How good was Naz?

I didn't like him one bit but we have never had a fighter in the UK who was so much better than his opponents and who could treat near world class fighters with such disdain. He may have caught them slightly on the wrong side of the hill in the case of Johnson and Kelley but they were good opponents all the same.

I preferred Barrera but when the prospect of him and Hamed fighting first got touted in 95, 96 I didn't want it to happen as I was sure Hamed would batter him. And that was before Junior Jones did just that. In short, he was really good and could easily have been in the talent stacked 90s P4P top 10 for four or five years. That might have been enough to have made him the UK's best fighter since the war.

 

This all day long. He was essentially the unified champion with politricks getting in the way.

 

Looking forward to watching the sports bio movie on Naz called Giant released Jan 9 . Pierce Brosnan plays Brendan Ingle.

 

He was the undisputed champion in a sense that he had a claim to every alphabet belt there was.

 

Naz was far better than his reputation now suggests , but also far less complete than his hype once claimed.

 

Very exciting, cocky, and could punch like no tomorrow. I think for sheer punching power, he was the hardest hitter at featherweight ever. Whether you loved him or hated him, he made you want to watch. The type of character boxing needs more of...
I don't believe he needed to improve his style. He was what he was. It was that unorthodox style that made him so dangerous. His big punch made opponents afraid to get close to him. Had he tried to fight more "conventional", I don't think he would have been as effective. Yes his style had defects, but it hardly mattered because his punch usually bailed him out...
Barrera schooled him. He stuck to a game plan and carefully outboxed him on the outside, and didn't get into a slugging match.
It's hard to say what would have happened had he continued on. With his punch, I'm sure he would have still won some big fights, and then maybe would have lost some too...

 

I'm a little concerned that his career is defined by a single fight, in which he faced a stylistically difficult opponent, and he himself was probably not at his best. His next fight also showed that he was probably past his prime quite quickly, which, considering his style, isn't surprising. However, he had won over 30 fights before that, and almost half of them were for the belt, and several of his opponents were top-tier. They may not have big names, but they were excellent athletes. He is certainly one of the most original boxers in history. It's difficult to judge him, but it irritates me when someone says Barrera defined him. MAB lost to weaker opponents, twice to J. Jones, who seems weaker than C. Soto or K. Kelley. Style fights, and boxers are people who have weaker days.

 

Very good but not great.

 

Barrera ruined his rep forever. I like Hamed. His combination of speed an power made him maybe the most exciting brit fighter ever but mention him as a great fighter an people will always counter with the Barrera fight. That’s unfair maybe but that’s just how it is whenever people discuss his career