Tell me about naseem hamed

[somalia4life]

I never got into boxing when he was on the scene but can someone tell me how was he like when he was on top of his game not only in the boxing world but outside of it was he a A-list celeb was he always in the spotlight etc.......

[D-MAC]

I never got into boxing when he was on the scene but can someone tell me how was he like when he was on top of his game not only in the boxing world but outside of it was he a A-list celeb was he always in the spotlight etc.......

Here's a short summary.

Boxing:

- fast
- flashy
- great reflexes
- amazing power
- wildly unorthodox boxing style (leaping in with punches, swiveling his body all over the shop)
- taunted the life out of his opponents
- dominated a relatively weak division
- weird and wonderful ring entrances (came to the ring on a flying carpet one time).
- prone to suffering kd's due to balance issues, but he did have a very good chin (Barrera threw - and landed - the kitchen sink on him, but he was never really that close to going over; only when the balance let him down).


Celebrity:

- biggest star in British boxing for quite a while.
- his arrogant cocky personality and exciting style of fighting acted as a magnet to the public
- some loved him, some loved to hate him...all watched his fights though
- I wouldn't say he was A-list celebrity stuff, but you would have found articles on him in the sports pages of major newspapers on a regular basis (more prevalent in the period just before and just after one of his fights)
- back in his prime years he would have been too big a celebrity to get into the "Celebrity" Big Brother house....he'd get in now though.



Hope this was helpful; someone like Goldenhoya would probably be able to tell you a bit more (he's the big Naz fan in this forum).

[BoxingFanNo1]

Here's an even shorter summary.
I paid £20 to see him at the SECC in Glasgow where he was fighting a 17-1-1 challenger called Said Lawal whom no-one had heard of but we'd been lead to believe he was a worthy challanger.

He was defending his Frank ****** belt strap and the fight was hyped to high heaven.
He blasted the guy out in 20 seconds flooring him twice. 10,000 fans start chanting 'What the f*&k was that!!!!'

Sums him up nicely. He was a fraud and he made the public believe he was something special.

My advice to you is watch Naz vs Kevin Kelly, then watch him getting schooled by Barrera, then leave him well alone.

[scurlaruntings]

Yeah thats right he was a fraud? Geez..

[toffeejack]

Here's an even shorter summary.
I paid £20 to see him at the SECC in Glasgow where he was fighting a 17-1-1 challenger called Said Lawal whom no-one had heard of but we'd been lead to believe he was a worthy challanger.

He was defending his Frank ****** belt strap and the fight was hyped to high heaven.
He blasted the guy out in 20 seconds flooring him twice. 10,000 fans start chanting 'What the f*&k was that!!!!'

Sums him up nicely. He was a fraud and he made the public believe he was something special.

My advice to you is watch Naz vs Kevin Kelly, then watch him getting schooled by Barrera, then leave him well alone.

Very harsh and also a completely ridiculous post.

[scurlaruntings]

Very harsh and also a completely ridiculous post.:lol: Its just crap and absolute rubbish.

[BoxingFanNo1]

Very harsh and also a completely ridiculous post.

Yeah thats right he was a fraud? Geez..

Oh really?

His record is a shambles. Who did he fight and beat that had any kind of credibility other than Kelly and Barrera?

I've heard this guy mentioned in the same breath as Hatton and Calzaghe before, I'm being serious.

Ingle,Medina,Alicea,Johnson?

His record is a joke, no credibility what so ever. :verysad

[BoxingFanNo1]

:lol: Its just crap and absolute rubbish.

Stop trolling and prove me wrong.

[GPater11093]

ingle was a good fighter

you missed out steve robinson he was a good fighter

isnt medina a 5 time featherweight champ

[scurlaruntings]

Stop trolling and prove me wrong.Im trolling? Your the noob trying to start a shallow debate about Naz`s legtimacy as one of Britains best talents and your only evidence is some bullshit some drunk scots were shouting at a fight of his you went to, and Kevin Kelley? Seriously dude GTFO of here. If you cant come constructive dont come at all.:roll:

[El Cepillo]

Oh really?

His record is a shambles. Who did he fight and beat that had any kind of credibility other than Kelly and Barrera?

I've heard this guy mentioned in the same breath as Hatton and Calzaghe before, I'm being serious.

Ingle,Medina,Alicea,Johnson?

His record is a joke, no credibility what so ever. :verysad


Who did Naz beat?

Every single World Title holder in the Featherweight divison at the time.

Ingle - world champ (Naz KO)
Soto - world champ (Naz points)
Bungu - world champ (Naz KO)
Kelley - 2 x world champ (Naz KO)
Mcullough - world champ (Naz points)
Robinson - world champ (Naz KO)
Vasquez - three weight world champ (Naz KO)
Johnson - world champ - made 10 succesful defences (Naz KO)
Medina - 5 x time world champ (Naz KO)

He also beat the British, Commonwealth and European Champion: Billy Hardy, a big punching Augie Sanchez, a good contender in Daniel Alciea, and a previously unbeaten Argentinian in Remigo Molina.

And you dare to accuse OTHER people of trolling?

[slapbangwhallop]

Here's an even shorter summary.
I paid £20 to see him at the SECC in Glasgow where he was fighting a 17-1-1 challenger called Said Lawal whom no-one had heard of but we'd been lead to believe he was a worthy challanger.

He was defending his Frank ****** belt strap and the fight was hyped to high heaven.
He blasted the guy out in 20 seconds flooring him twice. 10,000 fans start chanting 'What the f*&k was that!!!!'

Sums him up nicely. He was a fraud and he made the public believe he was something special.

My advice to you is watch Naz vs Kevin Kelly, then watch him getting schooled by Barrera, then leave him well alone.

