[walshb]

Originally Posted by Maravilla33

So Naz simply decided he'd fight the 5 reigning champs he beat? He hardly handpicked every single opponent he faced did he? A lot of his opponents were either champs at the time, unbeaten or on really good streaks. My gripe is the hand picked tag. I think its possible to do this if you have one belt and don't attempt to unify the belts like Calzaghe did for years. Naz went after all of the belts which makes it hard to simply hand pick every single opponent.

Like I said, both can be right. The men to me were weak. Not necessarily hand picked. If the champ is the champ, you cannot hand pick him.

[Maravilla33]

Originally Posted by walshb

Like I said, both can be right. The men to me were weak. Not necessarily hand picked. If the champ is the champ, you cannot hand pick him.

Like I said not even a Naz fan myself but he gets a raw deal which I admit is partly his own fault.

He's not going to go down as one of the elite FWs but I think he still did enough to earn a place in the HOF when you look at some of the names that are in there. Top 20-25 featherweight for me and easily one of the best British fighters of the last 25 years.

[cowzerp]

Originally Posted by Maravilla33

What fighter doesn't start of fighting journeymen? Robinson was a step up for Naz at the time and after that he didn't look back and cleaned out the division. As I said Marquez is the only one I'll hold against him and I can understand that. Its rare that these high risk low reward fights are made rightly or wrongly.

A bit of context

Originally Posted by Maravilla33

How did he become high profile though? By knocking out everyone in his wake.

you made out he had achieved something when he fought his 1st easy title fight with Robinson-he hadn't as he just beat journeymen.

He was looked after and everyone knows that.

[Maravilla33]

Originally Posted by cowzerp

A bit of context


you made out he had achieved something when he fought his 1st easy title fight with Robinson-he hadn't as he just beat journeymen.

He was looked after and everyone knows that.

I was talking about his featherweight career. He earned his high profile up there. He knocked out pretty much every contender and champ he fought. I made out that the Robinson win was an achievement which it was for a 21 year old. All you can do is look at Robinson's career as a whole and not what kind of form he was in coming into the Naz fight. People lose fights big deal. Hopkins lost his first fight as far as I can remember.

I still don't get how he was looked after or why you have to speak for everyone. Basically every champ available at the time was easy pickings and that's why he fought them? Convenient for him that was..

[megadodge]

Maravilla, I feel sorry for you.

Now, before you take umbrage, I'm most definitely on your side here, but the reason I feel sorry for you is c. every 18 months or so, this argument about Naz comes up on this forum and despite the fact that as posters I like them Cowzerp tells us how "he was a fan" but Naz fought nothing but bums and Walshb tows in with he could never understand how people thought he had great power, he never saw it and if he had it how come he didn't ko Barrera, plus he didn't even have a jab. And on it goes...

Anyway, I can never just stand by and let this crap go uncontested, so I have to join in and use facts. You have highlighted some of them, but here's a few more -

1. The boys always bring Marquez's name up eventually, conveniently ignoring the blatantly obvious fact that Juan Manuel Marquez never fought Hamed because after he worked his way up the rankings he fought Freddie Norwood for the WBA title AND LOST! That was that. Oh, incidentally Marquez's last 4 opponents before that fight had 11 losses, 9 losses, 2 lossed and 8 losses. Interesting matchmaking for a no. 1 contender.

2. Cowzerp usually brings up what Naz opponents did AFTER they fought him. That's the very definition of pointlessness. I cannot believe anyone can actually use it in a responsible argument. Is Naz supposed to be a fortune teller or what? But, since he brings it up, Manual Medina won the FW 'world' title THREE more times after his loss to Hamed. Paul Ingle also won a 'world' title after his loss to Hamed. Wayne McCullough gave Erik Morales a ferocious battle one year after the Hamed loss (despite the scores), a match that the super-macho Morales even admitted afterwards that "there were times in that fight I thought I was going to lose".

