Naseem hammed should have been great

History's full of guys like him. Flashy athletic gifts, lots of hype, they don't pan out like folks expect them to, etc.......it boils down to what was ultimately important to him, and that turned out to be the attention he got from his efforts rather than giving himself over to the game entirely, as we imagine the true greats prefer.

Had he continued in any real way after that loss, he could have turned into another Olivares, who had his moments in the sun following a hard loss or two, ultimately bolstering his standing partly due to longevity and partly to the odd decent scalp he claimed here and there. He decided that the gig was up, however, and that there was no way he could continue after such an embarrassment. He'd built himself up to such a degree that he believed his own press, or took to heart his own puffery.

I give him credit for cutting bait when he did, in an odd sort of way. He'd finally learned humility.

 

as above. also he(seems to have) believed that the loss was punishment from god, this has gotta have messed with his head

 

That's about the size of it.:good I won some £ when Barrera beat him, and really enjoyed that fight ,I dislike Mr Hamed.

 

Take a trawl back throught the Ring ratings of the time ,you will see a couple of names that are conspicuous by there absence on his resume.









Oh,almost forgot






Buddy.

 

Agree, could see the ass whooping from Barrera coming a mile off.

 

Yeah I won a nice few quid on that too.

 

:-( Heavy-handed and a good chin. No fundamentals, average IQ at best. Like others have said, the history of boxing is littered with clowns like him

 

SUM < PARTS :good

 

Hamed's speed, movement, combinations, feinting and defence all deteriated '95 onwards, when at least he should have improved on his defence. He usually won very, very easily, fell in love with his power and just looked for the perfect punch. Like Brother Naz says 'you're looking for that perfect punch, there isn't one'

I think you just confirmed that you haven't watched any of his fights

Bomber Graham would have been a better fit

No, he teaches basics well but he's no genius

 

Only about 50% of his challengers were rated by the Ring when he defended against them.
The best fighter he fought absolutely schooled him. He is an objectionable little twat.

 

He won all the belts, fought most of the top10 and a total of 10 champions

'best fighter he fought absolutely schooled him' - can be said about Dempsey, Toney, Hopkins, Foreman, Liston

I gather you don't like him, let's not go Mendoza here though, aye?