What absolute and utter bullshit! Leave here now and never return!

[scurlaruntings]

Who did Naz beat?

Every single World Title holder in the Featherweight divison at the time.

Ingle - world champ (Naz KO)
Soto - world champ (Naz points)
Bungu - world champ (Naz KO)
Kelley - 2 x world champ (Naz KO)
Mcullough - wotrld champ (Naz points)
Robinson - world champ (Naz KO)
Vasquez - three weight world champ (Naz KO)
Johnson - world champ - made 10 succesful defences (Naz KO)
Medina - 5 x time world champ (Naz KO)

He also beat a big punching Augie Sanchez, a good contender in Daniel Alciea, and an unbeaten Argentinian in Remigo Molina.

And you dare to accuse OTHER people of trolling? Theres an old saying "never throw your pearls before swine". And he didnt just beat Sanchez he brutalised him with a devastating KO.

[D-MAC]

Who did Naz beat?

Every single World Title holder in the Featherweight divison at the time.

Ingle - world champ (Naz KO)
Soto - world champ (Naz points)
Bungu - world champ (Naz KO)
Kelley - 2 x world champ (Naz KO)
Mcullough - world champ (Naz points)
Robinson - world champ (Naz KO)
Vasquez - three weight world champ (Naz KO)
Johnson - world champ - made 10 succesful defences (Naz KO)
Medina - 5 x time world champ (Naz KO)

He also beat the British, Commonwealth and European Champion: Billy Hardy, a big punching Augie Sanchez, a good contender in Daniel Alciea, and a previously unbeaten Argentinian in Remigo Molina.

And you dare to accuse OTHER people of trolling?


Well put:good

[BoxingFanNo1]

You all need your head examined.

I don't see any fights on his record let alone wins against - Morales, Paquiao, Tapia, Ayala who were all floating around at that time.

I'll give him credit for lasting with Barrera though it wasn't much of a fight. Kelly and Johnson barely (Who I meant to type instead of Barrera ofc) don't be so condescending.

When I do look at his record I see:
Beating Johnson as he hit the slope down wards is an achievement, I don't. Look at his record after Naz.
Medina, are you serious? I don't care about his world titles he was poor. His record proves that.

Soto, Ingle, Bungu, a 120 Mculloch and Vasques.
Yeah, I'm sure the top dogs were running scared or shaking in their boots.

I have and opinion. Guy asked about Naz, I gave an opinion which LOTS of people agree with, even if you don't.

To call that trolling is :nut

[El Cepillo]

I never got into boxing when he was on the scene but can someone tell me how was he like when he was on top of his game not only in the boxing world but outside of it was he a A-list celeb was he always in the spotlight etc.......

To answer your question, Naz was a major sporting icon of the mid-to-late 90's in Britain (perhaps second only to Beckham and way ahead of his peer, Lennox Lewis). "Prince Naseem" had huge crossover/mainstream cultural appeal. He was also a commerical monster; had tie-ins with The Ministry of Sound, a massive sponsorship deal with Adidas, did commericals in the US for Audi, had his own Playstation game, and another sponsorship deal with Sony. In terms of celebrity; P.Diddy was with him for his ring walk for the Bungu fight, when he flew into the arena on a magic carpet! - lots of examples of this kind of thing.

He packed venues out in a period when boxing was being pushed well off the sporting agenda, and he was probablly the one British sportstar of the 90's to be globally recognized, he was huge in Japan, and well known in America for example, and news of his fights were broadcast all around the world.

His personality, was obviously super confident, arrogant and cocky, but he was also had a great sense of humour, and was very engaging. I believe the general opinion in hindsight is that "Prince Naz" was mostly a persona, an act, he was a showman, rather than a genuine obnoxious brat.

In terms of boxing, he is generally underrated by most people. He essentially unified the divison, beat various world champions, and did it in style. How he left the sport, and what he did afterwards, damaged his legacy, and contributed to his generally low standing amongst a lot of fans. He actually deserves more, and I'm glad he gets decent respect on the Brit forum, which he doesn't in the general.

[HairyHighlander]

I never got into boxing when he was on the scene but can someone tell me how was he like when he was on top of his game not only in the boxing world but outside of it was he a A-list celeb was he always in the spotlight etc.......

If you want a wee read up on him get this.... The Paddy And The Prince - The Making Of Prince Naseem.( maybe only a cpl quid )
I cant gaurantee its authenticity start to end but its an easy read and is quite a decent well rounded insight considering the size of the book.

As the other's have mentioned and shown,nice post Hoya, he was damn fine. No fark that he was AWESOME ! ! ! Personally there's been no one like him for year's.
I often wonder that after the Barrera defeat , he felt he let himself down. I mean that he couldnt in HIS eyes be what he wanted to be, eg perfection. So he says farkit am off.

I repeat AWESOME ! ! ! No one brings to the table what he did. I cant think of a fighter worldwide that could in his period or even now.

Wish he had went back to the Ingles, or better still never left.

:thumbsup

[scurlaruntings]

Naz NEVER should have left Wincobank. His brash arrogance was his success but it was also his downfall.

[El Cepillo]

You all need your head examined.

I don't see any fights on his record let alone wins against - Morales, Paquiao, Tapia, Ayala who were all floating around at that time.

I'll give him credit for lasting with Barrera though it wasn't much of a fight. Kelly and Johnson barely (Who I meant to type instead of Barrera ofc) don't be so condescending.

When I do look at his record I see:
Beating Johnson as he hit the slope down wards is an achievement, I don't. Look at his record after Naz.
Medina, are you serious? I don't care about his world titles he was poor. His record proves that.

