How good was Naz?

People forget that when boxers are coming up they are hungry always training preparing for the big moment that leads to recognition which also increases the MONEY.
Naz made millions upon millions so do you really think he's going to train when he was trying to get to the top? No he isn't.

 

He was definitely better as a baiting, unorthodox (if not particularly advanced) counter puncher than he was a front foot boxer-puncher. Never really had the required footwork imo to set himself up or integrate his feet with leading punches, on top of having horrific balance, a lack of offensive variety outside of his unusual punch selection and an underdeveloped sense of textbook upper body positioning/punch slipping. When presented with having to walk an opponent down and open them up, it was mostly basic feinting followed by awkward, sometimes oddly chosen (though freakishly powerful) lunges from a less than desirable range. Which is how the likes of Kelley were able to time effectively him with unspectacular basics. He was less skilled than he gets created for being imo.

The problem for most of his opponents (given that they were mostly of an historically very average ilk and not notable talents) was that he only needed to land at half mast to get anyone who didn't have an iron chin doing a pissed -up riverdance. Unearthly and effortless leverage on his punches as well as above average handspeed, even more remarkable when considering he was a natural bantamweight and was only pushed up to 126 for the big domestic dingdong with Robinson for the WBO belt. And a very good chin that along with his horrible power that allowed him to take ungainly risks and be sloppy without being conclusively punished, at least against the transitory splinter titleists of the 90s like Johnson, Medina, Ingle etc or the decent but faded superbantams like Bungu and Vasquez. He did well enough though to pick through them all and unify most of the belts in a fairly weak era.

It's easy as well to forget that he was on the verge of establishing himself at the world level at 122 before the Robinson fight, which would 've thrown him in the mix with the likes of Zaragoza, Jones, McKinney, Ncita and the younger versions of Barrera and Morales. More interesting than the route he took at feather, though you have to respect such a physically small bloke (back then at least, the fat c*nt) in the next day weigh era being such a monstrous puncher.

Ultimately he was a very good fighter up to about 98/99, but made so more by ATG power and a strong chin despite having several huge technical flaws and an eventually suspect mentality on top of being increasingly lazy and lacking dedication. If he'd had the footwork, balance and some of the secondary slightly more capable text book elements of his hero Graham, he would've been a borderline/lower level generational type great imo but falls just short. Maddening that he never built further upon his formidable base tools, and however disinterested and declined he was against Barrera (and as good as Barrera was), he showed a real lack of spine in that fight when it was apparent that he needed to let his hands go and take a leap of faith. It wasn't just MAB not allowing him to do so.

and whether or not anyone believes that his grating, thick as **** persona in the ring was partially a construct to put arses on seats (it was to a point), the hit and run car incident should confirm to anyone that he was a selfish amoral ******* at heart and not a nice man. I know a couple of people who used to be in his circle (one of them a fight photographer) who he treated poorly too, and I didn't find him especially pleasant in person.

He's an interesting fighter to consider in a deep era with multiple very good to great fighters kicking about, in terms of potential upset wins and losses (both of which he'd incur imo) if he was able to demonstrate the ability to lick his wounds and mentally recover from a couple of embarrassing defeats to beat some good fighters.

 

Nonsense. The more solid fundamentals in his balance, footwork and punching technique actually came post-Ingle, and ruined him. What happened against Barrera was in the making 2 years leading up to fight.

Why make an unorthodox fighter more orthodox with a hands-down style? Suicide. He was a mobile, kamikaze fighter who relied on athleticism and natural fighting instincts that were incorporated into his game since he was a kid.

Once his balance got rectified by Steward and Suarez, he became more flat-footed, predictable and easier to read.

My earlier post touched more on this.

 

Great, great post.

 

I know it did, I read it. I think you've got the wrong end of the stick a bit, to put it politely.

I tend to think he was past the point where it was going to help him when Suarez and Steward tried to correct his balance, it was too late. He'd had the multiple bad habits and co-ordination for years by that point, from childhood. I'm talking about if he'd learned properly under a different trainer from a much younger age.That's not suicide, it's common ****ing sense. Graham had a similar unorthodox proto approach but still had elite footwork and very good balance, especially in the occasions in fights when he bothered to neaten up and not clown around. And he learned that as an amateur before he fought out of Wincobank iirc. It's possible to bounce about in an unorthodox manner and throw unorthodox punches while still being technically correct with your feet, or at least maintaining balance if not. Ali was an example of that and a bad comparison to Naz.

