Should Barrera have been DQ'd?

Naz lost to an atg because he only ever faced one. Dont bring up opinions on how u think he would have fought vs morales or marquez. Because he dident...

We see this all the time a fighter looking great vs cans then they hit elite lvl and suddenly look like ****?

Record yourself throwing combinations on the heavy bag... You will look like a pro, put a live moving punchin body in with u and u look like an amateur again

 

i consider Naz to be a Featherweight ATG. yes.

the amount of defences against the best at the time warrants that.

 

this site is mostly peoples opinions.

Naz didn't fight cans. he wiped out the entire Featherweight division. if you don'y know the guys he fought, then don't comment. he fought, and beat, a lot of very good fighters.

Naz lost one fight. you make it out to be that his career was one big wash out. :-(

 

His lack of good balance got exposed by the better fighters. You've said yourself Kelley was a very good fighter,and he had Naz down a couple of times. Admitedly they weren't bad knockdowns it was Naz's **** balance that he exposed which others up till then hadn't.
That fight summed up Naz,loads of mistakes but remarkable power, where he took Kelley out with one shot moving backwards!

 

dont forget his unorthadox awkwardness aswell..

 

which fights did he get his bad balance exposed? all i can think of is the Kelley and Sanchez fights.

out of 37 fights, that's just the norm for any fighter. certain aspects get exposed due to different styles. i wouldn't read too much into it.

i certainly doesn't take away from his depth of work and the talent he had.

not for me anyway.

the first knock down in the Kelley fight was down to bad balance, but the other two were pretty bull****. especially the 3rd one. Kelley didn't even land a punch in that one.

 

Like I said it against the better fighters if I remember rightly Barrera had him stumbling around as well.
Don't get me wrong I think Naz was a helluva fighter,there was just certain traits he had, especially when he humiliated his opponents which I didn't like.
His power was unreal, and people need to remember he was a short fighter who started as a bantamweight and didn't have great physical advantages over his opponents.

 

yeah, but Naz didn't train for the Barrera fight the way he should. he was just looking for the one shot and being one dimensional.
the difference between a prime Naz and the one that fought Barrera is huge.
i have no doubts about Naz beating Barrera if it was a few years earlier.

Naz did have a nasty streak, no doubt. that can't be denied. but i don't think people should hugely underrate him because of those traits.

 

I agree. :good

 

should hamed have been DQ's for body slamming the one fighter, im thinking wildreo vasquez or cesar soto? that fight was nothing but a foul fest the entire fight.
no MAB shouldnt have been DQ'd at the end of a long fight for 1 infraction, point deduction would be sufficient

 

sorry but naz was prime when he got his **** pushed in. he was favored to win and win rather easily. excuses excuses, shoulda woulda coulda.

 

i love how u argue over the could have beens

do you realise how good anyone can look against cans? if he trained wrong then thats his fault