Naseem Hamed V Manny Pacquiao

Naz was one of the hardest p4p punchers of his day, but I think to say one of the hardest in all of boxing history is a bit rich. His KO percentage is 86, but this is in only 36 wins and none of these wins were against p4p ranked or HOF opposition. I don't think he can be said to be one of the hardest hitters in history.

I don't see the stylistic problem for Pac. The Pac of the 2nd JMM fight would be far too good for any version of Hamed, he is too sharp to get caught cleanly by someone with as poor technique as Hamed, and too incisive and vicious with his own punching to see the contest go on too long. Pac has matured into an excellent all-round fighter, Hamed would not get to him.

 

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Agreed. 1 last question though: I think the Pac of the 2nd JMM fight would beat Hamed. In which fight did Hamed show you the attributes you think mean he would beat Pac?

 

Hamed could throw to the body when he wanted, he just became increasingly obsessed with his own power as his career progressed and head hunted more and more. Also, Pac has been KTFO by a head shot early in his career, I'm fairly sure the footage is on YouTube.

I'd have to favour Hamed in this one. Guys that come straight forward, throwing punches, with little regard for defence got absolutely decapitated by prime Hamed; MAB completely changed his gameplan and boxed more cautiously than ever before for precisely this reason, and even then it was an 8-4 UD rather than the schooling that some would have you believe.

Pac would find Hamed harder to hit than pretty much anybody he's ever fought and would have to be extremely careful not to get nailed. At 122 or 126, I don't think Pac's careful enough not to jump into a monster shot; Pac was still lunging in and leaving himself open as recently as JMM 2.

 

Where do all these Hamed nutthuggers come from!? This guy made a name on clowning lesser named opponents. As someone here already mentioned; Kevin Kelly would have beaten him if he would have boxed instead of brawling. Even then if I remember correctly Kelley knocked Hamed down twice (please correct me if I'm wrong).

The one time Nas stepped up to fight a great fighter he lost and in my mind he lost bad. He was horribly sloppy and off balance most of the MAB fight. Pacman on the other hand, has fought and beaten ATGs and is still boxing. He didn't quit after his first sign of adversity like Hamed after his first loss.

Stop letting nationality or fanboyism bs cloud your judgement. Pac would have been too talented and too experienced for Hamed. End of story.

 

Guys that come straight forward, throwing punches, with little regard for defence got absolutely decapitated by prime Hamed

It's a good job that Pacquiao is absolutely nothing like this then.



Pac would find Hamed harder to hit than pretty much anybody he's ever fought

He would find Hamed very easy to hit, as would any top class fighter.




Do you actually like boxing???

 

Tom Johnson was his best performance.
The Bungu fight was a good demonstration of his power as well.
Two very good but completely unheralded fighters.

Once again I think Pac is the better fighter with a superior resume. Just think its a nasty clash for him.

 

So thats what we are if we disagree with you? Whats the purpose of a thread like this if we all have to come to the same conclusion?
The whole purpose of esb is to debate, not boringly agree with each other.

 

No, it is not. He is getting hit flush less and less with every passing fight, if you actually watch his fights. His style is changing and becoming more refined with every fight. Against JMM, he was up against a superbly skilled fighter fighting at the peak of his powers, and yet never looked in serious trouble once. Think of Hamed fighting that JMM- target practice.

 

Fair enough then, but I think thinking of the performances against guys like Johnson and Bungu as evidence of how Hamed could beat a peak Manny Pacquiao is highly illogical. It's like saying you think Antonio Margarito could beat Thomas Hearns because he looked brilliant beating Kermit Cintron and Golden Johnson.

 

Pacquiao by decision is my prediction.

 

Given that this fight would be taking place at 122 or 126, I don't think that's too unfair a description. Pac's not a defensive master nor the most elusive fighter, especially at those weights; he came straight forward, throwing a hell of a lot of punches and because of his speed and power could walk over most guys. My point was that Hamed would be able to throw back with plenty of menace of his own.

If Pac at 122 and 126 wasn't a guy who came straight at you with all out offence, what was he? There's a good reason why people called him one dimensional for a long time, and it's only recently that he's addressed this.

As for the second point, Hamed had great reflexes. Yes, he got hit because he held his gloves down, but if you think that he'd present the static target that Diaz did, then you're wrong, quite frankly. When he got hit, he got hit flush because he had no gloves up to deflect or absorb the blows, but actually hitting him flush on a regular basis isn't the easiest of tasks.

And yes, I do like boxing, you condescending *****. :good

 

I am talking about his defence. His defence has improved dramatically in the last couple of years. If Marquez couldn't break him down in 24 rounds, Naseem 'Telegraph' Hamed certainly couldn't.

 

These were very good but certainly not great fighters. Naz made them look like bums. This suggested at the time he'd be able fight an elite level opponent on something like level terms. However he stopped listening to Ingle and fell in love with his own power, thus declining heavily over the rest of his career. This thread is too imagine them at their best, not the twat who got outboxed by Mab.
Hearns/Margarito is not a good example as Hearns was considerably more talented p4p than the likes of Naz and Pac. Boxing sadly has declined in quality over the last few years imo.

 

pac ko 6