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

Hamed was brillaint at what he did and at his absolute best he was a force of nature.

All this stuff about hating him because of his attitude , Hopkins and Tarver ( to name just two) are equally f**kin obnoxius but dont get half the stick naz does whenever he's mentioned ( Not being American and being a muslim might just have something to do with that eh ? ) .

Physically he wasn't that far past his peak when Barrera beat him but watch the documentary shot in the lead up to the fight he is more concerned with his hair than he is with sparring (his family taking over his career was a stupndously bad move).

He was a great fighter when he was focused but his legacy is tarnished by the way he went about the last days of his career.

 

I said he hasn't fought any elite fighters other than MAB - true.

I then wrote a list of the best wins of MAB and Morales which embarrasses Hamed's resume - also true.

It's not rocket science.

 

I don't think Medina is a HOF worthy fighter. His resume isn't strong enough.

Anyway, I#ve jumped into this thread way too late to get involved in any of the current debates. I will say that people underrate Hamed's resume, but at the same time, others overrate his abilities. I think he goes 0-4 against Marquez, Morales, Barrera and Pacquiao. I don't think there are many great fighters in history Hamed could beat either.

 

youre one of the few guys i respect here strike. but i must say barrera was towards the latter stages of his peak, but still peak none the less, the first time he fought pac. only a year removed from the morales re-match. he also disposed of older fighters like tapia and kelly like a elite fighter would a few fights before. i think it's a better case to say that mab did'nt have the best preparation coming into that fight. it still does'nt detract from pacquiaos win, in the same vein that barrera's win over hamed does'nt lose it's sparkle when people mention that hamed was post-ingle/past it/ only looking for one punch.

 

Barrera's last 5 fights before Pac: Hamed, Sanchez, Morales, Tapia, Kelley. Of these 5, Hamed, Morales and Tapia were superb wins over top opposition (Tapia to a slightly lesser extent). Name me a sequence in Barrera's career where he fought better fighters, had a better run of victories, looked better in the ring? There definitely wasn't one. IMO - peak.

Calzaghe's two best performances against his best opponents were v Kessler and Lacy, in 2006-7. IMO - peak.

In Tszyu's last fight before Hatton, he stopped Sharmba Mitchell in 3. Did you think he was well past prime in that fight? It's very easy to say these things in hindsight. He was a huge favourite to beat Hatton, he just met a guy making his career-best performance.

But Joe Cal and Tszyu aside, I have studied Barrera's career and that WAS peak Barrera. Beating a lower standard of fighter easier earlier in his career does not equate to a peak (same as it doesn't for Hamed v Robinson or Calzaghe v most of the tomato-cans he fought 1997-2006).

 

hamed is a bit overrated especially by some brits in this forum. he could beat world champions but not the elite class of barrera, morales, pacquiao and marquez. all i give him is a punchers chance against these 4 great fetherweights of this era.

 

I think Tsyzu was in fine shape, but most people don't put him as peak.

But we will have to agree to disagree. That said I give Pac plenty of credit for his win over MAB and by no means think MAB was past it.

 

That's fair enough. Although I still say he was not peak.

 

Fair enough, but I don't understand your reasoning that Barrera wasn't peak. He was on the run of the best victories of his life, and stopped Paulie Ayala then outpointed Erik Morales in his next two fights after Pac!! I fail to see how this isn't iron-clad proof.

 

Good post.

 

Well for one I didn't think he necessarily won against Morales, I thought he did win the first one in 2000 though. He had had so many fights by the time he first fought Pacman that from watching him he looked a less sharp and fresh fighter.

To me he was peak 1998-2001. 2002 being his last year at his best, but to be honest not tested by anyone capable of testing him. Tapia was ****ed by the time he fought MAB and frankly too small as well.

I don't want to go overboard, at the end of the day MAB was far from past it, but no I don't think by the end of 2003 he was in his best shape as a fighter. He turned pro when he was a kid, and by 2002 was down to fighting twice a year, which is pretty much the norm for fighters winding down.

That said Pac was outstanding in the fight and I probably should not have brought him into the discussion as it was a tad petty.

 

:huh

 

His best performance of all 3 Morales fights was his display in the last one IMO- after the Pac fight. I think we've done this one to the death though. I don't rate Hamed highly because of his resume and his weaknesses, you do in spite of them, fair enough.

 

Naz is a good fighter. that's it.


Being great means a lot of things, and it's not only about entertaining fights or spectacular off-balanced punch KO's.


It's about beating the best during or near their respective primes, longevity and ability to bounce back from defeats.


Sure, Hamed had a hell of a good run and has beaten several past and would-be champions. I concede that. But question is, which among them were HOF caliber the way the trio of MAB, EM, JMM and Pac were?

And when Hamed lost to MAB, alright, he got a confidence building fight against Manuel Calvo, then what?



Just my opinion, Hamed is not underrated in anyway. He's just where he belongs to be. A level below the true great fighters.

 

hamed was a good fighter, but an awesome showman