what was your naseem hamed vs barrera prediction?

I am a fan of Barrera, but think Hamed of a few years previous, would have beaten Barrera.
Hamed seemed to decline very suddenly and I dont think it was down to opponent, but more to do with focus and interest.
I was never a massive Hamed fan, but watched the fights and looking back, have to say he was better than I gave him credit for.
I dont think the Hamed who was taken the distance by Calvo would have gone the distance against Calvo if it had of been a few years previous.

I am not sure that Morales was wanting to fight Hamed, as he never seemed to really talk it up and Hamed was always saying he wanted Barrera and Morales.


Still back to the prediction. If im honest I cant remember deciding who I thought would win, but recall saying even though Barrera was from a lower weight division, it was a good fight

 

Dont think the hamed that fought barrerra was the same one that fought calvo bailey. Reckon thats what takes away from naz in the end when looking back over his career. To me he met his match and as soon as he did....he didn't have the bottle for it anymore. And it showed against calvo. It could simply have just been timing and he had enough before he even faced barrera....a lot of people put it down to that a lack of motivation. But i dont agree. I think naz showed a lot about himself the way he went about his business....almost humiliating lower level guys...it ended up looking like the bully that got found out. Purely in a boxing sense i actually like naz nowadays he seems to have chilled out a bit...he got carried away with it all at the time but who can blame him really.

Thats the thing guys like barrerra and morales for me both were a bit wary of him...i think that showed with the way barrerra approached the fight. And morales didn't seem overly keen to take it. But cant put naz up there with either of them overall falls a good bit short because of how it all ended. But would have loved to have seen him under ingle going against either of them. I still think they both beat him. But steward ended up hindering him in the barrerra fight (never thought i would say steward would be a hinderance to anyone). Which i thought was a comprehensive win for barrerra. Not sure how everyone else seen it.

Totally agree with what you're saying punk. Great thread...quality to look back over it again :good

 

Just to add my prediction to my mates was barrerra would beat him fairly easily because i was a massive barrerra fan...ended up looking like i knew what i was talking about. My real prediction that i kept to myself was naz would take him out. I genuinely believed that...barrerra fighting the way he did came as a total surprise to me didn't think he'd be able to avoid a tear up with someone that would goad him like naz used to do...and one thing naz had was power. Was always waiting for it to happen watching it...but in the end looked like barrerra had him out of ideas.

 

At the time I was thinking it could be one of the all time great fights, it ended up being a boring affair !!!

 

Another smashing post IMO. Naz was a brave fighter,showed that in how he got up against Kelley to win,albeit a Kelley I thought slightly past his best. But as you suggest there was something slightly lacking. Theres a bit of difference in poverty and struggle between Mexico and Wincobank,and thereby lies the difference for me.And I don't buy into the talk of Barrera being born with the silver spoon. These men would rather die than lose. I think Morales or the other kid who's still boxing now{old age} would have knocked him out. As it was,I only watched it once and I couldn't remember Naz winning a round. As Ive just proven though,my memory is crap. I enjoyed his fights,but I was happy to collect my 20 quid. A lot more disappointed when Khan lost to Garcia. All down to how 2 boxers come across. One nice,the other arrogant.

 

I remember at the time desperately wanting Barrera to win, Naz was way OTT by then, he had crawled up his own backside so far he was almost inside out. That said, I am taking nothing away from Naz the fighter because he was exciting, explosive and entertaining.

I didn't think for a second Barrera would box the way he did, I thought it would be a similar fight to Naz Vs Kelly.

Anyway, although I wanted Barrera to win Naz had ridiculous power and if forced to gamble back then I would have probably gone for a Naz win by stoppage.

 

I was hoping Barrera would knock him out cold, but was pretty happy with how it played out.

MAB and Naz were (along with others in the bantam-feather range, like the Marquez bros, Morales, Johnny Tapia, Kelley, Johnson, Larios, Pacquiao etc) instrumental to my transition from casual fan to diehard in the late 90's/early millennium, and perhaps the pair of them more than anyone else. MAB was an idol and Naz someone I loved to hate. The fact they got matched up just seemed perfect, as though it was a deliberately wrought storyline from the pro wrestling I'd outgrown some years before.

This humbling ass-kicking - @ it being all that close, or a "draw" - was pivotal as far as boxing getting its hooks into me (pardon the pun).

It must be noted that Barrera was no longer considered just a brawler at this stage. His metamorphosis into more of a boxer had begun down at super bantam, circa Jones I & II. (in fact it was, IMO, the direct counteractive result of those losses)

 

This. A lot of people forget MAB style transitioned, its just that Hamed hadnt noticed (because he was too far up his own ass). He basically watched the Jones highlights and thought im going to do the same thing. manny Steward touched on this too, he said Hamed would rather watch highlights than actually train.