Soto, Ingle, Bungu, a 120 Mculloch and Vasques.
Yeah, I'm sure the top dogs were running scared or shaking in their boots.

I have and opinion. Guy asked about Naz, I gave an opinion which LOTS of people agree with, even if you don't.

To call that trolling is :nut

In other words, you know fuck all about Naz's career. The fact that you originally listed Alicea as one of his very best wins shows that. It is trolling when you talk in such strong terms about a subject you clearly know nothing about, yet you still wish to inflict your half-arsed opinion on the rest of us.

[scurlaruntings]

In other words, you know fuck all about Naz's career. The fact that you originally listed Alicea as one of his very best wins shows that. It is trolling when you talk in such strong terms about a subject you clearly know nothing about, yet you still wish to inflict your half-arsed opinion on the rest of us.Some serious ownage goings on here. I would have done it myself but i couldnt be asked. :D

[BoxingFanNo1]

In other words, you know fuck all about Naz's career. The fact that you originally listed Alicea as one of his very best wins shows that. It is trolling when you talk in such strong terms about a subject you clearly no nothing about, yet you still wish to inflict your half-arsed opinion on the rest of us.

I thought the guy was fantastic ACTUALLY. Saw him twice v Lawal and Castro. If you don't believe the 'What the fucking hell was that chants' go check the footage.

I followed his career start to finish. Just because I have a different opinion from you for you to say I know 'fuck all' about him is bullshit.

I wasn't giving YOU an opinion. Don't get above your station. I was giving it to the poster. If you choose to give me shit fine, but I can back up everything I say. Where's the Barrera, Morales, Paquiao fights?

Oh thats right, one defeat and he basically quit.
I don't expect anything else from a guy who has Naz on his avatar. I can back up everything I say but I get the feeling debating you would be like debating a Pac-tard, no bloody point.

I have an opinion, get over it. Put your point across, let the guy decide and get out of my face. :hi:

[D-MAC]

You all need your head examined.

I don't see any fights on his record let alone wins against - Morales, Paquiao, Tapia, Ayala who were all floating around at that time.

I'll give him credit for lasting with Barrera though it wasn't much of a fight. Kelly and Johnson barely (Who I meant to type instead of Barrera ofc) don't be so condescending.

When I do look at his record I see:
Beating Johnson as he hit the slope down wards is an achievement, I don't. Look at his record after Naz.
Medina, are you serious? I don't care about his world titles he was poor. His record proves that.

Soto, Ingle, Bungu, a 120 Mculloch and Vasques.
Yeah, I'm sure the top dogs were running scared or shaking in their boots.

I have and opinion. Guy asked about Naz, I gave an opinion which LOTS of people agree with, even if you don't.

To call that trolling is :nut

These people wouldn't happen to be Joe Public boxing fans, y'know...the sort who think Sugar Ray Robinson is a jazz singer from the 70's.

Educated boxing fans are aware of Naz's strengths and weaknesses, and they will give him his due accordingly. To write him off as basically a bum is an insult to what he achieved in the game. He's not the greatest boxer of all time, but he isn't a journeyman either.

[widdy]

you can't fault goldenhoyas knowledge on naz,he knows everything about naz,im thinking maybe he is naz:good
my thoughts are with boxingfanNo1 on most points.
I think he was pretty good in a poor devision at the time,come on,the cinderella man,prob the weakest ever feather champ,johnston,well on the slide,he was beat off charles shepard 4 or 5 fights later,i used to spar with him when i was am,hold my own,no prob,and i was shite.
ingle was a good boxer,gave naz a good fight.
if naz dident have a iron chin a lot of people would of sparked him,kelly had him all over the shop.
he was a showman though,fuck me and funny at times

my fondest memory of naz was at a pro show in the 90's,he was a up and coming boxer at the time,he was asked in the ring,jumped over top rope,caught his foot and went flying on his arse,place was in hysterics:rofl

[BoxingFanNo1]

These people wouldn't happen to be Joe Public boxing fans, y'know...the sort who think Sugar Ray Robinson is a jazz singer from the 70's.

Educated boxing fans are aware of Naz's strengths and weaknesses, and they will give him his due accordingly. To write him off as basically a bum is an insult to what he achieved in the game. He's not the greatest boxer of all time, but he isn't a journeyman either.

A good boxer is what you're saying then?
I AGREE.
I said fraud. He wasn't what he was built upto be. I'm right. Where are the big names which make him The Greatest thing from sliced bread which, I might add, was thrown in our face every chance he, Ingle or ****** got.

I never said he was shit. My fraud comment related to what I've just stated. He was a showman, an entertainer and a good boxer. ATG? hell no. HoF? debatable. Top 10 British fighter? Not in my book. A good fighter who fought a few decent boxers but was NEVER going to cut it with the big boys? Absolutely.

[BoxingFanNo1]

I should have said 'where it mattered he was poor' my bad.

[izmat]

Hamed was big in the 90's-he had his own boxing game "Prince naseem boxing" and American rapper Nas made reference to him in one of his tracks.

[D-MAC]

A good boxer is what you're saying then?
I AGREE.
I said fraud. He wasn't what he was built upto be. I'm right. Where are the big names which make him The Greatest thing from sliced bread which, I might add, was thrown in our face every chance he, Ingle or ****** got.

I never said he was shit. My fraud comment related to what I've just stated. He was a showman, an entertainer and a good boxer. ATG? hell no. HoF? debatable. Top 10 British fighter? Not in my book. A good fighter who fought a few decent boxers but was NEVER going to cut it with the big boys? Absolutely.

I would say he was very good boxer; ATG? debatable. HOF? A certainty.