3. When asked who should Hamed have fought Morales, Espinosa and Tapia are usually trotted out. Erik was in a different weight division! In mine and the vast majority of people's opinions Barrera won their epic fight, so Naz fought him!
Espinosa was beaten by Soto, whom Naz beat. Espinosa before that loss had 7 losses on his record, but Cowzerp conveniently forgets to mention that, even though he uses the same arguement to demean others.
But, worst of all, in the ultimate self-contradiction, poor Johnny Tapia's name is used despite the fact that he meets every single one of Cowzerp's criteria for sh!te opposition. He was miles over the hill, a former SUPER FLYWEIGHT, a light puncher and a drug addict. I remember genuinely being disgusted when I heard his name being bandied around at one occasion as a potential opponent. Thankfully it never happened.

4. At one stage during Hamed's career only Roy Jones had fought more current or past 'world' champions. But hey, they were all weak, light-punching, chinny, yadda yadda yadda... yeah cos those sort of fighters always become 'world' champs . One of the champs Cowzerp dismisses as a "featherfisted" was 3 weight 'world' champ Wilfredo Vazquez who at the time he fought Hamed had 37 KOs in 50 wins!!

I always end up pointing the same points out and get a few weak responses and the thread peters out soon after.... only to start up 18 months later with the exact same discredited arguements being used. I don't know why I bother.

[cowzerp]

Originally Posted by megadodge

2. Cowzerp usually brings up what Naz opponents did AFTER they fought him. That's the very definition of pointlessness. I cannot believe anyone can actually use it in a responsible argument. Is Naz supposed to be a fortune teller or what?.

I do this because it's a strong part of my point, the careful selection of opponents who still look legit but are not

Naz had power so throw a chinny lad on with him and boom, he was elusive and fast so if you put in weak punchers he could run and counter, he met 1 fighter who was not past it or lacking seriously in 1 key area-a complete fighter, and he was shown up bad, you say he could not have fought Morales, of course he could and would have if they wanted the best fights.

And your right the thread will die a death as you just got in as it was all already said, do you want me to be repeating it all again just because you jump in at the end.

[Maravilla33]

Originally Posted by cowzerp

I do this because it's a strong part of my point, the careful selection of opponents who still look legit but are not

Its not as black and white as that though. I agree some lads records are padded and when they eventually step up in class they're found out. On the other hand some guys may actually be genuinely talented but a brutal KO loss can set anyone back and some people just never are the same.

Bute looks to me to be someone who will probably fit the first category. Poor Paul Williams I think actually looked the business but that loss to Martinez really set him back so I'd put him in the 2nd category.

Some people never recover from a big loss so its not always accurate to judge them based on what they did afterwards. Sometimes it is.

[MMAIRELANDFAN]

Hamed waiting till Barrera lost 2 fights to Junior Jones was dodging as this fight was on the cards for ages and was only considered after them 2 fights

1 loss by points and 1 by ko

This made Barrera look very beatable at the time and add to that the points loss to Morales, who of course Hamed could have fought and had fought at feather as far back as 1996 and up as far as 127lbs and easily could have been matched up if they where not dodgers

[Maravilla33]

Originally Posted by MMAIRELANDFAN

Hamed waiting till Barrera lost 2 fights to Junior Jones was dodging as this fight was on the cards for ages and was only considered after them 2 fights

1 loss by points and 1 by ko

This made Barrera look very beatable at the time and add to that the points loss to Morales, who of course Hamed could have fought and had fought at feather as far back as 1996 and up as far as 127lbs and easily could have been matched up if they where not dodgers

OK so Naz dodged both Morales and Barrera even though they weren't in the same division?

Morales may have fought at FW a couple of times but for a lot of Naz's reign he was Super Bantam champ and fought predominately at that weight. Barrera the same.

When MAB was losing to Jones at super bantamweight Naz was fighting the #1 in his own division FW. Their careers didn't cross over until near the Naz's own career. Up until then they were in different divisions. But of course its Naz's fault he didnt fight guys in the division below him.

[walshb]

McCullough did NOT give Morales a ferocious battle. Morales clearly won the bout and looked to me to be coasting.

