Greater/Better: Tszyu or Hamed

I thought Hatton beat Collazo by 1 point the knockdown was the difference but some may of scored Collazo's dominant 12th round 10-8 for Collazo which may make a difference in your scoring.

 

that's fair, i should have said that he was better than hatton overall.

but he's closer to hatton than he is to naz.

 

I rate them as:

1. Tszyu
2. Hatton
3. Hamed

Hamed's and Hatton's respective numbers are similar. Tszyu's are superior.

Both Hatton and Hamed predominantly operated under governing bodies (WBO/WBU) that, at the time, were not fully recognized as legitimate world championship institutions (the WBU is still not accepted as such).

Tszyu unified the IBF, WBC and WBA belts to become Undisputed.

Hamed differs from both Tszyu and Hatton in that he was never deemed the Ring Champion, whereas Tszyu and Hatton were and reigned as Ring Champion for the same number of [4] years each (although Tszyu was Ring Rated for longer overall, at 13 years - Hatton at 7 years).

Hamed also failed to pass the biggest test of his prime against Barrera. But Tszyu beat his in Judah, and in turn, Hatton beats his in Tszyu.


I would also posit that the 140 division, in which Tszyu and Hatton fought, was richer than the 126 division within which Hamed competed. Indeed, Hamed exited a burgeoning Super Bantamweight division to compete at Featherweight and retired as the Featherweight division began to heat up again.


It's probably not what many Hamed supporters want to read/hear - but that's my reasoning, nonetheless.

 

https://www.linealboxingchampion.com/new-page-26

Hamed was lineal. I don’t think anyone was even awarding Ring championships when Hamed was champion. He also couldn’t defend the undisputed titles because it was policy for the other belts to not allow concurrently holding the WBO title.

And Tsyzu failed to pass the Vince Phillips test, whereas Hatton destroyed Phillips and Hamed never lost at his best.

 

I didn't say he wasn't. Tszyu and Hatton were lineal too. So, there's no difference to report here.

Correct. The Ring Championship belts go as far back as Dempsey, but I'd forgotten they were suspended during the '90s. With this in mind, Hamed, Hatton and Tszyu would have effectively spent an equivalent amount of time as the Top Dog. (So, nothing to report here now, either)

This means Hamed vacated each of the major belts he won to stay with a fledging org, instead of trying to unify the major belts. I don't see any positive in this course.

Well, Tszyu didn't lose at his best, either. But he did come back, got better, and became the Undisputed Light Welterweight Champion.

Hamed lost to the best he faced and retired at his athletic peak - and I don't think he'd have beaten Barrera at any point in his career.

 

1. Hamed beat better opponents than Tszyu despite choosing the WBO belt over the various other major titles. Hamed was effectively the guy who turned the WBO into a “big four” belt.
2. Hamed had bad hands and looked like crap in his fight after Tszyu. You can’t be prime with bad hands.
3. Tszyu actually lost to the two best pressure fighters he fought and never avenged either. Its dubious to declare that he wasn’t prime when he didn’t do well against pressure fighters.

 

Who did Hamed beat to win the lineal title? All the top fighters he beat went on to do nothing for the rest of their careers.

 

Please stop responding to me. You can click on the link and see who he beat for lineage and several fighters he beat went on to win titles.

 

Best wins:
1. Zab>Johnson (maybe)
2. Rodriguez<Vazquez
3. Hurtado<Medina
4. MAG<Bungu
5. Mitchell (knee) <Robinson
6. Mitchell (old)< Kelley
7. Urkal<Pocket Rocket
8. Pineda<Cesar Soto
9. Ruelas>Ingle
10. Tackie<Hardy

 

I disagree.

Less than half of Hamed's WBO Championship opponents held a Ring-rating in a division that was not particularly deep. The lack of depth was exacerbated further by Hamed failing to secure a fight with Espinosa and openly ducking his mandatory challenger, Marquez. There are also others he could have taken on, such as Norwood and Gainer, but these bouts didn't come off for whatever reason.

With Espinosa and Marquez out of the picture, Tom Johnson was the best the division had to offer until Barrera moved up (and even the Baby Faced Assassin was seen as the softer option by Hamed).

Johnson was a good fighter, but pound-for-pound, and in terms of the version of him that entered the ring against Hamed, I don't rate him on a par with Judah or Mitchell at all (or even with some other of Tszyu's opponents, e.g. Leija, Urkal; even Rodriguez).

Johnson could be seen to have slowed up in his third fight with Medina in '95. Indeed, both looked less than they had been in their previous encounters. Medina was the only opponent of note during Johnson's reign, as both the fighter he won the title from (having failed the first time) and successfully defended against two years later. By this time, he was beginning to struggle with the limit.

The arguments you have previously made for Vázquez, Bungu and Medina are fine 'legacy-oriented' summary headlines, but in terms of them being high-end Featherweight challengers, their long title runs (in a lower division) speak to the weaknesses of your case here.

Other than beating Rojas (who had been drifting downward in the Ring ratings) for the WBA 126 strap, what else did Vázquez achieve in the division? He effectively cashed out against Hamed. Not a bad move, considering he was a burnout by then.

Bungu did nothing at 126 at all. And, other than his initial upset of McKinney in '94, even his run at 122 is not all that impressive on closer inspection. Cashing out against Hamed seemed like it was becoming a thing.

