Naseem hammed should have been great

ridiculously overated and lost to the first decent fighter he fought.

 

Ok, he shoulda been better than Armstrong, Pep, Saldivar, Arguello and Sanchez. Is that better for you???

Go and watch these guys fight, grow some pubes, and then come back to me and make the same claim

I watched every single fight of Hameds when they happened unlike you. If you dont like people disagreeing with you then your in the wrong place:good

 

Pep was ridiculously overated and lost to the first decent fighter he fought. If you dont like people disagreeing with you then your in the wrong place:good

Arguello was ridiculously overated and lost to the first decent fighter he fought. If you dont like people disagreeing with you then your in the wrong place:good

Tyson was ridiculously overated and lost to the first decent fighter he fought. If you dont like people disagreeing with you then your in the wrong place:good

I could go on talking bollox like John, I don't believe any of that and I'm not saying I rate Hamed above those men but if you say that about Hamed you can stretch it to the above boxers too

 

How am i talking bollox? Because i dont rate Hamed? Sorry mate but i dont. I just threw those names out in my post cos the other guy was quick to dismiss my previous post cos it disagreed with what he was saying. Whats the point of making a thread if you dont accept some disagreeing?

I also believe these guys were streets ahead of hamed

 

I'm sorry but FW division is one of the historically deepest divisions with many ATGs and Naz never had what it takes to be better than fighters like Sanchez and the Wisp

 

Are you serious?

You think Hamed alternated between a sharp heavy jab, and a purposefully lazy jab to draw a counter?

Did he walk on water to get to the ring as well?



Guy's jab was poor. Even if you adore him, at least stick to his actual strengths and don't make **** up.

 

A very polarising fighter. Love or hate with not much in between. His personality was mostly to do with it, similar to Anthony Mundine. The difference between is that Mundine apparently puts on the act for the cameras and when they're not around he's a down to earth decent guy. Hamed seemed to be a full on wanker all of the time :good

But Hamed basically unified the feathers did he not? That in itself must say something at least, about the guy as a fighter

 

i would also say he was one of the truest switch hitters that i have watched, a skill that few can learn.

 

Dont dislike him but like you won some money on Barrera.Knew it was in the bag when he didnt jump the top rope after moaning about the gloves,he was up against a Mexican who wouldnt be intimidated who IS an all time great.I think he pulled out of a couple of fights with Marquez also,for whatever reason.Despite this,a great talent who gave a lot of British fans a lot of great fights

 

No he shouldn't. He tried to turn the most shallow dimension of boxing (as entertainment) into it's only dimension. It's beautifully fitting that a fighter previously known as a brawler pulled a solid, professional, tactical performance to dominate the fight. If we were talking about someone like Jack Blackburn, for example, who had a spotty record cause he was forced to fight people two or three divisions above him to make a living, than I'd say yes. Just put it in perspective, man. If you could choose between the gifted moron who was too busy showboating and humiliating another athlete to hone his craft, and an poor clumsy SOB who couldn't box for **** but was ready to put his clumsy ass on the line and to work like a MF (like Fullmer or Marciano or whatever), who would you choose to be 'great'? So, no he shouldn't have. He could have. Just like Fullmer's clumsy ass (not that he was 'great', but you know what I mean).

 

For me the things that made him great to watch were the things that would of been his downfall against a lot of great fighters like the morales, barrera, pacs and mayweatheers that were around duing his time

he did have great power and could pull a great punch out from awkward angles. he would deffo be a danger to anyone in history

 

:goodI love this post:good.OTIMO!!But I'd like to add even though he had some impressive gifts,he had a very poor boxing IQ and depended on psyching out his less than spectacular list of opponents into fighting his fight.I simply believe his lack of boxing poise and intelligence prevented him from being great.Once he got out of his comfort zone,he was exposed.