I dislike both of them ,but in particular Hamed who is a piece of **** as a human being imo.I really enjoyed Barrera giving him a hiding he is an arrogant classeless little turd. Eubanks is a preening faker but I believe he has some good instincts.Naz is a ****.
I agree Mac. I don’t mind Eubanks preening at least he seems to be a little bit tongue in cheek and possesses a bit of class. Hamed on the other hand I couldn’t agree more.
Eubanks despite his persona was admirable as a fighter and gutted out and prevailed in some tough,tough fights and stuck fat in some losses and tried to remedy them afterwards. Hamed was a punk who bitched out of ever trying to come back from his hilarious arse kicking by Barrera and then took the soft option of retiring before a Morales or Pacquiao could have really shown him up for the big mouthed hype job he was.
I pretty much agree. Eubank didn’t mind wearing the black hat and playing the villain, which while he also had his fans he probably had as many people who would pay to see him get beat. Unlike Naz, I don’t think Eubank believed his own bullspit. He knew he was playing to the crowd and while he was definitely a confident fighter (all successful boxers are) he was turning up his ego to 11, so to speak, to play to the crowd. But the real thing that I agree with, and always noted, was that Eubank was willing to put himself out there and if he had to catch a whupping he took it like a man. I kind of feel the same way about Hector Camacho and Adrien Broner — as flashy as they are/were, as big as their act was, when they stepped/step into the ring if the other guy is better and they have to take a beat-down they’ve taken it pretty much without excuse or complaint.