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

Same here. You're one of the good 'uns IMO.

 

:rofl

Rule No.1: Americans/Mexicans fighting in N.America are "world class"

Any other fighters fighting anywhere else in the world are "bums".

 

Yeah, Naseem was my boy, but when he quit after the Barrera fight, I kind of lost some respect for him as far as his career. As far as what I've read on his personal life, I hope the man can truly get his life back together again.

 

Naz was the best fighter i've ever seen. I think he was already done a couple of fight before the Barerra fight. The young hungry Naz trained by Ingle was very good.

 

Can I suggest one might want to actually watch a few fights, rather than being a boxrec warrior? You might actually learn something!

 

Lets get this straight noob, Ii never knicked your avatar, you knicked mines. Ive been here for years, youre the 'some guy'.:yep

 

There's a bit of a Tyson story parallel with nas, Americans tend to underrate him because when he went over there he was already on the decline. The Tyson parallel is that he came from a gym where a particular and peculiar style was taught, left the gym, sacked the trainer and stopped doing all the things that got him where he was in the first place. He was a lot better with Ingle than without him just as Tyson was a lot better with Rooney than wihout him.

He is a solid myrrh twat though. How the **** a yemeni from yorkshire ever ended up talking like that is a mystery

 

Thats a good point.

 

Have you seen the Bungu fight?? Didn't think so.

Not only have I seen every one of Naz's fights from Belcastro onwards, I actually attended a few of them as well.

:hi:

 

did you ever see the documentary "the little prince, the big fight". flimed in the run up to his fight with MAB, will tell you all you need to know. the bloke was power happy and his training had become shambolic under that dreadful steward/suarez partnership.

 

i remember that, he was not as focussed as he needed to be for a fight with barrera. hattons going down the same path.

 

I watched every Hamed fight from Liendo onwards live and have seen a number of his back collection on documentaries and the like. I know what I'm talking about. Yes it's obvious that it's not gonna be as easy to look good against a modern legend as it is against a merely decent champion, but the differences are bloody obvious. The attempts to jump in with telegraphed single shots rather than working his way in and letting the power come naturally, the declining reflexes, lack of appreciable variety. An of course the corners cut in training.

And I dont know where you get the idea that I didn't see the Bungu fight from, sure, excellent performance. However, this was one bright spot in a increasingly erratic career. Augie Sanchez for Christ's sake, Hamed made him look world class until he started finding his range in the fourth, the Hamed of the late 90s would have had him out in two rounds max. I'll never forget the sight of him stood with his arms out on the ringpost looking away whilst Ingle was trying to give him instructions in the corner (I think it was vs McCullouch). Doesn't look to me like a fighter who is dedicated to his craft or listening to the people who made him what he was.

:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

 

No, very true. It shows the talent of the guy that he can take on solid world class fighters like Soto, McCullouch, Ingle, Bungu and win despite not taking it seriously or being dedicated to his craft. When you meet the very top level fighters, though, great talent who lives and breathes boxing is always going to beat great talent who's got half his mind on his next day's shopping trip or celebrity appearance!

 

he'd made his money and the hunger was gone. although he never beats MAB, no matter how good/bad his preparition was.

 

I don't agree.

Hamed had trouble with Daniel Alicea in 1996 the same as he had v Augie Sanchez in 2000 - except Sanchez was a better fighter than Alicea. I think he looked good and looked sloppy in the Ingle days, and looked good and looked sloppy in the post-Ingle days just the same. The difference was that the opposition he fought post-Ingle was slightly better. This "believing his own hype, looking for one shot all the time" stuff is a myth IMO, one of those myths that one fan comes out with to rationalize how their hero fell, and then all other fans adopt it as a convenient truth without actually thinking about it. Hamed was bodypunching and using combinations more than he did normally against Paul Ingle in 1999. He was superb against Bungu.

Look at the guys he fought from when he won the WBO title:

Robinson, Lawal, Alicea, Medina, Molina, Johnson, Hardy, Badillo, Cabrera.
(3 out of the 9 ever held a world title)

The only decent fighters there were Medina and Johnson, and they were well past-prime when he fought them. The rest were tomato-cans, any top fighter could've danced around with no guard bouncing combinations off their skulls.

Look at the guys he fought 97-01:

Kelley, Vasquez, McCullough, Soto, Ingle, Bungu, Sanchez, Barrera
(7 out of 8 ever held a world title)

Far stronger opposition.

If you know as much about Hamed's career as you profess to, you should've realized this. Are you telling me this difference in standard of opposition had nothing to do with Naz looking less impressive as time wore on?

:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: