Who's your top 5 boxers of all time-opinions?

cowzerp

Who's your top 5 boxers of all time-opinions?

1 ali-best ever sports man
2 leonard-skill and charisma
3 holyfield-heart and determination
4 tyson-speed power and aggression
5 mcguigan best ever irish joy to watch

Big Ears

on your characrteristics

No boxer was the greatest sportsman ever

Ray Robinson is the best boxer ever for me(or possibly Henry Armstrong)

Heart and Determination= Wayne McCullough , if only he had a slight bit of a punch .

Speed Power and Aggression together would probably go to Tyson especially seeing as he's a heavyweight and it's always the lard lads(not that any of the top heavies were ever really fat) that grab the attention . Currently and in a non all-time sense for me it would go to Jorge Arce , the most exciting and possibly charasmatic fighter in the sport today .

Best Irish fighter to ever watch=Collins , I'm not young enough to have witnessed the McGuigan fights so can only go on what ive seen .

cowzerp

ali is the greatest sports man for 1 reason-He made all sports high profile not just boxing-before ali most sports where just localised-ali became world famous and even now is probably the most famous man alive-even known in 3rd world countries..you should also try to see some mcguigan coverage

bilbo79

ALI-class
LEONARD-skill
TYSON-ko's
FOREMAN-power
BOWE-SHOULD OF BEEN A LEGEND.

Cowzerp your selection is very good
bigears needs a bit of work

Bodhidharma

1. Erik Morales
2. Roy Jones Jr
3. Floyd Mayweather Jr
4. Bernard Hopkins
5. Lennox Lewis

OK, let me qualify my top 5. I didnt put in a fighter i haven't seen fight live or on only one occasion. My selection ranges from about 1993 because thats when i started to watch it seriously.
Its all well and good saying Ray Robinson, but we're going on an assumption (he probably was the greatest, his record and accomplishments justify it), but assuming takes the debate out. I like to debate the issue and not go for the well known option.

The criteria i look at are dominance of division, skill, heart, taking the hardest fights (dont mention Roy), and being good for the sport.

For me El Terrible will always be no.1, i think i said it before but i nearly cried when he was beat down by Pac man.

I would also like to mention the ridicoulous heavy weight bias seen in the other peoples 5. Come on, do you honestly believe that 3 or 4 of the top 5 fighters of all time come from the least skillful, slow paced and generally dull heavyweight division. Just because they're the most famous doesn't mean they are the best. In many ways i blame Ali, Frazier, and Foreman for this. BTW Holmes would beat the lot of em.

cowzerp

Bodhidharma you make some good points-i agree that heavyweights are often not very good especially now!! look at my selection and the heavyweights where all fast and where more like middle weights-heavyweight division in boxing is worldwide considered the greatest crown a fighter can obtain-personally i was a light weight and think the bouts are probably harder but these divisions are not dominated to the same degree due to this high standard-there is 100's of boxers that could be in a top 5-chavez-hagler hearns-frazier-barrera-ps-lewis only done well because how poor the division was when he came good.

Dempsey

Ali
Robinson
Holyfield
Foreman
Marciano

walshb

Big Ears wrote:

on your characrteristics

No boxer was the greatest sportsman ever

Ray Robinson is the best boxer ever for me(or possibly Henry Armstrong)

Heart and Determination= Wayne McCullough , if only he had a slight bit of a punch .

Speed Power and Aggression together would probably go to Tyson especially seeing as he's a heavyweight and it's always the lard lads(not that any of the top heavies were ever really fat) that grab the attention . Currently and in a non all-time sense for me it would go to Jorge Arce , the most exciting and possibly charasmatic fighter in the sport today .

Best Irish fighter to ever watch=Collins , I'm not young enough to have witnessed the McGuigan fights so can only go on what ive seen .

And why is no boxer the geatest?
Ali is by far the most endearing charismatic and gifted athlete the world has ever seen. He transcended the sport. He's an idol to all sports people and I bet if all the great sports athletes thru the the last 50 years were asked who was the greatest athlete ever AND the most popular, Ali would head the list. He was the equivelant of Elvis in the music scene

walshb

Oh and as great as Robinson was, he was never he greatest. He never won a heavyweight title and during his reign there were tons of heavyweights who would have clean KO'd him. Just because they were bigger and stronger is not their fault is it. Don't bring the p4p thing into it as this is purely fantasy!!!

