Greater/Better: Tszyu or Hamed

Kostya won his first title and made a few defenses without really beating anyone who was good. He then got stopped by Phillips who was just supposed to be a typical opponent and never avenged it.

His first pretty good win came a little bit later against Hurtado, and he then went on a streak and beat Miguel Angel Gonzales, Mitchell, Zab, and Urkal (in a rough fight). Zab was supposed to be the next big thing at the time, but, in hindsight, we know he was good not great and no rematch was given in a match that really came down to Kostya landing one shot in a fight he was losing. And then he quit against Hatoon when he really wasn't far removed from his prime.

Hamed logged higher level wins (other than Zab) and put guys' lights out. He was 16-0 in WBO fights and won two other major titles during that run before fighting Barerra. It would've been three the WBA belt wasn't on the line for the Vazquez fight for whatever reason.

 

Tszyu.

I actually think Hamed has become underrated over time, very much so. Same for Tszyu, but probably because he’s a lot more likable hasn’t suffered as much as Hamed who people seem to wipe out his entire career pre-Barrera.

Tszyu just had the better longevity, overall deeper resume and had the better big wins.

 

This is a,hard one because Has had skills that simply cannot be taught and was absolutely amazing in his prime with a blend of speed,angles and powers not seen by really anyone else.
KT however was such an incredible amateur boxer and I think KT fell in love with his power in the pros because as an amateur he was more sound on defense.
And KT has power that is just natural and can't be taught.

 

The amount of bias you manage to cram into one sentence is almost impressive.

 

Do you remember that first round? Do you remember Kellerman saying he was Whitaker with power? All you know is that you dislike Hamed even though he was the guy beating ten defense champions, not Kostya.

 

Sure. But my recall of the second round is clearer.

And?

I know that Hamed left a talent-rich 122 division to pursue a title run with the WBO - The WBO wasn't taken seriously but enjoyed a shallow Featherweight era.

I know that Hamed's best wins were against aging, on the slide fighters.

I know that Hamed ducked Marquez for years and failed to secure a fight with Espinosa.

I know that, when he finally fought a live opponent in Barrera and was outclassed, rather than comeback to compete within an emerging era of top-quality Featherweight talent, Hamed decided instead to retire at 28 years old.

 

Hamed beat these guys:
1. Tom Johnson—Best in the division, ten straight wins in title fights.
2. Vasquez—15-1 in title fights, WBA champ heading into Hamed fight.
3. Bungu—14 straight wins in 122 title fights before fighting Hamed.
4. Kelley—Supposedly old, but had just beaten Jesus Salud and Derrick Gainer after getting a draw with Bones Adams.
5. Medina—Supposedly old but won two titles after fighting Naz and basically had a hof level career.

Throw in titlists Robinson and Soto, Ingle, who won a title right after fighting Hamed, The Pocket Rocket, who lost a title shortly before fighting Hamed, and Augie Sanchez, who beat Mayweather in the ams, and it’s clear as day that Hamed had a better career than the guy who got stopped by a fringe contender in his prime.

As for Marquez, he should’ve beaten Norwood if he wanted a Hamed fight.

 

Sure - Depth of ledger can be reasonably debated, but when Tzsyu's best win is referred to as: "

This content is protected

" that's just pointlessly feeble bias.

It's like saying the victory of a team that was behind at half-time came down to one game-winning touchdown in the second half.

 

It’s literally what happened.

 

Thanks for setting the bar for that era of Featherweights.

Marquez was Hamed's Mandatory challenger both before and after Norwood.

Hamed openly ducked him.

 

So you’re going rate Kostya’s resume above Hamed’s because he didn’t fight a guy with zero good wins at the time who lost to Norwood right when that fight could’ve happened? Tell me you didn’t finish college without telling me you didn’t finish college.

 

"Literally" what happened? That's an astoundingly reductive take on a boxing match.

One might think that strategy, adjustments, and execution play no role in the sport at all.

Tszyu didn't just 'land one shot' - he systematically jabbed over Judah's right, applied relentless pressure, closed the distance, timed Judah's movement, and executed his game plan to perfection. Reducing all of that to 'one punch' completely ignores the layers of skill, preparation, and tactical brilliance that define championship-level boxing.

 

Respond to the post where I showed how much better Hamed’s resume is. Stop fixating on Kostya’s win over a guy who won fewer titles than Medina and made fewer title defenses than several of Hamed’s opponents.

Kostya was an attrition guy anyway. Zab happened to be a “no chin” guy.

 

I already have:

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/greater-better-tszyu-or-hamed.730102/page-4#post-23184573

Tom Johnson sets the bar for you, as far as Hamed is concerned - which is fair enough since he was a good fighter. However, he'd beaten one Top-5 opponent during his IBF tenure and that was at the very beginning, when he won the title from Medina, years before either of them faced Hamed.

Moreover, I don't find the number of belts won/number of defenses in a multi-belt era with fragmented titles and diluted competition to be a particularly reliable metric for measuring quality. It is a useful indicator and clue as to where to look and investigate but, as such, it is a context-agnostic number; not a standard.