As much as i hated Naz, in his prime, he is very under-rated

What the bookies said is irrelevant. He was past it before he fought MAB. Not physically, not shot...but a fighter who had abandoned almost everything that had made him great and who relied solely on looking for one big shot. He did not train, did not spar properly and had a group of yes men around him.

I am guessing that you have watched all of about 5 Hamed fights and all from post Ingle era.

 

You honestly believe that? He had never lossed a fight and he was the favorite going into the Barrera fight. :huh

 

Prince Naseem chose to fight unorthodox,he took unorthodox to another level. Freakish power, he could knock fighters heads off with Jabs. Prince Naseems over boxing ability was no fully seen, if he wanted to he could fight conventional, i always remember his fight with Steve Robinson in that fight Naseem Hamed was not wild swinging/gymnastic performer. I believe Prince Naseem did get carried away with his style and his power was god like, so all he wanted to do was knock people out

This country will never see another fighter like Prince Naseem Hamed

at one stage in his career he was the cloest anyone has gotten ever to Mike Tyson/Muhammad Ali, he reached beyond being a superstar for a short period. Kings of Arab nations buying him things etc...

I was only a kid, and i could remember..


Also any boxer who my mum knows/follows/supports must be big!!!!

No boxer has been bigger than Prince Naseem since he retired, Oscar De La Hoya and all the rest...

Oscar De La Hoya outside of the US is nothing.

 

what he said . good post from start to finsih .

 

he became very lazy with training, power obsessed and his ego needed it's own hotel suite. MAB beats him everytime for my money no matter how good naz is on the night but there is no doubt that he was on the slide.

also, here is a run down by poster illmatic on hamed's resume....

FACTS:

This content is protected

at Featherweight:
Robinson- WBO titlist w/ 7 defenses- KO8
Medina- 5 time feather titlist- KO11
Johnson- Linear+IBF champ w/ 11 defenses- KO8
Kelly- Former WBC titlist w/ 47-1 record- KO4
Vazquez- 3 division titlist, WBA titlist- KO7
McCulough- former bantam titlist- UD12
Ingle- Future IBF titlist- KO11
Soto- WBC titlist- UD12
Bungu- Superbantam IBF titlist w/13 defenses- KO4
Barrera- ATG- UD12 LOSS

15 title defenses, 10 championship defenses
WBO/IBO/WBC/WBA/IBF/Linear titles
1 loss

 

Dont get me wrong Hamed was good but I just think he was overrated and I dont think he would of hanged with Morales or Pacquiao. I was actually shocked seeing people pick Hamed over Pacquiao. Good fighter but never elite in my eyes.

 

I don't have to just believe it, all I have to do is go and watch any of the fights I have on video and see how differently he boxed.
I started watching Hamed in about his 7th or 8th pro fight and saw every fight from then onwards. I have since been able to see some of the rarer early ones I had missed, like his pro debut which he won with a body shot.

He was favourite because he KOd everyone who came to fight and MAB always came to fight. I was dissapointed with how he had become but still expected MAB to come out and stand toe to toe in a show of machismo and fight it out.
If that had happened, I am 100% confident that MAB would have been stopped. But he didn't, he proved he was a smart fighter as well as a warrior and he put on a brilliant display of boxing and tactical awareness.

I used to get really pissed off about the criticism of Hamed, but now I care less than before, because he is such a total **** that I cannot be overly bothered about his reputation being tarnished and on top of that his demise was all his own doing.

But for the sake of honest discussion, I will always call people on it if they are basically basing their views upon ignorance as opposed to objective analysis.

 

Fair enough, how do you think he would have done if he came over sooner and fought Barrera, Morales, Marquez, and Pacquiao? :think

 

a scenario where manny gets involved in a war with hamed and gets his clock cleaned is a big possibility. of course manny can win that fantasy matchup but he has to curb the want to fight and that macho streak and fight to a perfect gameplan like MAB did. trading with hamed is about the dumbest thing any boxer around his weight class can do.

morales is another matter styles wise.

 

During exchanges I truely believe Pacquiao would have got the better of it because he had straigher punches not to mention he is a little more faster than Hamed. I see Pacquiao ko'ing everytime actually.