You have to realise that Naz was big at the weight, so as far as making an earlier match-up with Barrera, Morales, Ayala, Tapia etc; well, the ball was in their court in that one (they had to move up because Naz could not move down). Barrera did move up and beat Naz, but I think Naz was a bit on the slide by that point.

The British media always hype up their fan-friendly boxers; thats why guys like Hatton, Naz (when he was still fighting) and Khan get a lot of stick from real boxing fans; to an extent they were put across to the unknowledgeable fans as perhaps better than what they were.

You could argue that Naz could have moved up a division and tried his luck there. At one point in Naz's career SFW contained an unbeaten trio of Floyd Mayweather, Diego Corrales and Acelino Freitas (later in Naz's career admitedly). They would have been real stiff tests, maybe too much for Naz; but we'll never know.

Some people will also say that he avoided the danger man in his division, Juan Manuel Marquez. Maybe he did; I don't know.

My general feeling is that Naz was overrated when he was active, but is becoming very underrated now he has retired. When people talk about style match-ups Naz springs to mind as a nightmare for almost any boxer at Featherweight.

[El Cepillo]

I thought the guy was fantastic ACTUALLY. Saw him twice v Lawal and Castro. If you don't believe the 'What the fucking hell was that chants' go check the footage.

I followed his career start to finish. Just because I have a different opinion from you for you to say I know 'fuck all' about him is bullshit.

I wasn't giving YOU an opinion. Don't get above your station. I was giving it to the poster. If you choose to give me shit fine, but I can back up everything I say. Where's the Barrera, Morales, Paquiao fights?

Oh thats right, one defeat and he basically quit.
I don't expect anything else from a guy who has Naz on his avatar. I can back up everything I say but I get the feeling debating you would be like debating a Pac-tard, no bloody point.

I have an opinion, get over it. Put your point across, let the guy decide and get out of my face. :hi:

You're welcome to give your opinion, and I welcome your input into this forum. However, I can see that you're now backtracking from your ridiculous and disrespectful opening statements, by playing the victim and pretending to be misunderstood.

You say "Medina was poor", despite the fact he won five world titles, and beat a prime version of Boom-Boom Johnson. You say "Naz got schooled by Barrera". One judge scored it 116-112, and most people accept that Naz won at least four rounds, a clear win for Barrera - yes, but hardly a "schooling".

You claim "Naz's record is a shambles", when he actually, by any reasonable or logical assessment, has a very decent record that includes wins against no less than nine World Champions, a decorated domestic and European level champ, and a lot of credible contenders.

Speaking of credibility, You say "Naz has no credibility", yet you suggest Alicea (of all people) as one of his very best victories, are we supposed to believe that you are some kind of expert on this subject?

You claim "Naz was a fraud", despite the fact that he won three World Titles, beat every title holder in the division, and only ever lost one time, to a prime version of an all-time-great.

You say "Naz should have fought Pacquaio", despite the fact that when Naz when in his prime and knocking out everyone in front of him, Manny was fighting the likes of Melvin Magramo in Cebu City! Barrera, Marquez, Manny and Morales are very much a different era to Naz, in many respects.

And finally, your piste-de-resistance, your claim that "Naz wasn't special", when its blatantly clear to everyone with a working set of eyes, and semi-functioning brain, that Naz was very special indeed.

[GPater11093]

didnt mayweather offer naz to fight over 15 rounds at a catchweight

and dint freitas offer to fight naz at super feather

[El Cepillo]

A good boxer is what you're saying then?
I AGREE.
I said fraud. He wasn't what he was built upto be. I'm right. Where are the big names which make him The Greatest thing from sliced bread which, I might add, was thrown in our face every chance he, Ingle or ****** got.

I never said he was shit. My fraud comment related to what I've just stated. He was a showman, an entertainer and a good boxer. ATG? hell no. HoF? debatable. Top 10 British fighter? Not in my book. A good fighter who fought a few decent boxers but was NEVER going to cut it with the big boys? Absolutely.


I actually kind of understand the point that I think you were originally trying (and failing badly) to make, before you wandered off into Troll country. No one on here is going to say that Naz was an ATG. Not even me. I think it was obvious to almost everyone, that Naz was never as good as he claimed. But calling the guy a "fraud", when he had such an impressive career compared to most, is just very stupid, on many levels.

[Outboxer]

One of the most talented fighters that I've seen. He dealt with domestic opposition in a way that you'd expect from a 'special' fighter -- a way that many expected from Khan, but something he never delivered. Fast, and one of the most devastating punchers of his weight of all time, really. His downs are mostly due to balance, stemming from his strange style; leaning back and swaying away from punches with your hands down looks great, but it also means that even the slightest touch can put you down on your backside. While this is terrible from a point perspective (think of how much a KD counts with the judges) it usually wasn't an issue, as Hamed never really planned to go to the judges in most matches anyway. He was all about the KO, and this began to creep in more and more throughout his career, ultimately screwing him over in the Barrera fight when he just looked for one big shot.

He'd fallen in love with his own power, and when that happens your boxing ability naturally suffers as a result. A pity, because in his early days he could box with surprising grace, even if it was in an utterly unorthodox fashion.

I think he had the natural gifts to become a legend of the sport, but he sold himself short.

[El Cepillo]

didnt mayweather offer naz to fight over 15 rounds at a catchweight

and dint freitas offer to fight naz at super feather


Naz was a a natural super-bantam, and a tiny featherweight, Mayweather has fought a a guy who fought Bernard Hopkins.

[BoxingFanNo1]

You're welcome to give your opinion, and I welcome your input into this forum. However, I can see that you're now backtracking from your ridiculous and disrespectful opening statements, by playing the victim and pretending to be misunderstood.

No, don't be mislead.

