Who Beats This Man At 126lb

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8mhdle4RWQ[/ame]

0:12, Barrera steps inside with two right hands, walks the weaker Hamed back and then pushes him off. Aggressive closing of the distance, no sign of the magical Hamed uppercut.

0:25 Barrera leads with a double jab, stays at mid distance, Hamed steps back, Barrera throws an aggressive left hand.

0:35 Barrera leads with the jab. Not particularly aggressive but he's clearly the aggresor in the fight at this time.

0:44 After throwing one punch Hamed backs up, Barrera leads with a long right to the body.

0:50 Barrera misses some jabs, out-leading Hamed again, then comes inside with a feint, left hook, right hand combination at very close range, very aggressive fighting, the left hook staggers Hamed, Barrera follows it up with a lead uppercut.

0:57 Barrera leads with a right hand to the body. The riskiest shot in boxing? Possibly, Barrera has thrown it several times.

1:06 Barrera leads out of a closed stance with a great one-two.

1:15 Barrera driving back Hamed with jabs.


It's ridiculous I have to do that for you, but there you go. It's true that Barrera doesn't wade in like a neanderthal in a boozer (something i'm sure you're about to claim Saddler does, whether you actually believe it or not) but if you can't see this for what it is - controlled aggression based on technical superiority - and if you actually think this fighter is "boxing off the back foot like a good little boy", no wonder you are so confused about Saddler-Hamed and it's possible outcomes.

We can see other footage where Saddler takes more care if you like, I showed that footage so you would know what you are saying about Saddler's left hook was shite.

And you can stay in range and swap punches if you are the chin and the puncher in the fight as he was here and would be almost anywhere. In fact, it is superb strategy.

:huh you seem to be confusing strength and durability?

Why was he so much stronger than Pep? What footage leads you to believe that?

Why is he? You can't just repeat it, tell me why? Barrera looks stronger than Hamed throughout - what fighers pushed Pep around?

And this is the most important point - even if he IS stronger than Pep, he's not stronger than Saddler. So why does this matter anyway?

Pep wasn't a puncher, I agree, just to point out here that he KO'd more men than Hamed fought. He could hit properly.

That's just stupid. If you want to claim he was the best puncher Saddler had fought, you may have a case.

Saddler has an aggressive, controlled, punching style that puts him right in the danger zone for extended periods. He's been in more than 160 fights. I promise you he's been hit very hard very often. He's never been stopped. Pep isn't alone in having stopped more men than Hamed fought when he stepped into the ring with Saddler.

Just read what you wrote. Is that the actual style clash here? Be serious if you're going to talk to me, "Face first plodder v ATG powerpunching counterpuncher", what is that? Please don't waste my time.

Couter-puncher versus smothering pressure-fighter comes down to who has the physical attributes that will allow them to dominate the fight. Saddler knocked out more than a hundred men with this "face forward" style, including one who tried the same counter-punching tricks but was twice the fighter Hamed was - yes, even allowing for the deficiency Pep suffered in power, which probably wasn't as big as you want to pretend it was anyway (though it definitely exists). He has the size, advantages FOUR INCHES in height and SIX INCHES in reach, the chin, never stopped, the power, to make Hamed not only hear (though he might not actually hear it) ten but probably duck out of the fight

Claiming a style advantage for Hamed here is utterly absurd.

How may times did this happen?

Any worse than what Barrera did to Hamed? Who's your daddy?

wtf man

This content is protected

Here is Pep. Note the heavily muscled back (if you like this sort of thng). This is Pep against Stolz, an absolutely world class fighter who Pep beat for I believe his sixtieth win in a row (again, more fights than Hamed ever had).

Pep was solid. And why are you trying to decipher strength by way of body-type anyway?

oh, well then.

Saddler fought bigger men, he was the world junior-lightweight champion, something Hamed was never able to do, he also beat a handful of decent lightweights. Come on.

Between March of 1943 and June of 1952, in the span of well over one-hundred fights, only one man was able to beat Willie Pep and that was Saddler. I think you may be a little off there to say the least.

And Hamed hasn't been in with a puncher like Saddler. So what? What we do know is that when he stepped in with the best fighter he faced, Hamed got punked, absolutely punked. Saddler dominated a series with a far better fighter than Barrera.

Sometimes it really is that simple.

Why do you insist on making yourself look ridiculous with lines like this?

Why is that relevant? If that's relevant, what do you make of the massive, massive difference in terms of top ranked opponents that Saddler faced and Hamed faced in Saddler's favour?

Let me guess. I matters what Hamed did, but not what Saddler did :roll:

This content is protected

Even if he was (he wasn't) he was still impossible for anyone else from the era to beat and far better than anyone Hamed actually beat.

Wow.

 

So you knew this all along and were just playing with me? Or you got caught talking ****? Either way, what a horrific waste of time.

I don't care. I'm talking about what would happen in Saddler-Hamed, not what Barrera's career arch was like in terms of aggresison.

He does all of this when he is infighting. He's superb at it. It's something Hamed can't do for toffee and something I haven't seen Barrera do anything like as well. Outside he has a 6" reach advantage, inside he's far better.

I debate it above, and it is not true.

I notice you haven't said anything about Saddler's enormous physical advantages and like to skirt around his having fought at a higher level for longer.

