Tell me about naseem hamed

To answer your question, Naz was a major sporting icon of the mid-to-late 90's in Britain (perhaps second only to Beckham and way ahead of his peer, Lennox Lewis). "Prince Naseem" had huge crossover/mainstream cultural appeal. He was also a commerical monster; had tie-ins with The Ministry of Sound, a massive sponsorship deal with Adidas, did commericals in the US for Audi, had his own Playstation game, and another sponsorship deal with Sony. In terms of celebrity; P.Diddy was with him for his ring walk for the Bungu fight, when he flew into the arena on a magic carpet! - lots of examples of this kind of thing.

He packed venues out in a period when boxing was being pushed well off the sporting agenda, and he was probablly the one British sportstar of the 90's to be globally recognized, he was huge in Japan, and well known in America for example, and news of his fights were broadcast all around the world.

His personality, was obviously super confident, arrogant and cocky, but he was also had a great sense of humour, and was very engaging. I believe the general opinion in hindsight is that "Prince Naz" was mostly a persona, an act, he was a showman, rather than a genuine obnoxious brat.

In terms of boxing, he is generally underrated by most people. He essentially unified the divison, beat various world champions, and did it in style. How he left the sport, and what he did afterwards, damaged his legacy, and contributed to his generally low standing amongst a lot of fans. He actually deserves more, and I'm glad he gets decent respect on the Brit forum, which he doesn't in the general.

 

If you want a wee read up on him get this.... The Paddy And The Prince - The Making Of Prince Naseem.( maybe only a cpl quid )
I cant gaurantee its authenticity start to end but its an easy read and is quite a decent well rounded insight considering the size of the book.

As the other's have mentioned and shown,nice post Hoya, he was damn fine. No fark that he was AWESOME ! ! ! Personally there's been no one like him for year's.
I often wonder that after the Barrera defeat , he felt he let himself down. I mean that he couldnt in HIS eyes be what he wanted to be, eg perfection. So he says farkit am off.

I repeat AWESOME ! ! ! No one brings to the table what he did. I cant think of a fighter worldwide that could in his period or even now.

Wish he had went back to the Ingles, or better still never left.

:thumbsup

 

Naz NEVER should have left Wincobank. His brash arrogance was his success but it was also his downfall.

 

In other words, you know **** all about Naz's career. The fact that you originally listed Alicea as one of his very best wins shows that. It is trolling when you talk in such strong terms about a subject you clearly know nothing about, yet you still wish to inflict your half-arsed opinion on the rest of us.

 

Some serious ownage goings on here. I would have done it myself but i couldnt be asked.

 

I thought the guy was fantastic ACTUALLY. Saw him twice v Lawal and Castro. If you don't believe the 'What the ****ing hell was that chants' go check the footage.

I followed his career start to finish. Just because I have a different opinion from you for you to say I know '**** all' about him is bull****.

I wasn't giving YOU an opinion. Don't get above your station. I was giving it to the poster. If you choose to give me **** fine, but I can back up everything I say. Where's the Barrera, Morales, Paquiao fights?

Oh thats right, one defeat and he basically quit.
I don't expect anything else from a guy who has Naz on his avatar. I can back up everything I say but I get the feeling debating you would be like debating a Pac-****, no bloody point.

I have an opinion, get over it. Put your point across, let the guy decide and get out of my face. :hi:

 

These people wouldn't happen to be Joe Public boxing fans, y'know...the sort who think Sugar Ray Robinson is a jazz singer from the 70's.

Educated boxing fans are aware of Naz's strengths and weaknesses, and they will give him his due accordingly. To write him off as basically a bum is an insult to what he achieved in the game. He's not the greatest boxer of all time, but he isn't a journeyman either.

