Revisiting Kevin Kelly v Naseem Hamed

I don't think I ever said he was 'badly hurt' - but I think he was hurt. Even Kelly's jab looking to be jolting Hamed for me. Perhaps some of this was that Naz really wasn't used to getting tagged repeatedly - but I have to give it to Hamed, he kept going through it and he bounced back up the only time he was properly put down (the other two 'knock downs' being issues with his balance and gloves touching down when he was carrying his hands low).

Also, Hamed's awkward sense of balance - as others have said - made some shots look like something. I definitely acknowledge that as a good call.

Maybe it was just the sense of alarm that I picked up on - Naz was not used to being hit and Kelly was getting through with alarming frequency (possibly as a consequence of his considerable reach advantage)?

I'm not trying to put across that Hamed was shaken to his boots or anything - but on one level or another, he was (at least) alarmed.

 

He may well have been - but the issue in the post fight run down was that Hamed told Kelly he (Kelly) was the best he'd ever boxed, and then told Kevin Kelly that he (Hamed) was the best Kelly had ever boxed. Kelly didn't acknowledge this - he just asked to 'do it again'. Hamed later claimed that Kelly had told him that he was the best that Kelly had fought - but this doesn't seem to be supported by the audio from the verbal exchange that took place on camera.

Naz might be right - but I'm not sure Kelly thought so at that time, or at least, he was in no mood to admit it! from the post fight interview Kelly blamed himself for the defeat, rather than attributing to Naz (who he actually described as being neither as good nor as powerful as people thought he was). Maybe sour grapes from Kevin Kelly.

 

On what level did Hamed 'destroy' Kelly?

Did he knock him unconscious? Nope. Did he end his career? Nope. Kelly only just missed the count. By any reasonable regard Kelly was ahead on the cards, he'd had Hamed in trouble with decent shots, he'd put Hamed under pressure he'd never received previously. Ever commentator described it as a turnaround. There's no way I'd use the term 'destroyed' for the win that Hamed took from Kelly - and I'd be surprised if Hamed would either.

With absolutely nothing to gain from fighting Kelly again, and every reason to believe that Kelly could cause him the problems he did in their fight - I can see why Hamed wouldn't want to rematch Kelly. That's all I'm saying.

Mind you - if all the 'Hamed wasn't properly prepared' naysayers were right - Hamed wasn't bright enough to reflect on the problem because apparently it was the same story against Barrera and anyone else who caused him the most remote degree of trouble.

As for ten out of ten matches would go to Hamed against Kelly - I'm not convinced. It's easy enough to say, but I think the results of a series would mixed. Hamed had pretty much one game plan, and once that got stumped he didn't show anything new. As time went by he was increasingly guilty of loading up for one big shot. I think Kelly would have the measure of that - he had much better fundamentals, even if he didn't have more out and out power.

 

I don't think you're wrong about the Alicea fight, because the actual shot that put Naz down wasn't much, but the shot immediately before affected his legs. This being said, the way Naseem put Alicea away in the second round was awesome. The combination for the knock out was explosive.