Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by OP_TheJawBreaker, Jan 5, 2022.
Vaquez was 37-38 when Hamed beat him.
He couldn't have been past his prime. Poorly prepared maybe? Even that I doubt. I think he stepped up and met his match against a guy who was perfectly prepared with a great game plan.
Hamed would do well in any era because he was such an enormous puncher. For sheer punching power, at featherweight, he was the hardest hitter for one-punch power I've ever seen at that weight. Also, his unorthodox style and the funny angles he punched at makes him more dangerous than most. It's true he had flaws, but I think he more than holds his own against many you mentioned.
Naz would knock Warrington out inside of 4 rounds.
Kevin Kelly would have beaten the crap out of him too.
he wont survive the feather weights toughest era and no way its the 70s and 80s its the 1900s and 1910s .....
Delete your account if every post is just poor grammar and troll opinions.You belong in a deeper circle of hell, no place for you here no you belong on a Reddit or Facebook boxing chat/subreddit.
They were both 27 and Barrera was considered a verteran by comparison having more fights and had been knocked out, Hamed hadn`t taken much punishment up to that point and his hand speed looked the same.
No I don`t think Kelly was that good, he got beat by
This content is protected
This content is protected
I feel a fight v Warrington would have been similar to his fight with Dorsey just a brawl, with the fighter with te highest work-rate winning, Kelly was very sloppy and wild, he got hit far too much.
Hamed would be competitive, but definitely not top tier in that era. The idea of him dominating Salvador Sanchez in a fight is pretty laughable.
Kelly was way too fast for Warrington and not even close to the work rate of a Troy Dorsey not to mention he didn't have Dorseys chin as well.
Kelly beat alot of world class fighters alot more then Warrington ever will or has.
Kelly wasn`t that quick, his defensive reflxes were pretty stiff, his feet were pretty static.
How on earth did he manage to win any fights with all those flaws?
Not too many eras he’d be the top man. The era of Saldivar, Winstone, Famechon, Legra I think he’s not as good as any of them. Judging by their championship form, I like them all over him. Same for the 70s like Jofre, Legra, Arguello, Olivares, Chacon, López. Art Hafey with his iron chin and chilling power wouldn’t be written off vs. Hamed, then in the 80s the guys like LaPorte, Castillo, Lockridge, McGuigan I’d say even money, maybe he wins a couple loses a couple. Pedroza, Gomez, Sanchez would hammer him.
Hamed had talent. Excellent speed and raw power but he was sloppy with plenty of weaknesses and since it was a weak era he did well in and then lost to the only truly elite guy remotely near his prime and dipped its hard to give him the edge in dangerous waters.
That is hilarious. Kelly was 41-0. And he was very fast when he was young.
Warrington isn't close to being in his class.
Kelly hits harder and is faster what exactly is Warrington going to do? He isn't out boxing him.
How does anyone win a world title what are you talking about? He had good reach, power and hand speed.