Hameds resume is excellent. He fought a string of fighters who, while they weren't atg's were top, world class guys. People on this site judge him by the tail end of his career, particularly his defeat and conviently ignore what went before. As for saying there's no achievement to suggest that he could beat an atg take a look at some of his fights (Hardy,Robinson,Badillo and Tom Johnson.) The ability shown in the ring against these guys (Who were one level behind Pac, Morales et all) should convince most people that he'd have a chance against the aforementioned quartet. Not trying to have a go at you, as your one of the more objective posters on this site.
And why at the age of 27 and at the peak of his career would he have had one foot in retirement? He lost to MAB because he was the first real test he had at A level, he had no heart to comeback after that fight and knew he could not match it with the elite. A true champion comes back from defeat better than before!
Steward doesnt know ****, he ruined Hamed. He tried to turn Hamed into Lennox Lewis., Hamed dominated the division for 4+ years, won every belt, undisputed champion. JMM has YET to win 1 championship, but he sure is fond of those belts. Ive posted their resumes on here head to head...its not close. JMM got his first GREAT win when he beat Barrera, a very shopworn Barrera at that, but still a top fighter, and a great win nonetheless. Everyone assumes JMM would beat Hamed, like he somehow proved greatness at featherweight. He beat Medina and Gainer, got a fortunate scoring error to draw with pac, lost to John and Norwood. If he was so sure he would beat Naz, he wouldve signed on the dotted line instead of singing for a paper belt that was worthless after Naz beat the recognized WBA champion.
b/c he was an idiot and let his ego get in the way of what couldve been a phenomenal career. His first real test at an A level? atsch The same bull**** argument that people spew like they know a damn thing. Name one fighter...just ONE, just ONE SINGLE FIGHTER who wins every belt, undisputed champion, dominates for 4+ years and doesnt fight at an A level...find one. Just b/c the fighters he beat are no longer dominant doesnt mean they were bums, just that you should do some research first.
Lampley...why do you think he doesnt have more fights against those guys? isnt b/c he was avoiding them, or maybe b/c 1. Pac was 112 2. Morales was 122 3. JMM signed to fight Norwood instead...and lost
Naz balance was so bad, people comment on Pac's balance but Naz is alot worse. I mean good aggresion like when kelley or MAB gave it to him, he was all over the place facing sideways. His style simply didnt work against the elite. No way he would have beaten Morales, Morales had about 5" in height, much bigger reach, at 122 it wont be a war because Morales would land alot more and no way Naz KO's him with 1 shot. At 122, Morales chin was no worse than wayne and if naz couldnt KO Wayne, he wouldnt KO Morales, Morales would destroy him. IMO MAB would have beaten him even in a war, when they traded off MAB always got the better of exchanges. MAB simply had a plan from the start cos Naz had a rep, the plan was working so he stuck to it. He has a good chance against Pac though I would favour Pac cos of his reach, size and speed advantage. JMM would outbox him for 12, even if he didnt KD JMM its likely JMM gets up to clear UD.
Hamed was no true atg because of his lack of heart. He was a bully and when someone stood up to him he shrivelled. However Mab was the first 'great' fighter that Naz fought. Before then he'd fought A level fighters before. (Allthough a lot depends on what your definition of A level is. )
Fair enough, Boro. Civil disagreement is a good thing! Hamed did beat some good guys, but he was unlucky not to have a victory over any of the other four. He's the only one in the group suffering from that, and in his mid-20s going life and death with Kevin Kelly looks bad, as well as the disaster versus Barrera. I do say he has a realistic chance against three of the four -- Marquez would exploit his wildness and unorthodoxy to the fullest -- but would have to favor them all over him. Not knocking Hamed, it's just that these other guys have proven to be both brilliant and durable, something he can't really claim.
I'm more concerned about quality of competition rather than the belts, although certainly Hamed did beat some quality guys. Marquez has fought evenly in two fights against Pacquiao and, in the first fight, used the same counterpunching brilliance he'd utilize against Hamed. The difference there is that he wouldn't be facing Pac's speed, and I don't believe Hamed would be at all comfortable in that fight. He fought competitively against John in Indonesia, and it was a much closer fight than the scores would indicate. If you haven't seen it, I believe Divac has a digital file he might be willing to send you. My primary argument against Hamed in these fights is the mental matchup. Even if I conceded for the sake of argument that he is the physical equal to the quartet, I think he'd be at a significant disadvantage against all of them mentally. Anyone can have a bad style matchup, but the Prince checked out of the Barrera fight emotionally. Can you imagine Morales, MAB, Marquez or Pacquaio doing that in their first true mega-fight?
I agree! Not blaming him so much, it's just unfortunate. While they all proved their mettle against each other, Hamed doesn't have that caliber of opponent on his resume. Well, he does, and it was a schooling against him. Even if we agree that he was mentally past his best, that doesn't give anyone much confidence that he'd steamroll those guys. Having said that, I think we agree he'd have a realistic chance. Maybe the difference is just that I view him as a live, but clear underdog.