 

you can't fault goldenhoyas knowledge on naz,he knows everything about naz,im thinking maybe he is naz:good
my thoughts are with boxingfanNo1 on most points.
I think he was pretty good in a poor devision at the time,come on,the cinderella man,prob the weakest ever feather champ,johnston,well on the slide,he was beat off charles shepard 4 or 5 fights later,i used to spar with him when i was am,hold my own,no prob,and i was shite.
ingle was a good boxer,gave naz a good fight.
if naz dident have a iron chin a lot of people would of sparked him,kelly had him all over the shop.
he was a showman though,**** me and funny at times

my fondest memory of naz was at a pro show in the 90's,he was a up and coming boxer at the time,he was asked in the ring,jumped over top rope,caught his foot and went flying on his arse,place was in hysterics:rofl

 

A good boxer is what you're saying then?
I AGREE.
I said fraud. He wasn't what he was built upto be. I'm right. Where are the big names which make him The Greatest thing from sliced bread which, I might add, was thrown in our face every chance he, Ingle or Warren got.

I never said he was ****. My fraud comment related to what I've just stated. He was a showman, an entertainer and a good boxer. ATG? hell no. HoF? debatable. Top 10 British fighter? Not in my book. A good fighter who fought a few decent boxers but was NEVER going to cut it with the big boys? Absolutely.

 

I should have said 'where it mattered he was poor' my bad.

 

Hamed was big in the 90's-he had his own boxing game "Prince naseem boxing" and American rapper Nas made reference to him in one of his tracks.

 

I would say he was very good boxer; ATG? debatable. HOF? A certainty.

You have to realise that Naz was big at the weight, so as far as making an earlier match-up with Barrera, Morales, Ayala, Tapia etc; well, the ball was in their court in that one (they had to move up because Naz could not move down). Barrera did move up and beat Naz, but I think Naz was a bit on the slide by that point.

The British media always hype up their fan-friendly boxers; thats why guys like Hatton, Naz (when he was still fighting) and Khan get a lot of stick from real boxing fans; to an extent they were put across to the unknowledgeable fans as perhaps better than what they were.

You could argue that Naz could have moved up a division and tried his luck there. At one point in Naz's career SFW contained an unbeaten trio of Floyd Mayweather, Diego Corrales and Acelino Freitas (later in Naz's career admitedly). They would have been real stiff tests, maybe too much for Naz; but we'll never know.

Some people will also say that he avoided the danger man in his division, Juan Manuel Marquez. Maybe he did; I don't know.

My general feeling is that Naz was overrated when he was active, but is becoming very underrated now he has retired. When people talk about style match-ups Naz springs to mind as a nightmare for almost any boxer at Featherweight.

 

You're welcome to give your opinion, and I welcome your input into this forum. However, I can see that you're now backtracking from your ridiculous and disrespectful opening statements, by playing the victim and pretending to be misunderstood.

You say "Medina was poor", despite the fact he won five world titles, and beat a prime version of Boom-Boom Johnson. You say "Naz got schooled by Barrera". One judge scored it 116-112, and most people accept that Naz won at least four rounds, a clear win for Barrera - yes, but hardly a "schooling".

You claim "Naz's record is a shambles", when he actually, by any reasonable or logical assessment, has a very decent record that includes wins against no less than nine World Champions, a decorated domestic and European level champ, and a lot of credible contenders.

Speaking of credibility, You say "Naz has no credibility", yet you suggest Alicea (of all people) as one of his very best victories, are we supposed to believe that you are some kind of expert on this subject?

You claim "Naz was a fraud", despite the fact that he won three World Titles, beat every title holder in the division, and only ever lost one time, to a prime version of an all-time-great.

You say "Naz should have fought Pacquaio", despite the fact that when Naz when in his prime and knocking out everyone in front of him, Manny was fighting the likes of Melvin Magramo in Cebu City! Barrera, Marquez, Manny and Morales are very much a different era to Naz, in many respects.

And finally, your piste-de-resistance, your claim that "Naz wasn't special", when its blatantly clear to everyone with a working set of eyes, and semi-functioning brain, that Naz was very special indeed.

 

didnt mayweather offer naz to fight over 15 rounds at a catchweight

and dint freitas offer to fight naz at super feather

 

I actually kind of understand the point that I think you were originally trying (and failing badly) to make, before you wandered off into Troll country. No one on here is going to say that Naz was an ATG. Not even me. I think it was obvious to almost everyone, that Naz was never as good as he claimed. But calling the guy a "fraud", when he had such an impressive career compared to most, is just very stupid, on many levels.