Greatest welter/middle maybe, greatest fighter...NO way!!!!!!

The Davestator

Lot of good stuff in most of the replies, however, for the definitive top five, you need look no further!!

1. Marciano
2. Marciano
3. Marciano
4. Marciano
5. Marciano

Never beaten - never came back for the money - unbelievable heart - KO'd 43 of 49 - died in a plane crash like a rock star!!

bilbo79

1. Marciano
2. Marciano
3. Marciano
4. Marciano
5. Marciano

Never beaten - never came back for the money - unbelievable heart - KO'd 43 of 49 - died in a plane crash like a rock star!![/QUOTE]

its a bit obvious that this goon never boxed and probably was not even born when rocky was boxing/swinging. get a grip

sonic juice

indeed.

The Davestator

Whats the difference whether I boxed or not? (I boxed for 15 years) Can you not know about something without having done it. If you think that, you've obviously taken a punch too many in your own illustrious career!!

mickoo

The davestater sounds like some dude who seen a boxing match 1 day then became a professional commentator-muppet-keep up the crap opinions!!

The Davestator

Well, Mickoo, you dont seem to have any opinions yourself at all. Do you just cruise chat rooms, slagging others and then leave before they realise you actually dont know S*** on the subject and head off to the knitting section to argue that 'knit one, pearl one' is the ultimate stitch!!.

Since my Marciano post, no one has argued my choice so i'm assuming that no one has a better argument than mine. You cant argue with the facts so resort to 'shooting the messenger' Loving it.

cowzerp

Ali v marciano who'd win-obvious Ali-this lad is not very knowledgable-i'd say his da told him that just to make him look stupid..:D

Bodhidharma

A record is a very flattering piece of evidance, particularly in Marciano's case. There is no doubt the guy is a legend, but that is because he left and never sullied his record by making an ill conceived comeback.

In fairness, you can only beat what is put in front of you. Unfortunately for the rock, he didn't have the greatest of opponents. There is always going to be a question mark over his quality because of his opposition.

He certainly wasn't the most skilled.

mickoo

Ali
leonard
duran
chavez
mayweather

dlofnep

In no order.

Ray Robinson
Ray Leonard
Ali
Mayweather Jnr.
Marciano

walshb

On pure record, yes I say Rocky is the tops in boxing and even possibly the world of sport. Does anyone know of a more famous or more known record?
He was the man for his time, nobody can take that away from him and he would be a real tough fight for any of the other champs thru history.
I still rate him on a peak V peak behind Ali, Foreman and maybe Frazier.
The rest of the greats I see it too hard to call really

Big Ears

He wouldn't have been that tough of a fight for Ali , Foreman , Frazier , Holmes , Lewis , Tyson and basically just because of one thing............size . 5'11 and 184-188lbs and a reach of 67 inches , by modern standards a very small Cruiserweight(weighing that much nowdays he'd probably avail of 24 hour weight ins and make Light-Heavy)

Lennox Lewis was 235-250lbs , he was 6'5 and had a reach of 85 inches , now maybe if Marciano was the boxer type he could have given these guys problems but he was a bruiser and against men that much bigger who hit that much harder , he simply wouldn't have a chance .

I believe he would of beat every champ that came before him , but heavyweight boxers grew so much in size than Marciano against any of the named opponents would just be a miss match .

walshb

I'm a firm believer in the phrase 'a good big one beats a good little one' and Rocky to be honest was small for a heavyweight. So I'll say this, he would be a firm favorite in my opinon over any fighter 200lbs or less.

I still think that even giving away height, weight and reach, he'd be tough for the guys you mentioned and Tyson wasn't much bigger, heavier but not taller and Tyson's lack of character will see Rocky benefit. As for Lewis, with all his physical advantages he wasn't top 10 in my opinion.

Gmac

1. Rocky Marciano
2. Joe Louis
3. Ali
4. Robinson
5. Jones Jnr.

buck65

Nigel Benn in his day was great as was Eubank
Marvin Hagler
Frazier
Ali
Tyson
Collins
Jones Jr.
Calzaghe
and.. Bernard Dunne John Duddy future greats

buck65

Lennox Lewis was lucky as he came thru in a time when heavyweight boxing was and still is at a low ebb.
Not a bad fighter but surely not a contender in the 70s or 80s?
Forgot de la Hoya was class too.

Big Ears

walshb wrote:

As for Lewis, with all his physical advantages he wasn't top 10 in my opinion.

'Just because they were bigger and stronger is not their fault is it. Don't bring the p4p thing into it as this is purely fantasy!!!'

You can't have it both ways Walshb , you have to give Robinson the credit for how great he was(you can't honestly expect a Welterweight to beat top Heavyweights) or retract the quote above .

Just because a man was born smaller is no reason to take away his greatness , Jimmy Wilde is the greatest Flyweight ever . Wilde was very small even for a Flyweight , in modern times he would easily be a minimumweight(he'd even be small at that) . Yet Wilde beat guys(decent fighters) 40 lbs heavier . He dominated his weight division and knocked out guys with rediculous size advantages over him . Any modern day heavyweight would beat Wilde easy , the size would be too much.............is it fair to say they were a better fighter simply because they were born bigger . Pound for Pound is the most innacurate way to judge fighters , yet at the same time it's the most accurate and fair . So i'm sorry but when you're considering how good a fighter is you have to bring lb 4 lb into it .

RedPeppers

From what ive since since the mid 90s ive liked


Joe Calzaghe (what a man longest ever champion this years boxer oty)
Steve Collins (ill never forget them battles with Eubank)
Prince Naseem Hamed (was a menace for years Barrera only man to beat him)
Evander Holyfield (only man to win heavyweight title four times, was in some epics)
Wayne McCulloch (did us proud for many years such an explosive fighting style)

walshb

Big Ears wrote:

'Just because they were bigger and stronger is not their fault is it. Don't bring the p4p thing into it as this is purely fantasy!!!'

You can't have it both ways Walshb , you have to give Robinson the credit for how great he was(you can't honestly expect a Welterweight to beat top Heavyweights) or retract the quote above .

Just because a man was born smaller is no reason to take away his greatness , Jimmy Wilde is the greatest Flyweight ever . Wilde was very small even for a Flyweight , in modern times he would easily be a minimumweight(he'd even be small at that) . Yet Wilde beat guys(decent fighters) 40 lbs heavier . He dominated his weight division and knocked out guys with rediculous size advantages over him . Any modern day heavyweight would beat Wilde easy , the size would be too much.............is it fair to say they were a better fighter simply because they were born bigger . Pound for Pound is the most innacurate way to judge fighters , yet at the same time it's the most accurate and fair . So i'm sorry but when you're considering how good a fighter is you have to bring lb 4 lb into it .

I'm not with you. I for one have never dissed a fighter just because he was maybe bigger than another. The whole p4p thing I believe is silly and for the record I think the greatst fighters ever were the heavyweight champions of their era. Ray Robinson and Hager and Leonard as great as they were, still would not have lasted V Ali, Holmes, Foreman, Frazier, Marciano etc etc.

As for Lewis, he was without doubt a great fighter and a hell of a tough fight for any champ thru history, but still I feel he was a notch below those mentioned above, and his weak chin will always see him troubled by the great heavies

Big Ears

Lewis was only knocked down twice in his career , you could say that both times he lost after the knock downs but the McCall stoppage could be deemed premature(Lewis was up at 6 although was a bit wobbly) and Rahman happened to land the greatest punch he'll ever throw in the biggest fight he'll ever have .

Some would question Frazier's chin the way Foreman bowled him over in 2(knocking him down 6 times) and then in 5 in the rematch . But of course we've seen against Ali and other good fighters that Frazier actually had a good chin , despite going down more times in his career than Lewis(and that's disregarding the Foreman fights) .

Lewis proved his chin against the likes of Briggs(letting him have free shots on him on purpose) and Tua .

Sure his chin would be considered weaker than Ali's or Foreman's but it is far from the weak chin that many people like to believe .

Of course Robinson , Hagler and Leonard wouldn't have lasted with the great heavyweights...........they're heavyweights FFS ! . However is butterbean greater than Jimmy Wilde , because presumely butterbean would beat Wilde in a head to head match up .

Bodhidharma

Big Ears wrote:

Lewis proved his chin against the likes of Briggs(letting him have free shots on him on purpose) and Tua .

I hope your joking. David Tua!!!!
I paid for that fight £20 i believe and it was the worst thing i ever saw. Lewis basically kept pawing him off and Tua was rubbish. I doubt the guy could even reach Lewis' chin.

I think the manner of Lewis' defeats rather than getting ko'd are what loses it for him. Also Rahman and McCall were really terrible fighters.

pjbrady1

I always love these lists, but they always get clouded with accepted wisdom passed down the years.
Accepted wisdom "Rocky Marciano could mix it with the modern greats"
Disregarded fact - Rocky Marciano beat a mised bag of opponents and a significant amount of them he didn't beat until at least nine rounds had passed. Most of his opponents being no taller than 6'1" and weighing <205lbs.

Accepted wisdom (by some people) "Mike Tyson would struggle against the all time greats"
Disregarded fact - Mike Tyson put into hospital with "severe" injuries decent standard heavyweights standing 6'2"+ and 210lbs+. Most of his fights at his peak did not go more than seven rounds.
You have to ask yourself which of the all time greats would lay a glove on Tyson when he started his bobbing and weaving from side to side. A technique that he had perfected far quicker than Joe Frazier. I remember one of Tysons fights where his opponent was pawing at thin air with hooks, crosses, uppercuts as Tyson bobbed from side to side ripping him apart. To me it looked unprecedented in heavyweight division. I'm talking about the Tyson before he got knocked out in Tokyo.
There is another side to Tyson we forget, due to his squat barrel like physique, he didn't present much of a target, also some of his knockout punches were hard to see at normal playing speed. It's not till you see the slow mo replay that you see the big right hand sometimes launched all the way from down at his right hip.

3 Greats from what I have seen, unfortunately with the way television is these days it's hard to see much boxing apart from ITV.

1. Prince Naseem - at his peak he was a destroyer in his division, rose tinted glasses have posthumously lowered the standard of his opponents in critics eyes, past his best he beat Mccullough who has made it onto peoples lists here.
2. Mike Tyson
3. Joe Calzaghe - he might not have knockout power, but he is one of the hardest modern middleweights to hit, and he does not miss with many of his punches. Great stamina, strong legs to bully his way out of corners in clinches, aggressive in a close up bustup. Able to throw more effective punches than his opponent in a close square up. Has a long effective left jab which usually ends up drawing blood as the rounds go on. For a perfect example of skill over strength witness his Jeff Lacy fight. Lacy had oodles of power but could not land a punch. When Lacy tried to clinch and bruise in the corner Calzaghe was able to wrestle his way out. Barry Mgguigan was impressed with his handspeed which gives an indication of his reflexes.
Another thing about Calzaghe is his physique, he is 6'1" but is not lanky and weak, he is strong, so squat middleweights tend to struggle against him.

cowzerp

Pjbrady-you say naseem was top boxer! lets be realistic, he was entertaining and could punch very hard for a feather weight but at the end of the day all his opponents where severely handpicked to build up an impressive record-1st 15 where donkeys then came the run of ancient ex champs that where easy but sky hyped them up-then there was decent boxers with no chin-and then mccullogh who i believe won the fight where hamed could not hurt him and basically just retreated the whole fight-finally barrera a super boxer who could give and take a punch and he retired naseem with ease-nas could of got a rematch but did not want another pasting-
tyson-legend but a shame to himself and to boxing
calzaghe-brilliant but i believe he should of fought collins but his trainers did not believe he would win that 1...

pjbrady1

I think Collins strategy of bruising his way in close to a victory would not have worked against Calzaghe. Calzaghe has a strategy of throwing a quick flurry when someone moves in on him then getting the hell out of the way.
Calzaghe has a more accurate, quicker jab. Calzaghe misses less with his punches than Collins. Collins has more power, but would have struggled to land many on Calzaghe who was far more mobile than Eubank. Calzaghe does not hesitate and has the energy to punish someone when they are in trouble. Remember Collins being shot tired up on the ropes and Eubank looking at him cautiously when any reasonable four punch combo would have brought Collins crashing to the floor. Calzaghe would make Collins miss, jab him all night, wrestle out of the clinches, outpunch in the flurries and combination punch if Collins wilted.

pjbrady1

Naseems fight record.
Professional boxing:
Fights: 37
Wins: 36 (97.2%)
KOs: 31 (83.8%)
Losses: 1 (2.7%)
That is an outrageous knockout record.
He knocked out the following fighters. Daniel Alicea, Tom Johnson, Kevin Kelley.
His knockout record I don't think is approached by any other modern lighter weight boxer. Look at Alicea, Johnson, Kelley's record hardly bums.
In the lighter weight divisions its harder to be a world champion as winning the title depends on speed and skill.