Suarez and Steward didn't succeed anyway to my eye, Hameds feet and balance were still poor on their watch even with flatter feet and he was just as much hindered under them with his more static, conventional base for other reasons in conjunction with it. Low hands without a solid grasp of how to parry or block, or even raise his guard a bit, when his reflexes (already questionable) were slowing down, not helped by a mediocre grasp of how to best position his upper body and slip punches effectively or efficiently on a constant basis. Certainly not in sync with his footwork. Nor was he a brilliant judge of distance or an improved textbook puncher in terms of punchpicking. Whether it was because he couldn't/wouldn't take instruction at that stage or because Steward was never the best at teaching his best fighters to classically slip punches (Hearns, Lewis), or both, is anyone's guess. But no fighter becomes worse off solely for having a fundamental error in his makeup corrected at an early enough stage; there are usually other factors in the mix if it doesn't help and that was almost certainly the case with Hamed.

Aye, so not nonsense as far as I can see.

 

Not that good. He had fast reflexes, and was awkward but no fundamentals to speak of. He had power? Anyone who jumps into their punches can have power. He stepped up against Barrera, and got put in his place, so he retired.

 

MAB was a super bantam.

He was moving up, the smaller man, but of course Naz has *excuses … right?

Barrera exposed his flaws in more ways than one. Naz got his trap shut so he took his ball and went home. One hand-picked good-bye fight and off to the buffet line for life.

When the going gets tough, the Naz got going … as far from the ring as he could get. Typical front-runner, once he faced adversity he quit like a dog. Not in the fight — he outright quit his career.

Great fighters prove themselves by recouping and adjusting and getting back in the fray to fight another day. They want that rematch or, if that’s not available (it was), the next big challenge to prove themselves.

Naz wasn’t great. He proved it by folding up his tent when faced with a setback.

 

He was about half as good as he thought he was which makes him a very good fighter.

 

"I'm talking about if he'd learned properly under a different trainer from a much younger age."

Jeez, just say it. You wish Nacho Beristain was born in Sheffield so he got a grip of Hamed from the age of 7, instead of ever stepping into a gym with Ricardo Lopez and Juan Manuel Marquez.

All the stuff you're talking about his fanciful and unrealistic.

If you start incorporating solid fundamentals like blocking and parrying punches from a high guard into a highly unorthodox fighter who relied on speed athleticism with a hands-down approach, where are we going here?

 

Top post, but this is where things get murky. Prior to the Barrera fight, I don't remember any of the Sky Sports team talking about Naz having regressed. He was a 3-1 favourite over an already proven, highly capable fighter. Further, his 2000 win over Vuyani Bungu was considered a return to form.

What we have - as is common with exciting fighters ala Tyson - is a hyperinflated case of backwards rationalising. Naz wasn't supposed to lose, so people look for clues that aren't there. The best Naz, many say, is the one who beat a very beatable Steve Robinson...hardly Duran savaging Buchanan, was it? And it's the same Naz who kept his hands low and lunged in. It's the same Naz who incurred many headsnappers.

However, a key difference between Naz and Tyson, psychologically speaking, is Tyson had already climbed his Everest. Barrera was Naz's Everest. Base camp one if he was to fulfil his own prophecy. If the fight had actually been competitive, like some claim, there would have been a much higher chance of Naz sucking it up with the hand issues, halving his buffet portions, and trying again.

 

He almost always found a way to win and could generate power out of nowhere. He was special.

What I don't like is the way BS miraculously catches fire, mostly regarding Barrera.

 

He was a great fighter but not as great as he thought he was... I watched the Barrera fight last night again & Naz really did look lost in there & at times sloppy & inept.. not only was he completely out fought & out boxed he was man handled as well.. Naz made a lot of excuses about this fight like he had to lose two stone etc ... but I watched the documentary leading up to this fight and Hamed looked fine.. he was clowning around and playing games, playing up to the cameras, never looked weight drained or corpsed out to me... he looked healthy & relaxed.. i think splitting with Ingle hurt Naz but he'll never admit that, he just makes other excuses.. as i said great fighter .. more so because of his unorthodox methods.. but a bit overrated imo

 

Kind of reminds how Heorl tinkered with his boxing style vs Kalambay in the first fight.

 

I think it's a stretch to say Barrera was at some mythical level unlike anything Hamed had ever seen:
1. Bungu had a better run at 122 and had an easier time with Mckinney over two fights than Barrera over one. Mckinney was Barrera's second best win before heading into the Hamed fight.
2. Hamed had an easier time with McCullough than Morales did.
3. Hamed had already beaten serious talents with serious accomplishments like Vasquez, Medina, and Tom Johnson.
4. Hamed got knocked around by Augie Sanchez before fighting Barrera, although the ko was special, and looked like crap against Calvo in the fight after Barrera.

Hamed was a case of a great fighter who burnt out early due to being reflex based, making huge money, and having chronic injuries. He still had a first ballot HOF career and is arguably the hardest puncher ever at 122 and 126.