Tell me about naseem hamed

Naz could never ever have become the best fighter Britain has produced. Not in a million lightyears.

Far too flawed for that. There were always a few fighters that could have punished him, which is not the case for true greats.

Most flashy and impressive against a certain level of competition, maybe.

 

TFFP, Calzaghe has had the same career but he hasnt looked as 'flashy' and there wasnt a 'Barerra' in his division like there wasnt a 'Mayweather' in Joe's division .. Calzaghe has had a career were he was ultra protected until Lacey, granted the Lacey performance was exceptional but nobody is ever gonna convince me that Joe can punch with any force or that he beat Hopkins .. Watch that fight again, Calzaghe was coming forward and flapping as usual but Hopkins was landing all the important shots .. Naz would always lose against the top level fighters because he didnt have the mental attributes to match his natural boxing attributes but he shouldnt be rated below Calzaghe or Hatton .... The only top line fight that Hatton has had is Mayweather and he got toyed with .. Lets not let the memory forget how good Naz was, he was brilliant but Barerra, Morales, Corrales, Casamayor and Mayweather were just that step above at that point in time .......

 

He has not had the same career. I would argue Hamed never beat anybody as good as Kessler at his prime.

I'm not being drawn on the Hopkins fight. I believe Calzaghe won, I've watched it enough. And Hopkins is the EXACT type of opponent that would have ruthlessly exposed Hamed 100/100 times, nevermind a close fight. Therein lies the difference.

 

How do you know how good Kessler is ?? What has he acheived ? There is nobody of any talent in the division so its easy to look capable .. Hopkins won the Calzaghe fight .. Calzaghe came forward looking aggressive but Hopkins landed the better shots and this is the important point, im a guy that scores it for Sugar Ray Leonard against Hagler in a similar kind of fight .... Calzaghe has beaten an old RJJ, got the decision against Hopkins and WHO ELSE ?? nobody, Lacey has proven to be a 'name' but no talent, Kessler is a guy that nobody really knows how good he is and Manfredo is talentless ...... The Calzaghe career needs to be scrutinised, why did he never go to america like Naz and Hatton .. Why did he keep the WBO belt for so long when after 2 years the WBO belt means nothing .... Joe Calzaghe has lived a charmed, easy life as a fighter, but fair doos for a guy that cant punch properly he's gone a long way

 

And i already said that the 'top line' fighters would have beaten Naz, hence the 'Corrales, Barerra, Morales, Casamayor and Mayweather' comment ......... I do not believe Naz was the best ever. The Calzaghe career is not as stellar as people would have you believe. What has Kessler and Lacey acheived ?? I hear the Kessler argument all the time. Kessler might dominate the Super-Middle division but it'll be a Super-middle division without a Roy Jones Jr, so how good is that ?? If a fighter dominates a division without any talent, like Joe dominated the Super - Middle or Hopkins dominated the mid-late Middle division, does that mean he's an amazing talent ?? A fighter's legacy is based on they're opponents and Joe and Naz had nobody to test them in they're prime apart from Barerra against Naz .. Joe is unbeaten but so what, if he'd have had the guts to go to america years ago he could have had the Hopkins/Roy fight but the key issue is, he stayed and fought in Britain because he knew he'd be beaten .... Naz and Hatton would have loved to have fought in Britain 99% of the time but they had far more ambition

 

(1) I agree to an extent with this one; I think that Kessler looks the goods, but so far he hasn't shown me that he A-list material (thinking of competition faced and beaten - some decent names, but nothing that speaks of true quality). I'm on a wait-and-see mission with Mr Kessler at the moment.

(2) I disagree: Hopkins landed the more accurate blows but overall Joe did him on workrate for a close but clear decision.

(3) I would throw in guys like Mitchell, Eubank, Reid, Brewer, Veit etc. before I mentioned Manfredo to back your argument. Joe has a good resume. Also an argument can be made for Joe "ruining" Lacy; he may have been a good boxer but sometimes beatings like the one he took can steal a fighter's career away from under him. Would I be right to say that the Lacy fight is the only fight in Calzaghe's career were he was the betting underdog - TFFP will be able to clarify this for me.

 

yeh it was weird it was for somme inter continetal title or some crap

 

That explains it...unfortunately; that belt is worse than the Southern Area title.

BTW mate I like the signature: "Salvador Sanchez - What If?" Thats a good thread just waiting to be posted right there.

 

Calzaghe was only slight fav against Kessler too.

For all Hatton's ambition, who has he fought in America? Mayweather, thats it. And he was painfully outclassed. He was treading water against Urango and co, and Castillo was about as shot as Roy Jones if not worse.

 

I would agree with that, Hatton is not a great fighter for me but at least he had the 'ambition' to try and make his name in the states .. Calzaghe was 'Champion' for about 7/8 years before he took on Lacey, it was ridiculous, names like Will 'Kid fire' Mcintyre and Tocker Pudwell ..
Opposition in the Super-Middle division is always going to be lighter than the Feathers or the Welters but you have to take the wins and losses in context .. Hatton's only defeat is against Mayweather. Calzaghe has never had a 'Mayweather' in his division, so how does Calzaghe rank above Hatton .. They were both ultra protected but at least Hatton had an 'old' Tzsyu and he went to the states ....

 

What has going to the states got to do with anything? It means absolutely nothing, its a boxing ring. The opponents, or rather the wins, are what matter. Period.

I don't credit Hatton for getting KO'd into a ringpost I'm afraid.

 

And Calzaghe has an "old" Hopkins (and Bernard has proven himself once again after the defeat by upsetting Pavlik, unlike Kostya who retired).

Hatton fought Mayweather and got beat; if Joe had have fought...I don't know...lets say a prime Jones, and also got beat it would add absolutely nothing to his standing; in fact it would detract from it.

I know what you are saying; Calzaghe got into the mix a lot later than he should have, but that shouldn't take away from the fact that he has had a very good career, upped his competition big-time in the last few years and should be rightly ranked above both Hatton and Hamed.

 

A prime american champion will never come to Britain to fight, its as simple as that, so all the Calzaghe chatter that he wanted Hopkins and Jones years ago meant nothing .. Hopkins and Jones would never have come to Britain .. Like it or not, if you want to be a world renowned top fighter you have to fight in the states, thats were the money is, thats were the credibility is .. Rightly or wrongly if you dont have a career in the states there will always be question marks, thats the way it is

 

I would say David Haye is the exception to that argument so far

 

Hamed got beat by a 2001 Barerra
Hatton got beat by a 2007 Mayweather

Who in Calzaghe's division had that talent who wasnt over 35 years old ??

You guys are just reading stats that we all know and i'll repeat that i think Hopkins beat Calzaghe last April, and i am no fan of Hopkins, believe me ..