Big Ears

A key thing to note with Tyson was that whenever anyone(decent) stood up to him he just wasn't the same fighter . Tyson wasn't at his peak(mentally) against Buster Douglas but if Douglas went in their with the attitude 95% of Tyson opponents did at that stage in time he would have been knocked out in about 4-6 rounds . Holyfield the first elite heavyweight Tyson fought(he had faced plenty of A level guys but no other elite fighters) stood up to him twice , end result Tyson gets stopped in the 11th and in the rematch finds a way to quit . Most had expected Tyson to destroy Holyfield and if Holyfield had gone in their scared like a lot of fighters did against Tyson he would have been destroyed .

The thing is Tyson was never anywhere near his best for any of his loses , but that's because his true prime only lasted a short 2 years . In those 2 years he faced several good fighters but no great ones........it's impossible to tell whether he had the bottle to beat another top fighter who wasn't scared of him . I believe that guys like Holyfield and Lewis would always have beaten him , that Tyson has a fragile mind similar to that of a bully ,when someone stands up to him.........


Now as regards Naseem Hamed , first of all him beating Wayne McCullough who was on someone's(mine) list . I have McCullough there as having the greatest chin and as much/more heart than any other fighter ever . But in terms of an all round fighter there's no way Wayne McCullough was an all-time great or would he be even near my top 250 fighters ever .

Contrary to popular believe Hamed fought and beat the best out there .
Despite mainly just hanging onto the WBO title(won against Steve Robinson) , he also won the IBF title(Tom 'boom boom' Johnson) and the WBC(Cesar Soto) , aswell as beating WBA champ Wilfredo Vasquez , although Vasquez's title wasn't on the line .

Robinson:7 defences of WBO title , also European champ
Johnson: 11 defences of IBF title
Soto: beaten by Hammed straight after winning the WBC title
Vasquez: WBA Bantam champ(1 defense) , WBA Super Bantam champ(9 defenses) , WBA Feather champ(4 defenses before losing to Hamed) .

He also beat :
Manuel Medina: 3 time IBF champ(5 defenses) , WBC champ , WBO champ
Kevin Kelly:WBC champ(2 defences)
Wayne McCullough:WBC Bantamweight champ(2 defenses)
Paul Ingle:IBF champ(1 defense) , also European champ
Vuyani Bungu: IBF Super Bantamweight champ(13 defenses)


Vincenzo Belcastro: European Bantamweight and Super Bantamweight champ , lost SD's for IBF Super Flyweight title(twice) and IBF Super Bantamweight title . Hamed beat him in only his 12th fight(for European Bantamweight title) .

Freddy Cruz: WBA Super Bantamweight challenger and WBO Featherweight challenger .

Laureano Padilla: challenged for IBF Super Bantamweight title

Armando castro: challenged for WBA Super Flyweight title(twice) and WBO Bantamweight title .

Juan Polo Perez: IBF Super Flyweight champ , challenged for WBA Super Bantamweight title .

Remigio Molina: challenged for WBC Super Bantamweight title .

Billy Hardy: challenged for IBF Bantamweight title twice(once SD) , also European Featherweight champ .

Jose Badillo: challenged for IBF Featherweight title(MD)

He beat other tough fighters who didn't challenge for world titles(or only did so against him) in Enrique Angeles , Said Lawal , Daniel Alicea , Augie Sanchez , Juan Gerardo Cabrera and Manuel Calvo(European Featherweight champ) .

His loss to Barrera came as he had faded . He was now just looking for a one shot ko all the time and rarely outboxed his opponents anymore . This was a shadow of the Hamed seen earlier in his career but he still managed to win 4 rounds against a prime great like Barrera . Even the bout afterwards when he was even worse he clearly(boringly) outpointed European champ Calvo .