I have been up all night, bored out of my skull. Check my posting times if you wish. I'm a little groggy, my spelling is aweful and I'm missing out the odd word or punctuation here and there which may give my sentances a diferent meaning.

However...
He WAS a fraud. Lead us to believe he was the greatest thing since slice bread but when put to the test, he couldn't hack it and quit. Barrera destroyed him and it was a reality check Naz couldn't handle.

Overrated. He was and is. The consider him a 'Great' is demeaning to the word IMO. He was good, not great.

He was schooled. In fact I ask the poster of this forum, someone unbias to watch the fight and give us HIS opinion.

Naz's record is a shambles. 10-20-30 years from now people will look at it and ask 'Who the hell are these guys??Oh wait, there's Barrera, and I've heard of that guy Kelly, who the hell are the rest?

I never said Alicea was one of his 'Biggest' victories. Where did I say that??

Naz vs Paquiao or a fighter of that stature WOULD have happened if Naz didn't quit. Different era? What are you smoking?

You claim I have a semi functioning brain when YOU have an Avatar of Naseem. Of all boxers Naseem.

Naz was very special indeed?

No

YOU are very special indeed. So very special. :nut:nut:nut:nut

[D-MAC]

Naz was a a natural super-bantam, and a tiny featherweight, Mayweather has fought a a guy who fought Bernard Hopkins.

Strange that, he always looked big at weight to me when he fought at FW. He had a lot packed on the chest, shoulders and back, but it looked like his natural build once he had matured as a fighter.

[BoxingFanNo1]

In fact I think you'll find where I said 'His record is a joke' is where you'll find Alicea. He was a joke, don't twist my words to suit your argument.

[GPater11093]

Naz was a a natural super-bantam, and a tiny featherweight, Mayweather has fought a a guy who fought Bernard Hopkins.

im pretty sure mayweather offered him a 15 rounder at a catchweight in between feather and super feather.

[D-MAC]

im pretty sure mayweather offered him a 15 rounder at a catchweight in between feather and super feather.

Why a 15 rounder?

Wouldn't it have been illegal to have a bout that was stipulated for that distance, since the 12 round maximum rule came in.

[GPater11093]

Why a 15 rounder?

Wouldn't it have been illegal to have a bout that was stipulated for that distance, since the 12 round maximum rule came in.


i just remember hearing bout it. i could be wrong but im 70% sure

it wouldnt be illegal as it wouldnt be for a title. The title organistions were the ones who adde the 12 round maximum

[El Cepillo]

Strange that, he always looked big at weight to me when he fought at FW. He had a lot packed on the chest, shoulders and back, but it looked like his natural build once he had matured as a fighter.

On his debut, Naz had to fill his shorts with weights to make 114, and he was only 5'4, which is two inches smaller than Manny Pac!. So I always thought Featherweight was the limit, and super-bantam was more his natural weight, but because there wasn't much money to be made there, he moved up. He definetly grew into Featherweight as his body matured, towards the end of his career he was comfortable there though and probablly could have moved up further.

[El Cepillo]

No, don't be mislead.

I have been up all night, bored out of my skull. Check my posting times if you wish. I'm a little groggy, my spelling is aweful and I'm missing out the odd word or punctuation here and there which may give my sentances a diferent meaning.

However...
He WAS a fraud. Lead us to believe he was the greatest thing since slice bread but when put to the test, he couldn't hack it and quit. Barrera destroyed him and it was a reality check Naz couldn't handle.

Overrated. He was and is. The consider him a 'Great' is demeaning to the word IMO. He was good, not great.

He was schooled. In fact I ask the poster of this forum, someone unbias to watch the fight and give us HIS opinion.

Naz's record is a shambles. 10-20-30 years from now people will look at it and ask 'Who the hell are these guys??Oh wait, there's Barrera, and I've heard of that guy Kelly, who the hell are the rest?

I never said Alicea was one of his 'Biggest' victories. Where did I say that??

Naz vs Paquiao or a fighter of that stature WOULD have happened if Naz didn't quit. Different era? What are you smoking?

You claim I have a semi functioning brain when YOU have an Avatar of Naseem. Of all boxers Naseem.

Naz was very special indeed?

No

YOU are very special indeed. So very special. :nut:nut:nut:nut

Ok, so you claim Naz was a fraud, overrated, a shambles, not special, got schooled and all the world champs he beat are nobodies. Thanks for your opinion, now :hi:

[El Cepillo]

One of the most talented fighters that I've seen. He dealt with domestic opposition in a way that you'd expect from a 'special' fighter -- a way that many expected from Khan, but something he never delivered. Fast, and one of the most devastating punchers of his weight of all time, really. His downs are mostly due to balance, stemming from his strange style; leaning back and swaying away from punches with your hands down looks great, but it also means that even the slightest touch can put you down on your backside. While this is terrible from a point perspective (think of how much a KD counts with the judges) it usually wasn't an issue, as Hamed never really planned to go to the judges in most matches anyway. He was all about the KO, and this began to creep in more and more throughout his career, ultimately screwing him over in the Barrera fight when he just looked for one big shot.

He'd fallen in love with his own power, and when that happens your boxing ability naturally suffers as a result. A pity, because in his early days he could box with surprising grace, even if it was in an utterly unorthodox fashion.

I think he had the natural gifts to become a legend of the sport, but he sold himself short.


I think he is a legend of the sport, if you're British. No one is going to forget Naz in a hurry, how people can claim he wasn't "special" is beyond me. When we look at Naz getting towards the Barrera fight (not that fight specifically, just that period), I just wish he had the dicipline to adapt his style, learn to just box, and not dance around, piss about and destroy opponents with one punch KO's. If he had that dicipline, that willingness to learn new skills as his body changed and his opponents got tougher, then Naz could have been a great. Yes, he would have lost a few against the elite, but giving the natural talent he already had, combined with some learned boxing skills (which he never really had), he could have held his own against any featherweight from any era.

