Naseem Hamed v Ricky Hatton

Naz talked about titles all the way up to light middle!

 

When did he look awful and come down a weight? Barrera was the one stepping up to feather from super bantam and most had him winning the first Morales fight anyway, he looked the more dangerous opponent to me.

 

:happy:happy:happy

 

Naz was a natural super-bantamweight, and a small featherweight. Hatton has fought at welterweight.

P4P Naz is the MUCH bigger puncher and H2H he is the better fighter.

But in reality, Hatton is too big and would probablly KO Naz late, or win on points.

 

I agree, I am surprised this won the best match up award, the weight difference is too big. Great fantasy though.

 

You think Naz was in his prime in 2001? :huh I would say that was at least 4, maybe 5 or 6 years PAST his prime. I wouldn't say featherweight was his prime weight either, he was a natural super-bantamweight IMO, he had to fill his pants with weights just to make 114 in his early pro days. I also don't believe that losing a points decsion to a prime version of an ATG in MAB proves anything. Nothing at all, it was one loss, to a quality fighter, nothing more-nothing less. It's a bizzare thing for you to suggest that losing to MAB makes Naz "European class".

When Lennox Lewis got brutally KO'd by Rahmam, did then send Lennox tumbling down to "domestic class"? :-( Obviously NOT. So why would losing 7-4 to MAB make Naz Euro class? Thats a shocking and ridiculous double standared. One last thing, while given the rather insourmountable size difference, I would certainly pick Hatton to beat Naz, however, if a feather fisted puncher like FLOYD can brutually KO Hatton, it don't understand why you're naive enough to totally rule out and discredit the idea that P4P one of the greatest one-shot power punchers in the history of boxing, Naz, couldn't land something on Hatton that sends him to sleep.

 

This is a bit unfair I think. The vast majority of observers felt Barrera won that fight and it was Morales, rather than him, who was hurt several times and looked exhausted at the end. If he had gone for Morales, he would have got stick for avoiding the "real" winner of that fight. Hamed couldn't win on this one.

 

Hardly, I'm just pointing out that whichever guy he had chosen to face, the haters would have been out in their droves. Comments such as "he thought Marco had one last hurrah" are just silly when the two guys were the same age and Hamed had probably fought the tougher opposition to that date, Morales excepted. How on earth can you claim to somehow know what a fighter was thinking?

 

Unsurprisingly, I'm with Terry on this one.

But to get back to the thread question...

Naz is far too small for Hatton. Head to head Hatton wins every time. Pound for pound power lies firmly with Naz. But Hatton's pressure fighting would be too much for Naz. He could work angles well but his balance was never great, he'd be picking himself off the canvas a number of times before losing a points decision.

Hatton has faced harder punchers (in real terms, not P4P) than Naz in Kostya. Hatton had a flash KD against Magee but other than that the only times he's looked hurt are when he's been careless (PBF and Lazcano). If we're talking prime for prime then Ricky doesnt make those mistakes against Naz. Naz will land but not nearly as much as he gets bullied.

 

I agree, in terms of natural ability Naz had it all. But he lacked the mental discipline to;

a) make him great; and
b) fight the required fight rather than his fight all the time.

He should have boxed the head off Kevin Kelly and never looked in trouble, instead he looked for one shot and got handed his ass in the process. Fundamental flaw when looking to rank a boxer as elite. Surely?

 

Probably the only thing we differ on then.

I dont like Naz.

Great to watch. But only because I was hoping he'd be kayoed every time

 

He did keep me watching! And kept the general British publics interest in boxing alive. I do think the sport owes him a lot in terms of profile. But I think he's massively overrated in terms of ability.

 

People use other boxers and scenarios to make points. It's like highlighting Ali's resume to show how weak Vitali Klitschko's resume is, there are a million other examples. Obviously this practise - which is used in life, in sport, and in anything else which you care to mention, is just too sensible and logical for you to comprehend.

... I reiterate that losing on points to MAB does not make Naz "Euro level", no more than being KO'd by Rahman makes Lennox "domestic level", that is the logic with which you invest your argument - the subtext of which is: "one loss proves everything bad I have to say about Naz, no matter how illogical, unsubstantiated or biased my opinion is".

When you consider a fighters "prime" it should be a given that we are talking about all the facets that make up a boxers ability to fight effectively and perform at an optimum level.

Hamed's focus and motivation were in decline from Kelley onwards, and it was certainly evident prior to the Wilfredo Vasquez debacle. I'm perfectly happy to commit to the position that Hamed's best years were 95/96/97 as that was when his body and mind were in sync and therefore when Naz was at his absolute prime. You seem to think 2001 was Hamed's prime, that is a very abstract opinion, for which I see absolutely no evidence.

I would also say, as I have already said, that Naz was a natural super-bantam weight, and a naturally small featherweight. I did not say, "Naz was in his prime when he was a super-bantamweight". A subtle, but significant difference, that seems to be lost on you.

It's always the last resort of a desperate, poorly informed poster to start imagining what other people have said, in some regards you seem to be having an imaginary conversation with yourself; I categorically DID NOT say Naz would be a "strong LWW", or that he "would KO Hatton" thats a complete fantasy on your part, and shows how desperate and worthless your opinion really is, perhaps you have the reading age of a 7 year old, or perhaps you're just an insecure little punk who doesn't know when to quit.

What I DID SAY, was that if Hatton could get KO'd by someone as feather-fisted as Floyd, then its is not beyond the realms of comprehension that a massive, one-punch, KO artist like Naz could land something that sent Ricky to sleep - Likely? no. Possible? absolutely. Hatton is not some iron-chinned demigod, and Naz wasn't exactly lacking in the power depertment.

 

We agree on this. I have seen plenty of Barrera's fights up to that point and I am aware that he had some toughies (mainly Morales and McKinney), however, this was mainly due to his own early give-and-take style. Once he refined his technique he became the better for it. I don't think they were any different in craft and technique when they were SBW, Hamed was more unorthodox, but MAB a bit too aggressive and reckless. The difference was, MAB worked at it while Hamed let it go to sh1t for the sake of gunning for KOs in every match. I'm no real fan of his these days, but he sure could have done more than he eventually did.

 

Like you say, possible maybe, likely, no. This whole discussion is pure conjecture as we will never know how Hamed would have done above featherweight. But bearing in mind that it took a lot of clean shots in the last three rounds and Hatton to get tired before PBF was able to score the KO, I sure don't think Hamed would have one-shotted him. I just see Hatton running him out of the ring. I think Naz would have been fat at 140 anyway, he started as a flyweight and had done most of his moving up by the time he hit world class.

Plus, Mayweather hit pretty sharply at 130, part of the reason he had not scored many KOs at welter was he was taking on much bigger guys (Baldomir, DLH for example). He would never have got the time to get his shots off against Hatton.

Just my opinion though :good