He deserves to be up there with the great featherweights , he beat the best opposition there was out there . There is no Featherweight you could say he ducked , and he didn't dominate a weak era . Those were good fighters he beat , some very good .

There is one fighter that more than rivals his knockout ratio though , Edwin Valero WBA Super Featherweight champion . 21 fights , 21 wins , 21 ko's........19 in the first round !!!

Dempsey

Hamed fought mostly above average fighters, granted they were all that was around at the time but with exception of Barrera, he fought nobody remotely good.

I see alot "also ran's" in that list

cowzerp

Hameeds oponents where good years before they boxed him and where picked to build a record up so he could get the real big fights-he had 2 mccullogh and barrera and i believe he lost both-even mccullogh was hand picked as a light hitting bantam weight-naseem just ran for the whole fight-entertaining yes-class no.

megadodge

I'm very much with Big Ears here, as I think over the last few years people's personal dislike for Hamed has seriously clouded their judgement over his ability and achievments.

When rating boxers personality doesn't come into it !

Big Ears has given a very good breakdown of Hamed's main opponents here and yet nobody who disagrees has broken down the list and explained why any of these opponents are "also-rans" or "donkeys".

Cowzerp - I'm as big a McCullough fan as anybody here, but there is absolutely no way he won that fight !! Well, unless you regard following an opponent around the ring and missing with the vast majority of your punches while getting hit regularly as the way to win. That was the fight that cemented McCullough's reputation as having a magnificent chin, which meant he was getting hit a lot !!

One year later McCullough gave the great Erik Morales by far his toughest fight to date. Even the ultra-macho Morales admitted afterwards that "there were times in the fight when I thought I was going to lose". So much for Wayne being washed-up.

As for your assertion that Calzaghe's trainers wouldn't let him fight Collins - Calzaghe was the No. 1 contender for Collins and Collins retired rather than fight him !! And I like Collins too.

PJBrady - Calzaghe is a Super Middleweight not Middle and a southpaw meaning he has a right jab not left. I would also regard him as a harder puncher than Collins but agree with you that he would have beaten Collins by being faster and more accurate for a tough but clear UD.

walshb

Naz is hype, plain and simple. Sure he was definitely good, but against very average fighters, fighters who were past their best and as for his power. Where was it V Barerra. Marco is class, but if you were to believe the Naz hype about him hitting like a Welter, then Marco would have been crushed. Marco was not a Willie Pep or Sweet Pea when it came to defence.
And Marco actually barely broke sweat in defeating Naz. It wasn't remotely close. Sorry but Naz is not a top 20 feather. Maybe makes the top 50 alltime.

Barry McGuigan would have wrecked him!!!

pjbrady1

Nazs opposition's record and opponents and their world titles indicate that they were far from "very average". How can you be a world champion in the featherweight division for a few years and be very average, there are hundreds of Puerto ricans, mexicans, americans, europeans looking to get a shot at you.
I can understand at heavyweight division where the numbers are lower, but at featherweight there is a higher participation rate.

What did Naz achieve? He won the world titles, he held onto them, he destoyed "good" quality opposition and often with one punch knockouts. Almost unheard of at featherweight.

I'v gone back and read on the internet reviews of Barrera Naseem fight.
Naseem had switched trainer, took one hour to enter the ring, asked for a couple of times to have the wraps on his hands changed, if you look at the photos on the second page of this site
http://www.saddoboxing.com/Jim3.html , look at Naz biceps (they lack definition) and the layers of fat on his mid section where he is slumped in the corner. Looking at him on first page as well I would expect greater definition of his back muscles.
So people say Naz is rubbish due to a loss against a great like Barrera, after he had switched trainers (Ingle left as he was sick of him if i remember, Naz was staying in bed all morning was one reported problem and he was not eating properly), looked out of shape, and on a night when he fought in a ridiculous style looking for a one punch knockout instead of boxing his usual style.
Even then with all of that it's an eleventh round stoppage, against a great on a night when Naseem was in the undeniably worst shape of his life. A picture tells a thousand words and I'v never seen a world champion featherweight without a ripped six pack a basic indicator of a tough boxing regime.