 

I think MAB would have been smart enough to win on points most of the time. I think Morales gets stopped in a war and I think Marquez gets stopped early.
Pacman could go either way, fast bunches of shots in straight lines could mean he stops Naz, but one shot from Naz and he is in big trouble and once hurt, nobody finished better than Hamed.

I think that fight could go either way.

 

JMM gets stopped early? :blood I think his style is the worse for him since he has trouble with counter punchers and JMM is the best at it. :huh

 

I think the guy is spectacularly OVERRATED on this forum.

- He never beat one elite level fighter in his entire career
(compare this to Barrera and Morales...

Barrera: McKinney, Hamed, Morales (twice), Tapia, Ayala, Peden, Juarez

Morales: Zaragoza, Jones, Barrera, Chi, Chavez, Hernandez, Pacquiao.

Their level of opposition SHAMES Hamed. Therefore, they are GREATS and he is not)


- He looked amazing beating up mediocre opposition, but the glaring weaknesses in his game were there from day one
(I have lost count of the number of times his performance v Steve Robinson is brought up to prove his ability. This is a JOKE. Steve Robinson's record at the time he fought Naz was 21-9-1. He retired with a record of 32-17-2. The guy was a pub fighter.

Naz did have great natural gifts - he was born with incredible reflexes and punching power.

However, he never worked hard enough on the basics of boxing, never had a solid all-round game, never had an even decent defence - and these weaknesses were always there. They were there when he was caught by a few heavy shots and floored by Daniel Alicea (who?) in 1996. They were there when he was up and down like a yo-yo versus Kevin Kelley in 1997. They were there when he was chased around the ring and made to look ridiculous in the Augie Sanchez fight in 2000.

Although Kelley was a good fighter, he was not a great, not a Barrera. As soon as Hamed did step up the level of opposition and fight a great, all of his deficiencies were exposed, he was outthought and outfought, and beaten convincingly. And he knew it - hence the reason he never chased a rematch and never got back on track. He knew he did not have the skills to beat a Barrera or a Morales, and he did not want to have his inferiority confirmed for all-time by losing again.

Clever decision by him, as now his hopelessly deluded fans believe they have just cause to make laughable claims like "if Naz had came in motivated against Barrera, he would've won" or "if the Naz who fought Robinson went up against Barrera he would've won" , or my personal favourite "Naz only went looking for one-shot bombs against MAB that night, if he had boxed he would've won!" :happy


I've heard it all before, the Brendan Ingle theory, that once Brendan and Naz parted ways he started believing the hype, started looking for 1-punch KOs at every turn, and was never the same fighter. Nonsense. Without doubt, the best performance against the best opponent of Naz's underwhelming career was when he stopped Vuyani Bungu in 4 in March 2000.

I have saw all of Naz's fights since I attended the Vincenzo Belcastro fight in May 1994 in Sheffield (I attended a few of Naz's UK fights- although it may not seem like it I actually was a fan of his, I loved watching him fight, but that doesn't mean I don't know what he really was), and I see no distinct change from Ingle to post-Ingle. There were great wins and sloppy wins with Ingle and without him. The difference is probably that Naz fought slightly better opposition after Ingle than the rank shite he was beating up with Ingle in his corner. That made him look less effective. He was never an effective thrower of extended combinations.



Naseem Hamed was a man born with superb natural gifts. However, he never worked hard enough on his boxing and therefore never became a great boxer. His resume is weak and the fact he lost to the first great fighter he fought and never came back for more count strongly against him. To me, he was great entertainment, but is not and never will be a great fighter.

 

i don't think anyones saying he would've beaten barrera whatever happened pacfan to be fair .
and the robinson win IS significant, didn't those 9 defeats all come at the start of his career, he was on a big winning streak if i remember rightly and had beaten good,solid fighters like mckenzie and mcmillan, again, if i remember rightly .it was a top, top performance by a 21 year old in a very intimidating atmosphere against a respected champion ( yes robinson was respected at the time ).he absolutely leathered robinson.
naseem isn't an ATG like barrera or morales you're quite correct, but he was a unique fighter who divides opinions and deserves to be talked about.

 

Nice. :shock: :deal