how big could Nasim have been

I think he was outclassed technically by a sound boxer more than anything mental, although he lacked discipline if that's what you mean. I think he was technically flawed.

 

Barrera won but it was not the 12 round hammering that some seem to make out it was. If you watch that documentary before the fight it is obvious he wasn't interested. I think Naz at his best could of taken him

 

Well never know Teddy.But Ive got the exact opposite opinion to you.I agree with you he'd been a very entertaining boxer.Wouldnt have missed it for anything.But when faced with a fighter of similar abilities who was probably at his peak,he fell short.I loved Henry Cooper,but he always had an excuse when he lost.They nearly all do,it goes with the territory.As for Mayweather,he will be what Naz said he was going to be.A legend.Multi weight champion,like Brendan Ingle said he would be,but wasn't.He was one of our best,and thats brilliant.

 

He pretty much maximised his potential for me.

Good fighter (great at times) but technically wasn't the soundest. Marquez and Barrera beat him 9/10 times. A couple of years later Pacquiao would have beaten him with ease - his best chance out of those 4 would have probably been Morales (purely from a stylistic point of view) - however I still think Morales was better technically and could bang with it too.

It doesnt matter whether he was mentally weak or whatever, that was Naz, its pointless pondering about how good he could have been if he'd have trained better, been mentally stronger because..... HE DIDNT and HE WASNT. That was what made Naz. His strengths and weaknesses.

Could Froch have been an ATG if he could actually box
Coult Tyson have been the GOAT if he hadnt have had so many screws loose and ****ed half of his adult life up?
Could Hatton have been an ATG if he had the skills to match his desire?
Would Khan be an ATG if he had the boxing brain to match his incredible speed??

 

"Could Froch have been an ATG if he could actually box?"

Very unfair. Yes he's not Willie Pep but he was a World medallist and is technically sound.

 

Yeah wasnt really meant to be a dig at him although technically he is awful.

 

He's not "awful". Again it's overly harsh. We digress.

 

Each to their own I suppose :good

 

Fastboxer

what did you think of Naz's screwshot

 

Agree with this. He was what he was.

He achieved a hell of a lot but he tailed off badly at the stage of his career where he could have gone stratospheric. Just couldn't be arsed / believed his own hype.

But let's not pretend he didn't do much; he did. An absolute bucketful of defences of a world strap. Not many Brits do that.

Could have done a bit more IMO if dedicated properly but that's just the same as having a weak chin. It's part of what defines you as a fighter.

 

Completely agree with you there is a misconception that people remember this fight as a beating. It wasn't, it was pretty cagey to be honest and naz didn't really look like he wanted to be there.

 

:nono

Brendan taught him everything he knew.

 

Actually when I've re-watch it, it was a disappointing fight overall

 

Yeah definitely, Naz wouldn't commit, neither did Barrera too often. The only thing people get excited about was Barrera knocking Naseems head off the ring post.

 

Dont think that was strictly true Fastboxer.But I think he'd have crushed Naz if they'd let him anywhere near.