Big Ears

walshb wrote:

Naz is hype, plain and simple. Sure he was definitely good, but against very average fighters, fighters who were past their best and as for his power. Where was it V Barerra. Marco is class, but if you were to believe the Naz hype about him hitting like a Welter, then Marco would have been crushed. Marco was not a Willie Pep or Sweet Pea when it came to defence.
And Marco actually barely broke sweat in defeating Naz. It wasn't remotely close. Sorry but Naz is not a top 20 feather. Maybe makes the top 50 alltime.

Barry McGuigan would have wrecked him!!!

I watched Barrera v Naz very recently and Naz was way passed his prime by then . He only landed one shot really flush on Barrera , a right hook which shook Barrera a bit and bloodied his nose . Hammed well past his prime v possibly prime Barrera( an all-time great) with hindsight the fight was always going to be the way it was .

Name 20 featherweights who (a) accomplished more than Naz and (b) were a better fighter than him , you'll find it's a hell of a lot harder than you'd think .

Bodhidharma

I like Naz, always thought he brought a lot to the sport but i have to say some of the comments about him are beyond a joke. The guys he fought were, for the most part, picked for him to exagerate his record. Fighters on the downhill of there careers or else WBO number 1 contenders.
Wayne McCullough, god love him, is a walking punchbag and always has been for top class fighters. Naz never fought any really big name until Barrera and he was found out. The fact that he fought once more and was rubbish, tells its own story.
Where are the Morales, Tapia, Luisito Espinosa, Antonio Cermeno, Junior Jones, Juan Manuel Marquez?These guys weren't in hiding. His record is as much full of filler as his mouth is full of s**t. Anyone in doubt about Naz record should look at the Augie Sanchez fight, he was in a lot of trouble, but eventually blew away a very average opponent.
I do want to say that the guy brought a great deal of interest to boxing in The Uk and here, but to say he was a great is too much of an exageration. Entertaining yes, great NO!

Dempsey

I see a nail getting hit on the head.

Naz fought one fighter of true quality, he lost and retired, that says it all really.

cowzerp

bodhidarma-i could not have said it better-well done.

megadodge

Wayne McCullough, god love him, is a walking punchbag and always has been for top class fighters

Erik Morales just might disagree ?
One year AFTER Naz comfortably beat McCullough he gave Morales a terrific fight and if he just had a little more power he almost certainly would have won.
Therefore by your logic, Morales isn't a top class fighter - yet you turn that on it's head to support your argument and claim he was top class and that Naz was avoiding him despite the fact that they were two different weights. Naz fought Barrera in what was the first fight at feather for either M or B. Barrera was the moral victor in the first Morales fight and in the eyes of the public the better fighter so he fought him instead of Morales - it was one or the other !

Tapia, Luisito Espinosa, Antonio Cermeno, Junior Jones, Juan Manuel Marquez

Tapia - While in his day and excellent fighter he was a world champ at SUPER FLY and absolutely ancient for a lower weight fighter along with being an ex-junkie. I can imagine the criticism Naz would have faced by the likes of you if he actually did fight him.

Espinosa - Showed absolutely no interest in fighting Naz when asked numerous times by journalists, then got beaten by Cesar Soto, who was easily defeated in his very next fight by.... guess who ?

Cermeno - Again fought at a different weight and eventually moved up and won a vacant title by default when Freddie Norwood was stripped. Norwood promptly defeated him when they fought. And besides he was a complete unknown to the majority of even hardcore fans and would have been ridiculed for that very reason. You can't have it both ways.

Jones - The same guy that got pole-axed the same night Naz debuted in the US. Then got pole-axed by Morales. Not much later struggled hugely in beating Richard Evatt !!! I rest my case.

Marquez - Has gone on to prove himself to be an excellent fighter, but when he was Naz's no.1 contender he went and fought Norwood and lost clearly, ruling himself out of the picture. Simple.

The fact that he fought once more and was rubbish, tells its own story.

While Hamed was not impressive, he still beat the reigning European Champ very easily - not bad for someone who was rubbish !

And getting back to Barrera, Marco stunned the entire industry when in the Hamed fight he came out with a high guard and for the most part backed off jabbing. It was a master tactical move (making a counter puncher lead) especially as he was renowned as an uber-agressive fighter, but it shows the respect he had for Hamed's power that he wasn't going to risk walking onto a bomb, which he surely would have if he chose to come forward. Great tactics but a backhanded compliment all the same.

pjbrady1

If you check the website I posted earlier you can see the poor shape Naz was in. Naz was in poor shape, and what you consider as a true great ended up going a full 12 rounds with Naz.
If Naz had walked out and found a 1997 Naseem in the other corner he would have been handed a thrashing whithin 8 rounds. A prime Naseem fighting with his proper tactics thrashes an out of shape Naseem looking for a ridiculous one punch knockout after switching trainers and spending a half hour to get his wraps on.

