revisionist myths series #2 hamed-kelley

It is indeed, for entertainment value.

Multiple knockdowns both ways, drama. Who doesn't love that?

Maybe Sky Sports shouldn't have swapped "finest" with "most entertaining".

 

Sounds like sky boosting their own channel.

that’s what insults the intelligence of boxing people!

Sky should not be allowed to get away with saying stuff like that. They get away with it because most of their viewers only see boxing through sky channels. Sky sports fans don’t know the difference. If it happened on sky, they should say “widely regarded as a great tv fight shown here on sky Sports” and leave it at that.

 

'Sky Boxing'

'Intelligent, non biased commentary'

Pick one.

 

Sky Sports in over hype shocker.

 

Was a good fight, exciting and made Hameds name even bigger worldwide. One of those lower weight fights of the 90 s that I like to revisit time to time.

 

I thought it was a spectacular fight, a great fight.

This content is protected

Hamed was a very flawed fighter but he was also very exciting.
It seems a lot of people hated him though.

 

Very few British fighters in history have gone over to America (Madison Square Garden, no less) and debuted with such a thrilling victory.

 

This is revisionist nonsense is actually made up by yourself. Kelley and Hamed were the biggest draws in the division because they were both punchers and MAB had just lost to Junior Jones at this time. Hamed was going to fight MAB but MAB lost twice to Junior Jones. Hamed signed to fight Kelley and the Jones who beat MAB. But he was ducking MAB at this time apparently because he'd signed to fight the guy MAB twice lost to. So Hamed signs for Kelley and they put a contract for Hamed to fight Jones after Kelley. To sell the Jones-Hamed fight they put Jones-Mkkinney on the same bill. Big mistake because Mkkinney knocks Jones out and the super fight is dead in the water. Mkkinney then gets stopped by Espinosa

Hamed-Kelley was a very exciting fight and the rankings at feather in '97 were as follows:

Vacant

1. [url]Tom Johnson[/url]
2. [url]Luisito Espinosa[/url]
3. [url]Naseem Hamed[/url]
4. [url]Wilfredo Vazquez[/url]
5. [url]Kevin Kelley[/url]
6. [url]Ever Beleno[/url]
7. [url]Welcome Ncita[/url]
8. [url]Juan Manuel Marquez[/url]
9. [url]Manuel Medina[/url]
10. [url]Derrick Gainer[/url]

Hamed dominates Johnson but Kelley was seen as a bigger fight than Johnson who Hamed dominated because of his impressive comeback wins. Out of that top 5 Hamed beats all the belt holders and only misses Espinosa because he loses to Soto, who Hamed faced instead. Fought Medina with flu.

Hamed also fought 7 year 122lb champ Bungu, who probably has a better resume than MAB or Morales up until they faced each other. He also fights bantam champ McColough, who had gone to a close split decision fighting for the WBC champ. Then he faces MAB and that's the end of his career pretty much

Marquez was actually offered the Hamed fight on short money that still would be career high money. His management turned it down. So you could argue Marquez ducked Hamed but in reality he wanted the mandatory purse and wasn't getting it because Hamed was the draw. If you remember Marquez's manager also turned down the Pacquaio rematch because he wasn't happy with the purse.

And 5'4 Hamed who started at super fly and was a champion at Bantam was supposed to go upto 130 and face Corrales and Mayweather? Is that reasonable?

 

great post

 

The build up and conferences were pure gold also. I was quite young at the time and remember it clearly.

 

An exciting event and a solid win for Hamed, but not one of the finest fights in history.

Hamed was more an entertainer than disciplined pro boxer - but he had the physical capability to deliver the thrills and spills in a boxing ring - against the right level of opposition.

Re Hamed's avoidance of some of the top guys around at the time, I don't much care why there was such a long delay between him becoming a champion and fighting the likes of Marquez, Morales and Barrera - there just was one.

Several years from 1997 passed, until he finally met with a class operator, during which time he faced a string of opposition from the WBO contenders league (and a much-faded Vazquez), with it being a mystery as to why he wouldn't take on his featherweight mandatory, Marquez, for two years.

As it stands, Barrera and Morales were both in the division below and brewing their own spectacular - a genuine boxing match, pitted at the very highest level.

When Hamed finally faced Barrera, the former just looked out of place in the ring, with a truly elite boxer. So, Hamed was an exciting action fighter, while it lasted, but any pretensions he had about 'greatness' were fairly transparent and without substance.

 

The only featherweight he really missed who was perhaps very deserving of being rated higher than the ones he beat was Luisito Espinosa, I think.
And he faced Cesar Soto in 1999 just after Soto had dethroned Espinosa.
I don't really follow the claim that he failed to face top class fighters.
He followed the win over Kelley up with a fight against Wilfredo Vazquez, who was still rated highly.

 

It should be borne in mind that the "myth" about the quality of the Hamed/Kelley bout is largely based on what was an explosive fight, but one which was pretty much an undisciplined slugfest; aspects which are often overlooked, due to the flashy, entertaining style and power of Hamed.

I don't think anyone is saying Hamed failed to face top class fighters, but on a backdrop of Hamed's rather grotesque and often dim-witted self-promotion - mainly, focused on how great he was, both then and historically - there were big fights out there, which either didn't materialize at all, or took their sweet time coming to fruition (and when one did, he got soundly beaten).


That said, I can't see how one can consider Hamed as not having missed Marquez - who was his mandatory for two years, before the Marquez camp finally gave up on the idea - whatever the reasons for the fight not coming off.

Espinosa might be considered another, but he had reached the end of his meaningful career by the time Soto won what some might say was a controversial Decision from him. Soto then failed to register a 'W' in his ledger for 10 fights, on the bounce, after Espinosa.

Vazquez, despite his great win against Rojas, two years earlier, was fast approaching his 38th birthday and beating very ordinary opposition, on his way to an inevitable loss to Hamed. I think it highly likely that Marquez would have beaten Vazquez, by that stage (and that both Barrera and Morales could have gone up a division to do the same, if so inclined, at that point).

One need only look at what was possible and what eventually happened. Look at how Morales, Barrera and Marquez are rated now, historically, compared with what people think of Hamed.

Hamed is the poster boy for 'Wannabe Greats', whereas Morales, Barrera and Marquez are actual Greats.