Who do you rank higher all-time pound-for-pound: NASEEM HAMED or FERNANDO VARGAS?

you've just summed up what i think is your one glaring problem , and many other more educated posters on here. talent and achievement are a better indicater of who is the BETTER FIGHTER than resume and attitude. in my book anyway.
who is the better fighter is the same as who is the more talented fighter surely ?

 

It IS the most important thing in boxing. Knowledgable fans know that. Anyone can look good battering in tomato cans. That's a fact so simple that it boggles the mind you have such continual trouble with it.

 

mate, you've just said yourself that hamed was the more talented fighter. that to me is the most important thing. you go back to looking at fighters frigging resumes ( god i hate that word )

 

But of course you can only show quality by beating quality. A close fought win over a great fighter is worth so much more than a sensational performance against a woefully overmatched opponent.

If you had never seen a boxing match before and didn't know who any boxers were, and I showed you Joe Calzaghe v Bernard Hopkins then I showed you Amir Khan v Graham Earl, of course you would think Amir Khan was a vastly superior fighter to Joe Calzaghe.

Doesn't work, does it?

Vargas grinding out a win over Ike Quartey proves far more to me than Naz annihilating Steve Robinson or Augie Sanchez or Billy Hardy!

 

You misunderstand. I am saying that RESUME is THE mose important thing. Check the post that I was responding to. We are on the same side here (for once! )

 

All you have done is lift one piece out of a post to respond to though, so it doesn't work. My explanation was more expansive:

We didn't see any glaring limitations in Vargas against Trinidad, he fought like he always did but was just in there with a better fighter. Hamed had greater speed and power than Barrera, but his limitation in skill was exposed as it hadn't been before as he hadn't fought any great fighters before. Vargas had - Wright and Quartey. And he had performed well. People thought Hamed was a genius when he was fighting overmatched opponents, but the flaws were always there. A great fighter exposed them. Vargas had fought great opponents before and beaten them, then he was simply beaten by a better man.

Do you see the difference between these two guys, one being beaten by a better man and one genuinely being exposed? I can explain further if you still think I'm being a bit foggy over it.

 

last comment on this. what does it matter if hameds fans hyped him up before the barrera fight ? did vargas not have similar sort of people egging him on ? why should that make the difference between " being bravely beaten " and being " cruelly exposed " ?
anyway, its hard to argue with someone who screams " RESUME " everytime he discusses two fighters . maybe im not knowledgeable like you say just cos i'm able to look past that and simply say who i believe ,in my opinion who is the betetr fighter out of two.
like i said in the first place , there isnt much between them and it was a good question but i reckon hamed based on his talent was the better. but thats just the opinion of a unknowledgeable honest boxing fan. i'll leave it to the more clued up posters to make up their mind.

 

Yet again, I'll try to explain the difference between being beaten and being exposed, but I get the distinct impression I'm flogging a dead horse to people that aren't interested:

We didn't see any glaring limitations in Vargas against Trinidad, he fought like he always did but was just in there with a better fighter. Hamed had greater speed and power than Barrera, but his limitation in skill was exposed as it hadn't been before as he hadn't fought any great fighters before. Vargas had - Wright and Quartey. And he had performed well. People thought Hamed was a genius when he was fighting overmatched opponents, but the flaws were always there. A great fighter exposed them. Vargas had fought great opponents before and beaten them, then he was simply beaten by a better man.

 

I'll take it there's no response to come from you on this then:

You can only show quality by beating quality. A close fought win over a great fighter is worth so much more than a sensational performance against a woefully overmatched opponent.

If you had never seen a boxing match before and didn't know who any boxers were, and I showed you Joe Calzaghe v Bernard Hopkins then I showed you Amir Khan v Graham Earl, of course you would think Amir Khan was a vastly superior fighter to Joe Calzaghe.

Doesn't work, does it?

Vargas grinding out a win over Ike Quartey proves far more to me than Naz annihilating Steve Robinson or Augie Sanchez or Billy Hardy.

 

Fair enough, good post, but I think there is a difference between being beaten and being exposed, not that one is necessarily worse than the other, they are just different.

I am a fan of Miguel Cotto, but I thought he was badly exposed by Antonio Margarito. Before that fight, Cotto was viewed as a pretty complete boxing package, but it was shown in that fight that his defence was amateurish and weak. I am a fan of Ricky Hatton, but I do not think he was exposed by Floyd Mayweather. He fought like he has before, he did what he does best (which worked against a great fighter in Tszyu), but he was simply beaten by a better fighter. No area of his game that had looked good before was found to be exceptionally weak, like Cotto's defence and stamina IMO, it was just that Mayweather was better in every way. And I think Cotto is a better fighter than Hatton all-round, but I use these examples to elucidate what I think "expose" means. You may disagree.

On the actual thread-subject, I am still undecided. I favoured Vargas slightly before I made this, but now I'm not so sure. I think Naz was probably a better featherweight than Feroz was a lightmiddle. It's a tough call. There has been some good analysis from both sides on this thread.