i'm saying is, I see him as a great fighter who ruled over a weak era. Completely unifying a division is impressive in my books. Who's done it since the wbo inception? Lewis, hopkins, calzaghe and hamed from top of my head. Has anyone else beaten all the title holders before suffering a loss?

He loses to pac, em and jmm imo but i'd have loved to see them fights as well as against gainer and norwood.