[D-MAC]

i just remember hearing bout it. i could be wrong but im 70% sure

it wouldnt be illegal as it wouldnt be for a title. The title organistions were the ones who adde the 12 round maximum

But non-title fights are set for maximum of ten rounds, am I right?

Doesn't matter anyway; I'm just nitpicking.

[GPater11093]

But non-title fights are set for maximum of ten rounds, am I right?

Doesn't matter anyway; I'm just nitpicking.


ive seen afew scheduled for 12

i even saw one scheduled for 11

[D-MAC]

ive seen afew scheduled for 12

i even saw one scheduled for 11

Thats just fucked up.

[El Cepillo]

News just in; Hamed-Sanchez is the most entertaining Naz fight ever, and perhaps his best KO. :deal

[D-MAC]

Ok, so you claim Naz was a fraud, overrated, a shambles, not special, got schooled and all the world champs he beat are nobodies. Thanks for your opinion, now :hi:

You could have just left the "fuck off" in; he deserved it:deal

[El Cepillo]

You could have just left the "fuck off" in; he deserved it:deal

Nah, I PM'd him and made peace, it was all good natured, and I'm good people. :D

[D-MAC]

Nah, I PM'd him and made peace, it was all good natured, and I'm good people. :D

When the Brit Forum takes over the running of the government you can be our Goodwill Ambassador...ya big softie:lol:

[SouthpawSlayer]

naz is vastly underated by the general british public and people where im from and the general thought is that he was found out when he stepped up and was never that good,

i think i have explained about how good naz actually was to more people than any other boxer, it was a shame he lost his hunger, he could of had a few more fights in him

[El Cepillo]

When the Brit Forum takes over the running of the government you can be our Goodwill Ambassador...ya big softie:lol:


Its a good idea that D-MAC. Maybe someone should start a thread, assign some roles. Prime Minister might be hotly contested. :D I see Flint Island in the big chair.

[TFFP]

I'd actually say he's talked about more than he deserves. He was a good fighter with a good resume, nothing more.

He's talked about more for his antics than his boxing which is indicative.

[El Cepillo]

naz is vastly underated by the general british public and people where im from and the general thought is that he was found out when he stepped up and was never that good,

i think i have explained about how good naz actually was to more people than any other boxer, it was a shame he lost his hunger, he could of had a few more fights in him

I think most people on the British forum give him an acceptable amount of credit. The GF is a totally different story, but a lot of that is people who only ever watched him fight Barrera, so they base their opinion solely on that, or one or two other fights. I always thought that George Foreman said it best when he described Naz as a "phenomenon" and "amazing", and said that he had "never seen a power puncher with such great balance".

[El Cepillo]

I'd actually say he's talked about more than he deserves. He was a good fighter with a good resume, nothing more.

He's talked about more for his antics than his boxing which is indicative.

I think that is because he is generally thought of as being one of a kind, both inside and outside the ring, he was unique and memorable and thats what he gets talked about a lot.

[TFFP]

Maybe, but there is no doubt his star factor was over and above his achievement and arguably his ability.

[El Cepillo]

Maybe, but there is no doubt his star factor was over and above his achievement and arguably his ability.

He was never as good as he claimed to be, that is for sure. But it was nice while it lasted, and the boy had talent.

[SouthpawSlayer]

I think most people on the British forum give him an acceptable amount of credit. The GF is a totally different story, but a lot of that is people who only ever watched him fight Barrera, so they base their opinion solely on that, or one or two other fights. I always thought that George Foreman said it best when he described Naz as a "phenomenon" and "amazing", and said that he had "never seen a power puncher with such great balance".

no shame in losing to MAB

[El Cepillo]

no shame in losing to MAB

Exactly, the way people use the loss to Barrera to "prove" every negative opinion of Naz that they have is ridiculous. I mean, if he was fighting a bum who shut him out, or knocked him out, then yeah, Ok, "Naz was a fraud". Like you said, losing a points decision in a competitive fight, against an absolute prime version of an all time great, isn't anything to be ashamed of.

[kerrminator]

I remember when he fought McCullough. It was Hallo'een and was billed as 'thriller night' if my memory serves. Naz and Michael Jackson were quite good friends and Jacko was there that night and was going to be singing thriller along side Naz as he made his entrance through a foggy graveyard set up. At the last minute I remember they announced Jacko's security had pulled him but the entrance was still pretty cool.

There was a few documentaries floating around that show just ho good he was. I remember seeing the documentary of his prime years (it started with Ken Buchanan and a few other ex fighters standing around talking about him) and the difference between that Naz and the Naz from the "little Prince Big Fight" documentary is like night and day.

He thought he could have KO'd Barrera and didnt apply himself to training coz Barrera had always been a come forward fighter and that was tailor made for Naz but MAB was a clever fighter and changed his style for that fight which left an undertrained Naz there for the taking.

Brendan Ingle should never have been sacked and he could have become the best boxer ever from these shores.

[kerrminator]

When Naz was in his heyday Pacman was a no name. Pac never came onto the scene until his win over MAB in 2003.

His power was exceptional and his record can be partly blamed on ****** (surprise surprise) and it was once he got rid of Frank he took on the bigger fights. Naz had been itching to fight MAB and EM for quite some time and had it happened a few years earlier when he was a pure gym rat it might have been a different story.