This is a flat out lie. You didn't say he had "slower hands". You said his hook was:

Why waste my time like this? When you say Barrera's hook is "sharper" you are talking shite. And that got settled.

Saddler was never KO'd having fought three times as many fighters as Hamed, being far less protected than Hamed, fighting better fighters than Hamed. Yes, Hamed was an excellent puncher, but against the best fighter he faced he was badly beaten. His power and punches did nothing to save him there, and wouldn't here.

And often doesn't.

And vice-versa.

The difference is that Saddler is more proven at the higher level, has enormous advnatages in size and strength against Hamed which mean he will likely control the action.

Hamed's BEST CASE SCENARIO here is being allowed to out-box against a guy with a six inch reach advantage. That almost certainly won't happen.

Mainly, eh? Any other examples?

He's 5'4 He gets handled by Barrera. Saddler is almost five-feet ****ing nine and enormously strong at the weight, possibly the strongest fighter ever at the weight.

And i'm STILL waiting for you to tell me what footage/reports you are basing Hamed's being stronger than Pep on apart from when he was pushed around by one of the strongest fighters pound for pound in ring history? Can you do that?

See, I think that Pep was stronger than Hamed. You can see Pep, on film, handling guys like Famechon for functional strength. I think much of it, like Ali, was based on great balance but it was there. What can you point to in support of Hamed? Because so far all we've seen is him getting manhandled by Barrera.

And whatever it is, it better be extraordinarly good if you want to convince people that the 5'4 midget Hamed isn't going to get handled by super-strong featherweight Saddler. I mean "look at his legs" isn't going to cut it.

Yes. Willie Pep had a smaller KO% than Nassem Hamed.

So you pick him against every fighter that hasn't been stopped because of this? How about Barrera?

Yes. Saddler has a lower KO% than Hamed.

Not always. He had a good jab to the guy which he utilised against Elorde, he can be seen making use of his range against Flannigan. You're probably saying this because you've only seen the Pep footage. Of course he tried to corner Pep.

Saddler was actually quite tactically flexible when it came to this issue. Sometimes he would remain more stationary, against the wasp-like Davis for example, sometimes he would pursue a guy more aggressively, as with the aforementioned Flannigan. Either way his goal was to bring his man in though, yes. Here, his advantages in strength and infighting tended to be even greater than his advantages in reach. But that doesn't tell the whole story. It would be especially bad for Hamed. His long range would essentially become Saddler's mid-range as he countered the space - exactly what Saddler will try to make a guy do. Saddler specialised in timing guys on their way in, often with that left hook you consider "less sharp" than Barrera's.

Once he has Hamed on the inside, it's game over, spider and fly.

Like I said, Hamed's BEST CASE scenario is being allowed to box at range against a guy with a huge reach advnatage. IF Saddler is able to fight short, he has the fight won, and will probably close the blinds within three rounds of forcing that tactical change.

:huh

Hamed? We are talking about Saddler?

ok

ok

Twice the fighter Hamed was, and I think stronger.

Jesus. This is really important to you, huh?

ok

!!! hahahaha

What footage makes you think Hamed is stronger than Pep?

What footage makes you think Hamed won't be handled by Saddler?

Utterly irrelevant.

YOU: Hamed sparred bigger men. [in reply to a point about strength!!]

ME: So? Saddler fought bigger men.

YOU: Beter resume, worse skills.

I mean, what the **** are you talking about?


Why do you think Hamed had better funcitonal boxing strength than Pep? What FOOTAGE are you basing this on outside of the Saddler fights?

I wondered how You'd get Roy Jones into this conversations.

This is really boring **** now. I have no idea why you want to run this level of interfecance. I'm going to explain the difference to you, but I want you to take this under advisment - this type of thing is exactly why talking to you can be so dull (though i'm in the mood).

Pep first lost to Saddler in 1948. Pep then went unbeaten for two years, including three defences of the world title. He was then beaten by Saddler again in 1950. He then went unbeaten again for 8 fights. He then lost to Saddler again.

Jones went "unebeaten for his whole career" then lost to Tarver, then lost to Jones, then lost to Tarver again. You can throw out Pep's entire career before his first loss to Saddler, and it is still an impressive feat. Although you'd only need to do that to counter some bizarre, irrelevant, ill-judged Roy Jones comparison.

Boxing isn't only about styles. It's also about class.

And as I think i've shown, Saddler has the style advantage anyway. No counter-puncher ever beat prime Saddler apart from Pep, who lost more than he won. Saddler ate this type up.

Boxing isn't only about styles. It's also about class.

And as I think i've shown, Saddler has the style advantage anyway. No counter-puncher ever beat prime Saddler apart from Pep, who may be the best of this kind in history, who lost more than he won anyway. Saddler ate this type up.

And just happened to be the best fighter he fought.

No more than we assume that the fighter with the style advantage always wins.

But when levels, physicality, experience, style and resume ALL favour one fighter the writing is on the wall.


This is a perfect storm for you. A fighter you are determined isn't as good as everyone says (Saddler) against on you love who you also think is better than everyone says (Hamed), but honestly, there is nothing for you here. Absolutely nothing.

 

I had Barrera; I really wasn't ever all that impressed with Hamed aside from as a showman, to be honest. But I remember what you are talking about, loads of guys thought it was going to be an easy nights work for Hamed.