Before Vázquez and Bungu, there was Kelley, whose best days were definitely behind him by the time he met Hamed and had been ever since Gonzalez beat him up in '95. He was hitting the canvas often after that. Three years later, it's no surprise that Hamed came out the winner in that barnstormer.

Added to this is that it might have made for great entertainment, but it was hardly an exhibition of top-end boxing from either of them.

That's quite a stretch. Hamed probably contributed in some way - more by helping keep the WBO afloat at that stage - but with him ultimately vacating the belt over money, he was kind of proving the WBO had no real clout at the time.

WBO fighters like Michalczewski, Calzaghe, the Klitschko's, and Oscar de la Hoya were likely more influential in boosting the organization's credibility.

Funny how 'the bad hands' excuse didn't come out until years after his 'unannounced' retirement.

His bad hands didn't seem to prevent him from hospitalizing Augie Sanchez, either.

Needless to say, I don't really buy 'the bad hands' excuse.

You're really reaching here. For a start, the fights occurred 8 years apart. Moreover, there's absolutely no comparison between the styles and tactics of Phillips and Hatton in the respective bouts.

Hamed didn't avenge his loss, either. It's a moot point.

It's dubious to declare that I declared Tzsyu wasn't prime, when what I actually asserted was Tszyu didn't lose at his best; that he came back, improved, and became the Undisputed Light Welterweight Champion - which he did.

 

I would go with Hamed, but wouldn’t find it worth arguing over.

 

See my post above.

Mitchell was garbage for the Tsyzu fights. I don't rate those.

Hamed was the one fighting the proven champions, whether it was Bungu moving up (from Naz's former divison) or Medina at some point in the middle of the five titles he won.

It's comical for you to suddenly mention Espinosa. The guy lost to Sanchez (the guy who Hamed fought after Marquez lost to Norwood), Cesar Soto, Mckinney (Bungu's son), and Medinax 2. HBO actually denied Hamed's potential fight with the undefeated gold medalist Koko Kovacs because they didn't think he was good enough.

You keep harping on 126 being weak, but 140 was a dumpster fire by comparison. And Kostya, not surprisingly, managed to miss Randall, Whitaker, De La Hoya, Bailey, and Mayweather. His best win is Zab, a guy who might have a worse resume than Medina, Johnson, Bungu, and Vazquez.

And of course Tsyzu lost in his prime by stoppage to a cherry pick.

As for Naz's hands, that was a well documented issue well before his retirement. His wraps would be glued to his hands with blood after fights.

 

There's not a single thing of worth in the above post - it is so poor on multiple levels.

For my original mention of Espinosa: https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/greater-better-tszyu-or-hamed.730102/page-4#post-23184525

By the way, Espinosa was effectively the Number-1 Featherweight Contender from '95 to '98. During this timeframe, Espinosa went 11-0-0 beating among others, Medina x2 (the first time to lift the WBC title), Gonzalez, Soto, and McKinney.

What adds to the mirth of your treatment of Espinosa is the very real probability of you believing that listing his losses somehow transcends the more salient facts above.

You are also being misleading on Hamed vacating the WBO strap. HBO may well have not been satisfied with Kovács' credentials but they were offering Hamed a smaller purse for the bout. So, Hamed did ultimately vacate the belt over money.

The examples you give of Tszyu's 'misses' are beyond tragic.

You've really not addressed anything I have raised. If you can't address the valid points made, I'll understand why - since they do weigh heavily in favor of Tszyu being the better and the greater fighter. But, while no sensible response from you seems to be forthcoming, I can't currently see there being anything else to be said on the matter.


Good evening.

 

Just as a general point not related to arguing for Hamed or Tszyu, but I don't think the IBF should have been seen as a legit major belt either. It formed out of shady internal WBA politicking by crooks, just the same as the WBO did slightly later, and its level of rigour in terms of the quality of appointed top contenders was about the same. In fact, in a clean sport, the IBF would probably have been liquidated after the 1999 revelations they had been deeply involved in racketeering and accepting bribes for high contender places.

Being american based, able to pay off/"influence" the ring early on, and more widely adopted by american fighters earlier at a point when the states was still leading most of the larger boxing divisions... and gifting their belts to the higher profile existing champs in the '80s gained them a higher degree of legitimacy earlier than the WBO managed (which opted to hold fights to determine it's original champions in most, if not all of the weightclasses, if i remember rightly), but solely IBF champs vs solely WBO champs really didn't give a clear picture of one being more "legitimate" than the other, in that situation their champs both tended to lapse into fighting similar levels of comp. It was often basically a case of American based fighters having an easier route to a splinter belt vs Euro/ more broadly international guys making one as their own. Orlando Canizales vs Chris Eubank.

 

If you'd like to discuss Ring ratings, Kelley and Johnson each held the number 1 spot twice in the mid 90s at 126. Bungu was number 1 several times at 122 and was number 5 at 126 when Naz laid him out. Medina was in the top five multiple times and at least top ten many times over a long period. Robinson was three when Naz stopped him. And Vazquez and Soto also saw top five ratings.

And that's just top 5ers off the top of my head (not fact checking). You deliberately go around counting "top 10" guys without naming them and leaving off the loss in the middle of Tszyu's career because you're pushing a transparent agenda.

I'm still waiting to hear why guys like MAG and Hurtado can compare.

Tszyu didn't even manage to fight Chavez until he was a corpse. You'd probably call it "a win over a former champion."