Now I don't mean to say that they are the same, but Max Kellermen made the comparison during Gamboa's fight, and when I think about it (not to give Max any credit because I really don't like him), it's a great comparison. They have physical and athletic abilities that are unmatched (by anyone other than Roy Jones IMO). Yet they both have something missing in terms of technique. I think Gamboa is a bit smarter of a fighter than Hamed was though. So I think he probably will do better once he starts fighting the elite. I don't know though, what do you guys think?
I hated Hamed..... but this comparison is a pure insult. Naz would have sent Gamboa straight to the morgue.
No there can be comparisons made. Both have a lot of hype behind them yet have to face a real top notch fighter. Naz had way more charisma though and a ****ing top notch chin also. Gamboa is faster and still has potential to do more than Naz. Naz's style was just too ineffective to work against the cream of the crop. But to be fair, he fought during a golden age in that weight. Gamboa will never have the impact on the sport that Naz did though. That goes without saying.
There is no comparison, Hammed was a hard hitter with lots of flaws, Gamboa chooses sometimes to b reckless, and that is what Kellerman wants, then you have Floyd he never takes chances and Kellereman is talking like he is God. I don't beleive any $hit he says.
You have to b kidding, don't you? The first time he faced a live body he loss and badly too, then he disapear, he didn't have what it took to b an elite fighter, he was a bully and when he was exposed, that is all she wrote.
At any rate, I feel this was a terrible ****ing comparison, as others have said. Hamed was pure unorthodoxy and one-punch knockout power. Gamboa has a much more refined pedigree and defense, but often gets careless.