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

naz was a good fighter, he would have never beat pac erilk mab marquez.

 

If this is the case, how was he past his prime fighting Barrera and 'underrated'
in general? :-(

 

joe calzaghe sits at number three in the current ring magazine P4P rankings, bernard hopkins at four. are these fightings in their prime?

 

Ill just say Hamed was a good fighter but far from elite. If we talk prime vs. prime he losses to JMM, Barrera, Morales, and Pacquiao.

 

More evidence that Hamed is overrated on this forum in particular. Look at the fire I'm drawing from guys with high post counts.

Are Hopkins and Calzhage underrated? Are the Ring rankings as credible now as they were in 2002?

 

Half of the experts on Hamed haven't even seen him at his best. One of the drawbacks of boxrec & the internet :nut.

 

i was replying to the debate about what stage his career was at, prime, past it etc. all fighters get overrated and underrated to varying degrees, poster by poster.

 

This is painful to read. Peden had just stopped Nate Campbell twice before he fought Barrera. What age and at what stage of their careers were Vasquez and Boom Boom Johnson at when they fought Naz????

 

Oh hang on, you're changing the line of argument now? So you don't place Peden at all time higher than Medina, Johnson and Vazquez? Good. And I put Vazquez in there on purpose, hoping you would take the bait, because he was well over the hill but a very good name.

And seeing as you are a Pacfan, that should resonate with you pretty well, because Morales was shot to bits and MAB was past it too when they each fought your boy.
So which elite fighters in their prime has Pac beaten?

And just to clear something up, do you or don't you class Robbie Peden and Kennedy KcKinney as elite?

 

Robbie Peden and Kennedy McKinney were far more difficult opponents than Vasquez or Johnson or Medina. Let me ask you, who was the more difficult opponent for Oscar De La Hoya: Julio Cesar Chavez or Fernando Vargas? Which win does he deserve more credit for? You can argue and nitpick all you want, Peden and McKinney were better opponents for the resume than Vasquez or Johnson or Medina, they were better than anyone on Hamed's resume except possibly Bungu (which I did acknowledge was Hamed's best win in my original post) - and even if you argue they weren't and feel a certain sense of triumph in that, there is still plenty in the resumes of Barrera and Morales that top Bungu. So your point is worthless really.

Barrera in 2003, Morales in their 2nd fight, Marquez in their 2nd fight - all elite fighters performing at a high level. Barrera I and Marquez II were two greats at their peak, Morales a little past-prime, but had put in a storming show against Pac only a year before and still fought brilliantly on the night. He was shot by the third, but not by the 2nd. Past-prime isn't shot.

And even a Morales SHOT TO PIECES is still a million light years ahead of Boom Boom or Vasquez or Medina! Oh you silly sausage!! :hi:

 

Not at all. My point was that your post was agenda driven nonsense using disingenuous arguments to make your case. Someone claiming that Peden is an elite level name on a resume and in the same breath stating by default that Medina and Johnson are not is either lying or ignorant.

Now you or I think is the tougher fight is a seperate issue. The fact is you tried to pass of McKinney and Peden as elite class opposition and yet dismiss fighters who I GUARANTEE will be rated higher by history and who will be HOF shoe ins.

You then switched it to WHEN he fought them. For a start I would not say for one second that Hameds resume compared to either MAB or Morales'...it doesn't. But you could have made that case without the pathetic double standards that your post showed.

And no McKinney was not better than a Kelley or a Bungu.

No it isn't. That is like saying that Berbick beating Ali is a better win that Lewis beating Holyfield. Or that Marciano thrashing a destitute Joe Louis is a greater victory than Ali beating Patterson.
A shot to pieces fighter is worth very little, otherwise we would have to give huge credit to Hatton for beating Vince Phillips and you are fully aware of this hence your reference to DLH vs Chavez.

Talk about a double standard. You open this post pointing out that Vargas was the tougher fight despite being nothing compared to Chavez in terms of peaks and records and you end it by suggesting that a ruined Morales is a better win than beating a world champion near their best such as Medina.

You didn't even have a tough assignment here, proving MAB and Morales have better records than Hameds is a piece of ****, and yet you have still managed to come across as utterly subjective, hypocritical and inconsistent.

Tell me again which peak elite fighters Pac has beaten?

 

Don't think he fought bums at all, guys like Sanchez and Kelley are not bums, not even close. He fought the top fighters available and had insane power, small guys like that don't get that many KOs from single punches so his power was special.

As far as being underrated I think he's rated just fine, he might be overrated than underrated to be honest. Just look at the attention he gets even after retirement, that explains how he's rated.

 

Which elite fighters has Pac beaten? Again? MARCO ANTONIO BARRERA, JUAN MANUEL MARQUEZ and ERIK MORALES. Want that list again? It's MARCO ANTONIO BARRERA, JUAN MANUEL MARQUEZ and ERIK MORALES.

Can I ask you, which elite level fighters has Naseem Hamed beaten??? Didn't think so.

You are making the mistake of trying to force a black-and-white rule onto boxing when such rules don't apply.

You say Erik Morales was 'shot' when he fought Pac. I say shot Erik Morales would have annihilated the Vasquez, the Boom Boom, the Medina that fought Hamed. In fact, shot Morales would've beaten them on the best night of their careers. Completely different level of fighter there.

But this does not mean that the Peden or McKinney who Barrera fought weren't better opponents than those three as well because they are smaller names whilst Morales is bigger. There is no black-and-white rule about whether it is better to beat a faded legend or a peak fighter who is merely very good. Each case has to be taken on its own merits. Robbie Peden was coming off 2 stoppage wins over Nate Campbell - he was an excellent opponent. Kennedy McKinney - have you seen him fight? Very good fighter, stopped Junior Jones not long after the MAB fight. Whether those two are bigger names than Medina or Johnson or Vasquez doesn't matter, they were tougher opponents and that's what matters.

I don't see how this is so difficult for you to understand or accept.

FYI, it is possible to be objective and critical you know. Being negative about someone's abilities or resume does not imply hate or bias, it's simply an opinion.

 

thats nonsense i'm afraid. hamed was the favorite going into the fight.

 

He wasn't fading when Barrera fought him, the fight happened only a few months after Naseem KO'd Sanchez in brutal impressive fashion.