I agree, to an extent, as even Tyson (despite all his demons/shenanigans) is more likable/respectable and its all down to his integrity and humility and even compassion. I disagree with the idea that every boxer has to be lower class scumbag even though that is a large demographic of the population that boxing seems to attract and understandably so. Even if they start out that way it's nice to see them mature, otherwise you're rooting for nothing more than a man who in any other sphere in life you'd be glad to see locked away in jail.
Here's his career recap: 1. Arrogant hype job who faced a string of nobodies 2. Gets retired by the first HOF fighter he faced 3. Blows up and becomes a fat blob of lard
Sir...low class is not the same as displaying a not Pro-Social behavior (not social class). Being a "Scumbag" a very general term applies to all economic-social classes Being less pro-social is the trait common in boxers, hitting people with intent to cause bodily harm is Anti-Social in its core so all successful boxers are somewhere between clearly Anti-Social to the grey Not-Pro-Social If you take this trait away, you will have boring lame boxers with low % KO ratio & overall plain taste-less nature. If you want to pinpoint what offends you the most about Naz, its possibly his additional rude disregard for boxing fundamentals with an additional Anti-Cultural dimension.
You like my comment, yet nitpick through semantics? What I meant by that statement, which you should have already understood, is the fact most fighters come from a lower class background i.e very few upper class people decide to take up a brutal and difficult sport like boxing. But to cut things short, yes, obviously you're gonna get scumbags across the board. Which I agree with, but nobody's saying that you can't take something mostly negative and turn it into something mostly positive i.e using your ego, insecurities or childhood issues to fuel your way to success through fighting and then creating a pro-active, pro-social life for yourself i.e be worthy of respect/idolization, an inspiration to your people/nation, become a family man and rest on your laurels etc. that is what makes a man and a true champion. Anything less and you're just relinquishing control to the scumbags of the world. What's that supposed to mean? Explain.
Complete BS about Hamed being outclassed, and that was the main reason he lost. By the time the Barrera fight came along Nas wasnt training properely and was just trying to lose weight. He had lost his motivation by then and wasnt focused. As far as he was concerned he had made it in his own mind, and didnt need to put the work in. One story in that camp relates to Nas seeing that Barrera was training by running in the mountains. He was laughing about it and said he didnt need to do that, as if putting in that hard work wasnt worth it. Nas by the time of the Barrera fight just wanted to eat, enjoy his money and ****. You know you need to be 100% there to win at the elite level, even if you belong at that level. Nas was nowhere near 100% by the time of that fight.
That is why the best people, come to support those straight forward Not-Pro-Social great men Most successful people are also not pro-social, but they are hypocrites, so obviously the greatest success a human can have is becoming a boxing world champion. That is an instant Elite status without the need for hypocrisy
Well, who was more flawed, yet more successful than Julius Caesar? Till he met his bloody end of course.
Barrera was a legit Elite level Featherweight who was immune to Hamed psychological games, without the predatory advantage Hamed was just a beefed-up Flyweight. Shorter fighters who come & KO people, usually have a predatory Aura about them. It all works perfectly until a cool headed operator stops the reign of Terror. Inoue is moving up from 108 but, but he is still rangier & Taller than Hamed. Tank Davis is what the continuum of Naz would have looked like, he would have been as ordinary as Tank Davis @ 130-135 without Floyd Mayweather matchmaking
The concept of success (taking more than the average on the expense of others) simply correlates with crushing the common peasant-citizen. This applies for any "Ism" even in the Communist Utopias, the Elite comrades hoarded all resources for themselves & just used the commie doctrine as a tool to rob "Wealthy Peasants", of course the peasant gene pool is full of simpletons who can be conditioned to be anything In Pax-Romana (By-Product of Julius Caesar) the peasants-citizens feelings were tended to via Proto-Nationalism, Sporting events & some privileges that made them feel special, for the first time in history...Pro-Social lies were used to help the subjugated peasant-citizen live an event-less peace-full life. Pax-Romana led to big discomfort among the ambitious men all over the world, after the weak peace was breached, lots of complex minds kept the defeated 99.99% humans in cycles of wars (to secure resources) & peace (prepare for next war). Boxers are the finest of the Elite humans, they also get a high face value point as progressive physical specimen, it only gets darker in the "successful" people dimension
Rather smart and philosophical for a boxing fan, you should have more likes for the amount of comments you've made lol [url]https://impossiblehq.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/1514597154612.jpg[/url]
Naseem was a great fighter. Still think barrera would have done that to him at any point tho. Or beaten him anyway. Just on a higher level....people are tricked by naseems flashy style. Not to say he wasn,t great....he was...its just that guys like barrera wouldnt allow him to utilize it like the lower tiered guys did. The evidence we have kind of shows that. Its not the first time naz had a difficult night in a relatively short career. Barrera had them as well....like they all do but barrera had a lot more fights. Whereas theres a direct corelation between naz having more difficulty against the higher levelled opponents he faced. Kelley gave him trouble. Barrera gave him trouble and the guy scot harrison fought gave him trouble....was it medina. Barrera was more consistant. He had his off nights against junior jones etc but he pretty much emphatically made up for them. Naz never really did. Great fighter....maybe he did lose motivation....dont think it would have mattered tho. Think people actually underate barrera when the compare him to naz with the he,d have beat him when he was motivated comments. Barrera was pretty much the real deal. Losing to him doesnt make you not great....its just that he was just really great.
Naz was a fantastic entertainer, even his fights against much lower opposition were still a major event. He was arrogant, perhaps disrespectful at times, but he could be pure box office. His WBO featherweight title win over Steve Robinson was a masterclass. His fight with Kevin Kelley was thrilling and his win against Tom ‘Boom Boom’ Johnson another sparkling highlight. Marco Antonio Barrera was going to be his career defining fight, an elite level fighter that Naz was going to take out in typically flashy style, only Barrera was a class above. Naz struggled with his timing and looked reckless at times, Barrera was focused and had the belief to beat Naz. Whether Naz had lost his intent and determination in training or whether he simply wasn’t at the same level as the Mexican is open to interpretation, but Naz was a joy to have around, dividing opinion, but it was never dull.
1. The most overrated boxer I have ever seen, and one of the main reasons is that his boxing IQ is one of the worst I have ever seen. 2. The very dislikable fighter whose fans have made more excuses for- and just for one loss btw- than any fighter I have ever seen. 3. A classless bully throughout his career against has-beens and mediocrities, and when he finally fought a close to prime world class fighter (whom many people thought to be shot btw considering he lost twice to Junior Jones), was badly, badly exposed for being a boxing boob, despite his talents. 4. This thread belongs on the Classic because he hasn't fought professionally in almost 2 decades. Bye-bye
