That wasn't prime Hamed. Prime Hamed was actually a counter puncher, he'd stand in front of guys make them miss and counter. The Hamed who lost to Barrera was a pot shotter, leaping in with single shots, though I think Barrera still would of beaten a prime Hamed. Rigo could outbox Hamed and take away his power so I'd favour him to win on points. But I wouldn't rule out Hamed winning, he had scary power for a featherweight.
Yep always true, why was ali the best of his time, holmes of his, lewis of his, mayweather in his division rigo in his wlad klitschko in his, the list goes on, rigo has the type of talent that no one has, I doubt anyone in history would beat him or now,
Roy Jones looked unbeatable but he got KTFO. Wlad was the favourite in all the fights he lost. Lewis got knocked out by Rahman whether he was interested in the fight or not. Sometimes the better boxer doesn't always win. Broner is arguably a better BOXER than Maidana and look what happened to him. If you mean the better guy wins everytime then yes i agree but pure boxers dont always get the W they expect ** I do agree with you about Rigo though. He is super talented and will be incredibly hard to beat. I dont see anyone beating him for a long time, but that doesn't mean an upset cant occur
Wrong! talent is the most imporant when they work hard, if they dont work hard then yes they can loose, but yes broner cud have beaten maidana but didn't train right, he's also not a very skilled boxer if u know boxing, guys ur told are good boxers really arn't always, wasn't roy jones past his prime aswell and tarver has decent skills too, lewis was also the best of his era aswell and beat rahman easily in a rematch barely got hit,
No one beats rigo past or present until he goes over his prime! not Barrera, pacquiao, Morales, Hamed anyone, all get outboxed even mayweather, too much boxing talent
Wrong! Talent isnt the most important at all! Skills are. Some people are born with talent. Skilled people are those who have worked on talent. Hopkins adn Martinez got into boxing late so arguably they aren't talented just skilled. I make my own judgement towards fighters and Broner was looking very very good before he started getting ****y and moved up in weight. And yes, he is a better boxer than maidana because maidana is a brawler/slugger. Whether they didnt train right or not is besides the point. You said "the better boxer always wins". You're wrong. Im sure you will stand by you're factless, unproven opinion but you are wrong. If Roy Jones thought he was past his prime, he shouldn't have got into the ring. Lewis rematch against Rahman is again besides the point. How can the best of his era lose to Rahman if he is the "better boxer" in the first fight? What about Buster Douglas vs Tyson? Lomachenko vs Salido? Mayorga vs Forrest? Turpin vs SRR? Spinks vs Ali? Phillips vs Tszyu?
Skills is talent u moron, no one is born with talent despite the lies your told, u work at it like anything else, some may be faster or stronger but u learn the skills. the better boxer always comes out on top, look at all the dominat champions now and trhoughout history, I never use opinion either I use facts, mishaps can happen this is boxing but theres a reason the world rewards the most skilled in any field in life and when they work hard they will be the best, also was tyson the best boxer? no he was beaten by holyfield and douglas wasn't bad himself but everyone knows tyson had an off night it happens! and with lomachenko he was never the best amateru like I was saying no where near and he rushed his career, ALI, Lewis, Mayweather rigondeaux Holmes etc the list goes on and on, in boxing anything can happen but the boxer will come out on top! this is a fact look trhough the past and now! u must not know **** about boxign!