[Axl_Nose]

Naseem Hamed was the most naturally gifted british fighter of the last 50 years, others were more aggressive, others were more technically gifted but for natural talent nobody compares .. Was he protected against sub-standard fighters for too long ? Yes of course he was, but all 'money' fighters from britain are especially with the kind of 'showbiz' he brought to the table .. Give me Naz before Calzaghe, Hatton and Lennox any time .. But whether i'd compare Naz to a proper fighter like Ken Buchanan is a totally different thing

[TFFP]

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.

[Axl_Nose]

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 .......

[TFFP]

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.

[Axl_Nose]

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

[Axl_Nose]

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.

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

[D-MAC]

] (1) How do you know how good Kessler is ?? What has he acheived ?[/b] There is nobody of any talent in the division so its easy to look capable .. (2) 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 (3) 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

(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.

[GPater11093]

Thats just fucked up.

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

[D-MAC]

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.

[TFFP]

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.

[Axl_Nose]

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 ....

[TFFP]

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.

[D-MAC]

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 ....

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.

[Axl_Nose]

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.

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

[TAM83]

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

[Axl_Nose]

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.

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 ..

[TFFP]

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
Maybe, but you are talking in a different context there. That's not comparing against Hatton.

Hatton went to the States, but did shit to put him above Calzaghe when he got there. That's merely a case of venue and not opponent. At least Calzaghe went over and beat Hopkins, albeit too late. Hopkins is more capable than anybody Hatton fought, aside from Mayweather, and we know what happened there.

[Axl_Nose]

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


Tam your gonna have to explain that ?? The heavyweight division is all but extinct in america but if Haye beats a Klitschko, he will fight in Vegas, theres no question of that .... The Vegas Casino deals destroy any rival bid for the truly top fighters .. If Haye is succesfull then he will have the rest of his career in the states because thats were the money is ..

[Axl_Nose]

Maybe, but you are talking in a different context there. That's not comparing against Hatton.

Hatton went to the States, but did shit to put him above Calzaghe when he got there. That's merely a case of venue and not opponent. At least Calzaghe went over and beat Hopkins, albeit too late. Hopkins is more capable than anybody Hatton fought, aside from Mayweather, and we know what happened there.

TFFP we disagree on the rating of Calzaghe but i always enjoy having a debate with you and i respect your opinions .. Too many people on these forums resort to calling people names when they disagree with each other .. I hope that you and I can discuss various aspects of boxing in the future because i am very interested in your opinion ..

[TAM83]

Tam your gonna have to explain that ?? The heavyweight division is all but extinct in america but if Haye beats a Klitschko, he will fight in Vegas, theres no question of that .... The Vegas Casino deals destroy any rival bid for the truly top fighters .. If Haye is succesfull then he will have the rest of his career in the states because thats were the money is ..


From what I read your saying basically a fighter doesn't get the recognition he's due or the hype until he's fought and proved himself in America? is this what you were saying?

I agree with you but just saying that sometimes there's an exception to that rule ie David Haye

[TFFP]

TFFP we disagree on the rating of Calzaghe but i always enjoy having a debate with you and i respect your opinions .. Too many people on these forums resort to calling people names when they disagree with each other .. I hope that you and I can discuss various aspects of boxing in the future because i am very interested in your opinion ..
Good my man!

I'm happy to talk boxing with people that want to talk seriously about boxing! Some people deserve a verbal beatdown, but thankfully there aren't many in the Brit forum :good

[D-MAC]

(1) 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 ??

(2) 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 ..

(1) And they were both beat...and beaten handily; if I was going to be cruel I would say they were outclassed.

What if Joe had fought and got beat by a "prime" "elite" fighter in or around his division? It doesn't do anything for him. It would have been nice to see Joe fight the best, bout after bout, but it didn't happen, and in boxing it hardly ever happens. He spent years dallying about, but then got his act together. He should fight Dawson next, if he fights, but even if he doesn't he still goes down in history as a better fighter than either Hamed or Hatton.

(2) I don't know what you are getting at here; you must know that most posters in the Brit Forum are knowledgeable types (hopefully me and TFFP are included in that), and that we don't just look up boxrec to get our facts. You think Hopkins won, thats cool and I can see were you might see that, but you must recognise that the consensus opinion is that Calzaghe pulled out the win. I think Calzaghe won, and it was a massive boost to his resume, but even without it he is still above Hatton and Hamed.

[Axl_Nose]

From what I read your saying basically a fighter doesn't get the recognition he's due or the hype until he's fought and proved himself in America? is this what you were saying?

I agree with you but just saying that sometimes there's an exception to that rule ie David Haye

David Haye hasnt had the option of fighting in the states yet ?? If he beats a Kltschko he will have some serious offers, but nobody wants to see a 'Cruiser' in the states, over there its not a serious division, its considered a division were fighters dont have the balls to step up to Heavyweight .. Haye is a prospect but he has to make a statement

[Axl_Nose]

Good my man!

I'm happy to talk boxing with people that want to talk seriously about boxing! Some people deserve a verbal beatdown, but thankfully there aren't many in the Brit forum :good

The general forum is a place were you cant have a disagreement with anyone without name-calling or bullshit .. You and I can disagree but we can debate, i appreciate that and your opinion makes me think which is exactly what i want from a forum of ideas .. I dont want a place that agrees with my opinion all the time .. Too many people take it as a personal insult when you disagree with them but i am always up for a debate on anything boxing related and TFFP i value your opinion as i do with alot of the brit-forum guys

[TAM83]

David Haye hasnt had the option of fighting in the states yet ?? If he beats a Kltschko he will have some serious offers, but nobody wants to see a 'Cruiser' in the states, over there its not a serious division, its considered a division were fighters dont have the balls to step up to Heavyweight .. Haye is a prospect but he has to make a statement

It's been a decent division over there since Holyfield unified it, and to say Haye is a prospect is just ignorant to his achievements.