Similar to Tyson watching Bowe stopping Holyfield and thinking he would do the same.

But you have to give credit to Hamed, he was a very good fight, just fell short of greatness, but on his best day he could still knock most of them out.

People who underrate Hamed, my question to them is, outside Morales, who is MABS best win?

 

Silk pyjama syndrome. While MAB was training his ass off in the snowy mountains, Hamed was playing golf and paying more attention to his how his hair looked.

I think Morales would have got knocked out, he would have fought the kind of fight Hamed was looking for

MAB fought a wonderful and very smart fight. He was weary of Hameds power and took no chances. This is why i feel Marquez would have got knocked out by Hamed, he gets hit way too much and Hamed had one punch KO power, moreso than Pacqiauo imo

 

:think

Yeah, it probably is his third best. (and Naz his 2nd best opponent beaten)

These are unquestionably his top 10, but the matter of which order to place the last several is a bit tricky:

Morales II & III, Hamed, McKinney, Tapia, Ayala, Peden , Juarez I & II, Kelley

I'm pretty happy with that right there, actually. Obviously it feels a little problematic when you see a guy underneath someone inferior to him prime for prime and pound for pound - Tapia, for instance, is a greater fighter than McKinney (and perhaps even Hamed too), but given the versions of them MAB fought you have to call McKinney the better W at that point in time; likewise Kelley is a greater all-time featherweight than Juarez, both having six tries for a major-4-org real world title and Kelley going 3-3 while Juarez rolled a doughnut, like Sisyphus uphill, 0-6, but again Rocky was fresher and more dangerous & up for it than Kelley at the respective moments they met Barrera - but overall that works for me.

If you want to round out a top-10 of names (since he fought Morales and Juarez twice each, meaning the above list only has eight) the last two spots would probably go to Agapito Sanchez and Mzonke Fana.


Interesting sidebar: the Boxrec all-time ratings for those guys paints a very different picture. Morales is as far down as #32 rated at feather and Kelley at #131. Before he ended his retirement a couple of months ago, I'm not sure where they had Juarez ranked but my guess based on how low they have Kelley is down near or maybe even past 200. Ayala and Peden are barely in their division's top 100s, #81 and #84 respectively at bantam and super feather. The best three by miles, per overall historical standing going by their computerized points system, are: Tapia (#2 super fly), McKinney (#10 super bantam) and Hamed (#14 feather).

Of course those rankings are to be taken with a grain of salt, and even if taken at face value they don't account for making adjustments to allow for which are historically stronger and more cutthroat & talent-rich divisions, etc - plus it can be kind of arbitrary which division to pigeonhole some of those fighters in when their careers spanned many.

 

Only my opinion,but Im absolutely convinced that both Marquez and Morales would have knocked Naz out,the latter very early. Too tall,too long armed,and too tough. Naz was one of our best,Morales was one of Mexicos best. To me,theres a fair bit of difference.

 

what ever he was, he was a proper showman that has never been replaced

 

Agree with that ted...think marquez would have got his timing down and got the job done in the end. Very very good counter puncher marquez. Could have turned out to be a nightmare for nazeem.

At the end of the day there fights we should have got to see. naz really was quality...but just came up against an unbeilevable weight division at the time. I think he would have fell just short but we'll never know for sure. Just have the barrerra fight to gauge it on and whatever the excuses are/were he fell short. Could do with a nazeem coming through at the minute. A lot of good fighters coming through but no one that really catches the imagination in quite the same way naz did....even tho i spent my youth hating him most of the time. It's not till you look back you realise how good a fighter he was. Unless you agree with ryan and he was far too clumsy

Had a quick look at naz's record today and one thing i noticed is guys like medina who was a good fighter gave him a close fight if the poiints were anything to go by anyway....i cant remember the fight tbf. But it's an indication that morales, marquez, barrerra weren't going to be ko'd by him the same way other lesser fighters were that a lot of people believed. Medina was good tho but not quite on their level.

Also naz struggled when people matched him imo, he got the job done against kelley etc it's not like he folded at the first sign of trouble but he often reverted to deliberate fouls etc when he wasn't getting his own way...i.e body slamming opponents. Looked like he couldn't handle it and went in to his shell when barrerra bettered him imo. Maybe a little indication of what fights with morales, marquez would have turned out. He got too used to having it his own way when the tables turned he didn't quite know how to deal with it.

Some top posts guys :good