Bodhidharma

Super Featherweight

1: Floyd Mayweather, 23-0, WBC
2: Diego Corrales, 32-0, IBF
3: Acelino Freitas (Brazil), 26-0, WBO
4: Joel Casamayor* (Cuba), 22-0, WBA
5: Angel Manfredy, 33-4-1
6: Roberto Garcia, 33-2
7: Jesus Chavez (Mexico), 32-1
6: John Brown, 22-7
9: Goyo Vargas (Mexico), 40-7-1
10: Alejandro Gonzalez (Mexico), 43-4


Featherweight

1: Naseem Hamed* (Britain), 35-0, WBO
2: Freddie Norwood*, 37-0-1, WBA
3: Guty Espadas (Mexico), 33-2, WBC
4: Erik Morales (Mexico), 37-0
5: Paul Ingle (Britain), 23-1, IBF/IBO (Fought/Won)
6: Derrick Gainer*, 35-5
7: Juan Manuel Marquez (Mexico), 31-2
8: Istvan Kovacs (Hungary), 18-0
9: Manuel Medina (Mexico), 57-11 (Fought/ won)
10: Daniel Seda (Puerto Rico), 15-0



SUPER BANTAMWEIGHT BANTAMWEIGHT
122lbs/8st 10lbs
(Called junior featherweight by the WBA, IBF, WBO)

1: Marco Antonio Barrera (Mexico), 50-3, WBO (Fought/lost)
2: Bones Adams, 40-3-3, WBA
3: Michael Brodie (Britain), 29-0
4: Willie Jorrin, 26-0
5: Danny Romero, 39-3-1
6: Oscar Larios (Mexico), 37-2-1
7: Wayne McCullough (Britain), 23-3 (Fought/won)
8: Lehlohonolo Ledwaba (S. Africa), 30-1-1, IBF
9: Antonio Cermeno (Venezuela), 38-3
10: Manny Pacquiao (Philippines), 29-2

That was the state of boxing in and around the Featherweight division in September 2000. Naz had plenty of opponents he could face and didn't. The fact that people who claim to be knowledgable about boxing are trumping Naz as a great is laughable. Seriously.

As for Naz fitness in the Barrera fight, GREAT fighters aren't lazy and arrogant. Anyone claiming Naz greatness, i have 4 words - Little Prince, Big Fight.

Big Ears

That list was taken after August 2000 , Hamed's first fight after that............Barrera the #1 Super Bantamweight as your list shows . So you can't say he ducked anyone at that time .

Hamed may have only been 27 when he fought Barrera but he was shot..........does it matter that Ali lost to Berbick(and I by know way mean Hamed is in Ali's class) of course not cause he was shot . Same applies to Tyson against Williams+McBride or Joe Louis' loss to Rocky Marciano .

Proof of this is his fight after against Calvo where he showed he simply wasn't the same fighter(even if he did win a shutout) .

I feel most people here are discrediting Hamed subconsciously because they disliked him , I disliked him . He was a cocky arrogant prick but he was a damn good boxer and one of the best ever at Featherweight .

jessy

Marco Antonio Barrera

Evander Holyfield

Mike Tyson (all the Potential to be the greatest ever! But lacked a mind of his own! And was ruined by Don King!!)

Ali

Wayne McCullough (Tie between him and Evander for greatest heart, remember Wayne was never Knocked, and only stopped once and that was in his last fight and Like Evander he would Never back away from a fight, and he always wanted to fight the best)

mickoo

jessy thats a good selection-and for good reasons-welcome to the boxing forum..:)

pjbrady1

Mccullough had tremendous heart, and a great chin, but he missed with alot of his punches, and was well short of having a knockout punch with either hand, and with any type of punch.
There was an italian guy years ago who nobody could knockout (he based his career on this challenge to opponents), do we include him as a great. Italian guy eventually got knocked out near end of his career.