He may be a prospect in the Heavyweight division but to say that about his career is unfair and doesn't do him any justice.

Just to get back on topic, I'm not disagreeing with you. Haye probably will fight in Vegas at some point but right now he's one of the most hyped Heavyweights on the planet and ex undisputed Cruiserweight champion. He achieved this without going to America, but yet still people are excited about him.

[Axl_Nose]

It's been a decent division over there since Holyfield unified it, and to say Haye is a prospect is just ignorant to his achievements.

He may be a prospect in the Heavyweight division but to say that about his career is unfair and doesn't do him any justice.

Just to get back on topic, I'm not disagreeing with you. Haye probably will fight in Vegas at some point but right now he's one of the most hyped Heavyweights on the planet and ex undisputed Cruiserweight champion. He achieved this without going to America, but yet still people are excited about him.

David Haye is getting hyped, theres no question of that but until he beats Klitschko he wont be taken as anything serious in the states. What i mean by that is 'big money fights', Haye is a big name over here but he's a prospect in the states because he's a Cruiser stepping up to Heavy ..
He's done nothing to get the americans excited simply because he has been fighting in a 'dead' division .. Holyfield was a one off, an exceptional fighter that stepped up to Heavy but there hasnt been many more since Holy .. Haye is an exciting fighter but he has to beat somebody that will make the world sit up and Mormeck and Enzo dont cut it ..
He wasnt convincing in his last fight against Barrett and i find it a stetch to think he could beat either Klitschko with they're jabs ..
Haye is an unknown quantity at this point. Vegas wouldnt gamble on him at this point

[brown bomber]

This thread is pretty funny.... Especially the scottish fella who questions Hameds unquestionable legacy on the back of having to shell out 20 quid and feeling short changed.. ha ha.. Calzaghe is greater then Hamed or Hatton on paper. Its really difficult to argue now, however the empty super middle division, plus aged nature of all his credible opposition mean haters are always going to have serious ammo when it comes to bringing his fanboys down a peg or two. For me Calzaghe is an incredible fighter..... nice guy..... MINGING to watch, as was Carlos Monzon but he is very, very effective... I'll never be a fan of his fighting style but you do have to give credit where its due and he is very good.

[Sibbo]

After listening to the crap spouted by Eubank for years, the Brits were bored of the "super confidence" thing by the time Naz started coming to prominence.

He was undoubtedly talented and a bloody awkward fighter to face but he lacked a defence (eg. Kelley Fight) and it's a shame that he quit so readily once he'd been found out.

We Brits don't like cocky arrogance and Naz had bundles. Mind you, at least he had talent, unlike Fraudley Harrison.

[firetrap01]

what if calzaghe's next fight is against glen johnson and he loses on unanimously on points. He has one more fight afterwards against a euro level fighter and quits.

Wouldnt his career be on a par with Naz's ?

The main thing Calzaghe clearly has over Naz is longevity. And that will see Calzaghe walk into the ibhof - dont think Naz is in there although i might be wrong on that

[D-MAC]

what if calzaghe's next fight is against glen johnson and he loses on unanimously on points. He has one more fight afterwards against a euro level fighter and quits.

Wouldnt his career be on a par with Naz's ?

The main thing Calzaghe clearly has over Naz is longevity. And that will see Calzaghe walk into the ibhof - dont think Naz is in there although i might be wrong on that

I suppose its all a bit subjective, but I would still have him ahead of Naz based on the Hopkins win and the fact that he is a two-weight world champ.

[BoxingFanNo1]

This thread is pretty funny.... Especially the Scottish fella who questions Hameds unquestionable legacy on the back of having to shell out 20 quid and feeling short changed.. ha ha..

Ok maybe I should have been more constructive with my criticism of Hamed and pointed out good points as well. But it doesn't change my opinion of him.

I've got no problem debating. If people had asked why I felt that way I would have answered but people just start typing disrespectful and abusive comments purely because I have a different point of view so I changed to that level also.

I can compare to when I debate Lennox Lewis. If people don't get Lewis fair enough. But when people start talking shit as I'm sure many of you will feel I have about Naz I also become derogatory as I and others here have.

On Naz. I was a huge fan. I didn't pay to see him twice to see Robin Reid!!I respected the wee man. I was 19 when I saw him live, close to hero worship I'd say. I just look back on his career, his legacy and think he should have been more, so much more, and when I look at his career and put it next to someone like Barrera's I realize I was betting on the wrong horse. He failed me as a fan, he quit and I don't accept that. Look at Hatton, regardless of what people think of him he gets back on his horse and goes after the p4p no1 again. I have a huge amount of respect for that. Naz dusted himself down and pretty much walked away.

I will always say Naz was a good fighter. But when I look back on his career one word keeps popping into my head and I can't help it. Hype.

["TKO"]

what if calzaghe's next fight is against glen johnson and he loses on unanimously on points. He has one more fight afterwards against a euro level fighter and quits.

Wouldnt his career be on a par with Naz's ?

The main thing Calzaghe clearly has over Naz is longevity. And that will see Calzaghe walk into the ibhof - dont think Naz is in there although i might be wrong on that

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!

[PaddyD1983]

I never got into boxing when he was on the scene but can someone tell me how was he like when he was on top of his game not only in the boxing world but outside of it was he a A-list celeb was he always in the spotlight etc.......

'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

["TKO"]

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?

[DDA365]

Didnt Hamed offer Morales a fight a few times?

Would have been mad that one.

[Cobbler]

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!!


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 (!).

[PaddyD1983]

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?


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

[firetrap01]

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.

[markedwardscott]

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