[Henno30]

In fairness Morales did say that McCullough was one of the toughest fights of his career.

Not sure what the Marquez comments are about. Manny Steward himself says that they ducked Marquez.

[walshb]

Originally Posted by Henno30

In fairness Morales did say that McCullough was one of the toughest fights of his career.

Not sure what the Marquez comments are about. Manny Steward himself says that they ducked Marquez.

Not saying he didn't. Morales clearly won, and it was far from a ferocious battle. I like Wayne, but above 122 lbs he was never all that good. Yes, he was competitive, but had not got what it took to be very good. Morales was always comfortably better. Morales just didn't really go hell for leather consistently enough.

Side note: I would back Barry McGuigan to halt Wayne at 126 lbs, chin or not, Barry would be too strong and heavy handed and would break Wayne to body and head forcing a stoppage.

[megadodge]

Originally Posted by walshb

McCullough did NOT give Morales a ferocious battle. Morales clearly won the bout and looked to me to be coasting.

Just one quick Google search on Morales v McCullough got the following results.

http://www.boxinginsight.com/test/values/

"I got back to work on the fight that ought to have been awarded the Fight Of The Year. Erik Morales, who was undefeated at that time, stated during the post-interview that this match was one of the top three toughest fights in his career, and coming from a pugilist of his caliber who, before their match up, had knocked out all nine of his previous opponents was truly something"

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxin...hamedsoto.html

"...The fourth round began a string of very close rounds as McCullough would back Morales to the ropes, unload on him, and then allow Morales to answer back. Whichever man landed first soon found himself on the receiving end of a retaliatory blow,and the action was back and forth all night... It was a good investment on Morales' part, because by the end of the fourth he found himself completely exhausted... Beginning the fifth with his mouth open and his chest heaving, Morales was in a precarious spot: controlling the fight with clean punches, but tiring badly against an opponent whose stamina never seemed to waver... In the seventh and eighth, the fight was still extremely close, as McCullough would inevitably keep firing punches until one would land, sending a very tired Morales back to the ropes... With the fight relatively close going into the championship rounds.. and the Detroit audience rose to it's feet as the battle continued through to the closing bell. While Tapia-Ayala seems to have the award locked up for 1999, expect this fight to poll a close second for Fight of the Year"

http://www.boxing-monthly.co.uk/content/9912/three.htm

"...the fight that preceded it at the Joe Louis Arena, Detroit on 22 October surpassed expectations as Mexico’s undefeated Erik Morales found himself in a gruelling struggle before winning a unanimous decision over Belfast’s Wayne McCullough in their super bantam title fight... The scorecards (wrongly announced) were one-sided, all three judges scoring 118-110 in favour of Morales, but they did not reflect the intensity of the battle... Morales looked a tired fighter as he slumped on his stool at the end of some of the later rounds... "At some moments I felt I could have lost the fight" [Morales].."

I even fished out the Boxing News magazine that reported the fight

"...Morales is given toughest test as champion..."sometimes I thought I was going to lose" [Morales]... McCullough beaten unanimously by Mexican Erik Morales in a thrilling 12-rounder... instead he got as tough a fight as he had had as champion... producing a display of tenacity and courage which had the fans standing and applauding numerous times [Wayne]... the judges scores were wide which gave a false impression of the bout's intensity and Morales struggle..."


The fact that Erik Morales himself has on many occasions referred to this fight as one of the toughest of his career says it all. His opinion is far more worthy than yours considering he took part in the actual fight!!

[tdv123]

Lol, Mayweather is one of the best boxers of the last 20 years, Naz is nothing compared to him.

And maybe it's true that Hamed was in decline when he fought Barrera but clearly didnt lack any motivation going into the fight. Anybody that spends much time on a entrance clearly couldnt be focused on anything else.

Hamed just couldn't penetrate a solid defence. There's no doubt in my mind if this fight happened 3-4 years earlier that the outcome would still be the same.

One thing I would say for Hamed was he could take a punch. Kelly & Barrera hit him several times with good clear punches without really doing much damage.