Erik Morales vs. Naseem Hamed

there was basicly two hameds. the one who he was for a short time who knocked out all the belt holders and the one who believed he couldnt be beat, forgot how to box and started clowning between throwing haymakers. he became a gimick and never reverted to the first hamed even though it would have took but a change of atitude. There is no proof there was ever an answer to the first hamed who did clean up the division.

 

33 year old featherweight Johnson.

 

No Marquez,no Terrible and FINALLY MAB.Truth be told,he "cleaned up" the division against guys like Augie Sanchez-who had been stretchered out of the ring 3 times after ko losses-the second time against hamed,past it and 2 year previous ko victim Kelly and 33 year old Johnson.Ho-hum.

 

Simply due to the McKinney fights,that doesn't mean Bungu was better than MAB at 122,rated or not.Personally,I believe MAB was much better.

 

Bungu was finished when he fought Hamed anyway.He'd looked terrible in his last few title defences.

 

Uh....NO.And funny how you only mentioned Armstrong of the ones I mentioned.

 

Agree. Who do you think Hameds best win was?

 

I dont think anybodiees denying that but its a fantasy match, just because one fighter proved himself more doesnt mean he'd neccessarily win.

And after that intro I pick Morales UD.

Hamed had the hugest power and he'd catch and hurt Morales, probably put him down, I just dont think he'd finish him. Morales is going to be landing consistently with hard right hands that knock the princes head back throughout the fight maybe catching him off balance and flooring him once or twice and I feel would probably win most rounds.

 

Morales would have destroyed him ... no contest.

 

that would be true if Hamed had beaten a Marquez or Barrera, but he did'nt so how can we pick Hamed to beat a Morales when he never beat anyone of that calibre, and when he faced Barrera he got humilated.

thats what my point was

 

No, what I'm saying is theres more ways to judge a potential match up than 'who has the best win' otherwise betting on boxing would be a piece of **** - just bet on the guy who has the best win everytime.

For example, Ali VS Frazier. Ali had the best wins, Frazier had never beaten a fighter of that quality. Frazier won.

 

Yeah but Frazier wasnt getting knocked down and showing real glaring flaws in his previous bouts. Hamed was knocking guys out spectacularly, and a lot of times it overshadowed what he had to go through to get there, but Hamed was showing very bad technique in a lot of fights, and in my mind I always felt he was going to get his butt handed to him once he moved up against the stronger fighters.

 

It wasnt a literal comparison, far from it.

I was just saying that you cant just say as a rule 'most proven fighter will definitely win the fight'. Although being more proven obviously helps and should not be dismissed

Hell, I pick Morales anyway so I cant be arsed to argue the point too much, I just dont agree with the perception the more proven fighter will ALWAYS defeat the less proven fighter.

 

Yeah I got your point, just saying people that rate Hamed so highly seem to forget he was getting floored almost on a fight by fight basis and he was making very bad defensive mistakes.

 

no no I don't believe that perception neither, the point I'm trying to make is that, the fact that Hamed never beat a fighter of elite level where as Morales has mulitiple times and the only time Hamed did fight a elite fighter he was outclassed severely, means you have to go with Morales to win and it really should'nt be up for debate because one guy passed the test for greatness as the other failed terribly.