Tell me about naseem hamed

People would just say he was too old, past it, shot and may be half right as well. But losing to a prime, motivated Barrera when past your own best is no disgrace. If Calzaghe was to lose to a 12-loss clubfighter like Johnson, it could be seen by some (those who wanted to see it) as far more damaging to his legacy!

 

'Prince' Naseem Hamed - the man, the myth, the legend!! Naseem was the most colourful British boxer (and to give him credit - probably the world) between 1995 - 2001. He won titles at Super-Bantamweight and Featherweight. He took the WBC, IBF and held the WBO for quite some time. He kayoed the equally brash Kevin Kelly in one of the fights of the decade in Madison Square Garden and established himself as one of the finest British boxers of his generation overcoming Wayne McCullough and Paul Ingle amongst others. His style was incomparable. Agility he had in abundance, he was lightening quick and he was one of the hardest punching featherweights to have graced the sport, as his record of 36-1(31KO) proves. He put bums on seats for years and thrust British boxing and the featherweight division into the spot light. And for all of this he deserves the highest praise.

But for me it was what Naseem didn’t do that leaves me somewhat disillusioned by his apparent success. Everyone knows that he was schooled by Barrera (7th April 2001 - hence the reason for the Naseem commentary in my April email) but that aside there are too many criticisms of Hamed to class him as anything other than a great British boxer rather than a great boxer. He (intentionally or not) avoided fighting the best in the division until his defeat to Barrera. Wins over Kevin Kelly, Tom Johnson and Medina were good and left him ranked as number one in the weight. But he was beaten by the only genuine world class fighter he stepped in the ring with. At the time the featherweight division was littered with prospects and champions such as; Morales, In-Jin Chi, Johnny Tapia, Paulie Ayala, and to a lesser extent Eduardo Alvarez (probably not as highly rated by most) and Arturo Gatti (who had probably just begun to climb the weights by 2000/2001). Yes he fought and beat Vasquez but the guy was 37 at the time!!

Naseem's career was as up and down as his discipline. After 11 fights he mercilessly battered Belcastro for the European Bantamweight crown. A tremendous achievement for a fighter so young and inexperienced. He went on to stop Steve Robinson within 8 rounds for the WBO Featherweight title, making him Britain's youngest ever world champion at 21. After a couple of defences (one of which saw Hamed hit the floor for the first time in his career) Naseem took on Manuel Medina. Although experienced, the ageing Mexican should have been a routine defence for Hamed. However, Naseem's relative inexperience at this level showed. He tried to pick off Medina with single punches. At times he almost jumped into an oncoming jab trying to land a hook of his own. Hamed took some punishment in the fight but was able to retire Medina in his stool at the end of round 10. A chorus of boos greeted the champion from the clearly unimpressed crowd.

Better times were to follow with wins over Johnson for the IBF title and Sotto for the WBC (despite these fights being some more lacklustre performances). After a few more mandatory defences came Kevin Kelly. Naseem beat the Yank within 4 rounds. This was an absolute brawl. Here for me lies one of the fundamental flaws of Naseem Hamed. Revert back to my first paragraph… he was like the proverbial sh*t off a shovel, agile as they come and could throw punches from unbelievable angles while being the hardest hitter around at the time. This all went to pot far too often. Against Kelly he reverted back to the Medina performance. Looking to end the fight with one punch. In the end he did knock his man out, but it was far harder work than it should have been. There was also the disgrace of Nas completely ignoring his long term trainer's (Brendan Ingle) instructions in the corner. All this was the backdrop to the Barrera fight. As unbelievable as it seems now, Naseem was favourite on the night. It was believed that Barrera was too easy to hit and Naseem was stronger than his foe. Some critics even suggested that Naseem only took the fight after Barrera was beaten by Morales the year before. Hamed was schooled. In the same way Gatti would never be the same after he fought Mayweather, Hamed would never be the same after Barrera. He returned for one more fight which he won after his defeat to Barrera but he knew what the rest of the world now knew. Hamed had been found out. For all his natural attributes, he did not have the nouse in the ring or the discipline to make it at the top level. And, for one reason or another, he only got one chance to prove he could have been world class and he was beaten. Turns out, he just wasn’t good enough...

:good

 

Paddy, it's an interesting perspective (though not one that I agree with in substantial parts) but do you HAVE to copy and paste it every time there is a thread on Hamed?

 

Didnt Hamed offer Morales a fight a few times?

Would have been mad that one.

 

The historical accuracy of this undermines your argument. Chi had never fought outside South Korea, for example, Ayala was still fighting at bantamweight in 2001, Gatti was fighting at welterweight (!).

 

[quote="TKO";3323671]Paddy, it's an interesting perspective (though not one that I agree with in substantial parts) but do you HAVE to copy and paste it every time there is a thread on Hamed?[/quote]


Haha.

Apologies.

But that post was a cumulation of all my counter arguments so its quicker for me to copy and paste.

I promise I'll stop now

 

i remember reading a quote from Hatton about Witter - 'if he was fighting in my back garden i'd close the curtains'.

Thats something not many people would say about Hamed.

 

He was a whirlwind who more or less overwhelmed his opponents.