Fantasy Fight - Naseem Hamed v Erik Morales

whaaames

Been pretty quiet here recently so i'll try this one and see how it goes...

The Prince of 96' - 99' against the featherweight Morales era of the early 2000s...

How do you see it going...???

cowzerp

Morales early ko win tbh

BoxingIrel.com

cowzerp wrote: »

Morales early ko win tbh

underestimating the Nazmeister a tad?

cowzerp

BoxingIrel.com wrote: »

underestimating the Nazmeister a tad?

No, against any top opposition he looked average, Morales was top opposition and a killer!

I liked hamed but he was not amazing, was good against cans..
Mccullogh would have easily beat him had he got a punch!

walshb

Never a fan of Naz and his lack of technical and fundamental skills.

He could move, had a good chin, good stamina and could punch; but vs. Morales and other great fighters he would be dominated by their superior boxing skill.

Erik's chin and toughness and heavy hands would break Naz late rds, OR a wide decision win. Thos looping and telegraphed shots fro Naz wouldn't do the trick against Morales.

Wild_Dogger

Morales - no doubt in my mind .

jordan..

El Terrible would murder him

seadnamac

Morales TKO middle rounds. Absolute beast of a fighter, Nas would be blown away.

supersean1999

a fully trained and motivated hamed wins in my opinion, he was savage, and hamed at that time would of beaten barrera too

whaaames

I was never the biggest fan of Naz at the time myself, but i do remember him being the most talked about and hyped fighter of the 90s and looking back he was something special and although i didnt appreciate him at the time he did a lot for boxing...

He was a serious puncher, he had welterweight power in a featherweight body and his KO percentage was something to be admired, and he never really got hurt which is a demonstration of his abilities in the ring...I agree he was possibly over hyped but the fact still remains he had talent and one punch knockout power

Morales was a different animal however, intense, strong, heavy handed and could take a shot, he would have been a nightmare for Hamed because his volume and style wouldve disabled Hameds hands by the sides technigue and flashy style but then we wouldve seen Naz the boxer instead of Naz the puncher and who knows...

My honest gut tells me there would've some heavy shots landed but the fact Erik was such a warrior and Hamed wasnt easy to hit there wouldn't have been a knockout, it would've been a war, a war which Naz might not have anticipated properly and got frustrated with, so for me it's Erik Morales by UD

jordan..

supersean1999 wrote: »

a fully trained and motivated hamed wins in my opinion, he was savage, and hamed at that time would of beaten barrera too

did you see the barrera fight! The flaws in his style where brutaly exposed! He never would have beaten MAB or Morrales! To be honest I think he was really over rated and just looked good knocking out nobodys.

tdv123

cowzerp wrote: »

No, against any top opposition he looked average, Morales was top opposition and a killer!

I liked hamed but he was not amazing, was good against cans..
Mccullogh would have easily beat him had he got a punch!

Didn't he only ever lose one fight against any sort of opposition? And that defeat was at a time he was miles past his best.

supersean1999

jordan.. wrote: »

did you see the barrera fight! The flaws in his style where brutaly exposed! He never would have beaten MAB or Morrales! To be honest I think he was really over rated and just looked good knocking out nobodys.

ya i did see the fight, i also seen nearly all his other fights and realise what a shadow he was that night, he was more worried about his haircut than the fight, naz was purely motivated with money and once he had it, training for the fights came second, ps naz beat some pretty good fighters not just nobodys lack of knowledge saying that,

jordan..

supersean1999 wrote: »

ya i did see the fight, i also seen nearly all his other fights and realise what a shadow he was that night, he was more worried about his haircut than the fight, naz was purely motivated with money and once he had it, training for the fights came second, ps naz beat some pretty good fighters not just nobodys lack of knowledge saying that,

No! He got smacked around and did not know what to do! He could not adapt!

walshb

jordan.. wrote: »

No! He got smacked around and did not know what to do! He could not adapt!

Spot on.

And to those saying he was past it? When ever did Naz possess boxing fundamentals? The guy didn't even possess the most important and basic
punch, the jab. He was very much exposed by Barerra, and would have been brutally exposed by others of the past, like Nelson, Sanchez, McGuigan etc.

Barerra beat Naz without even extending himself. He was coasting throughout. Naz had no answer after he realised that his single, wide and looping shots were not good enough.

Naz showed courage and toughness alright, but that was it that night. His lack of boxing skills showed very much.

seadnamac

supersean1999 wrote: »

ya i did see the fight, i also seen nearly all his other fights and realise what a shadow he was that night, he was more worried about his haircut than the fight, naz was purely motivated with money and once he had it, training for the fights came second, ps naz beat some pretty good fighters not just nobodys lack of knowledge saying that,

Naz was just as motivated for that fight with MAB as he was for any other fight. He was always more concerned with other stuff like his ring entrance and making himself look like a star. Barrera was a class above anyone he had fought before that and he got found out, like has been said, he couldn't adapt and had no answer.

Naz was a very good fighter, who did a lot to bring more exposure to the lower weight classes but he was not an elite fighter and wasn't in the same league as the likes of Morales and Barrera. Whether we're talking Morales the brawler or when he developed into more of a boxer later on after around 2002, he would have beaten Naz handily enough.

Warper

Naseem Hamed was basically a Sky Production, once he left the UK he was shown up. Morales would have killed him.

supersean1999

naz was past it more mentally if anything, he seemed not prepared in the documentary, barrera did fight a very cagey fight and done his homework because , i may be wrong but he was sparked out by a junior jones, so he knew naz could hurt him, but he boxed well and deserved his win on the night,, but i think it was late 00 early 01 , i think naz peaked in 97 ,

supersean1999

Warper wrote: »

Naseem Hamed was basically a Sky Production, once he left the UK he was shown up. Morales would have killed him.

if im not wrong he had at least 5 maybe 6 fights in the usa,maybe all for world titles i think, losing 1, your point being?? he was beaten by a brilliant fighter, and imo was not at his peak, its silly to dismiss him altogether

walshb

supersean1999 wrote: »

naz was past it more mentally if anything, he seemed not prepared in the documentary, barrera did fight a very cagey fight and done his homework because , i may be wrong but he was sparked out by a junior jones, so he knew naz could hurt him, but he boxed well and deserved his win on the night,, but i think it was late 00 early 01 , i think naz peaked in 97 ,

But in 97 what was different? He still had the same style and same "power."

The thing was that against a class act, that style and "power" wasn't up to it.

I knew when he struggled against a past it blown up punchbag, Wayne, that he was never all that good. That was 1999. Who of real quality did Naz beat?

Kelley? No, he was well past peak and was not in Barerra's class, or Erik's class.

No version of Naz beats a class fighter with a good chin. The fact is that Naz just didn't possess the fundamentals and skills to beat quality and technical
boxers.

Warper

supersean1999 wrote: »

if im not wrong he had at least 5 maybe 6 fights in the usa,maybe all for world titles i think, losing 1, your point being?? he was beaten by a brilliant fighter, and imo was not at his peak, its silly to dismiss him altogether

If the 2 of them fought at their peak, Morales odds would be something like 1-3 and Hamed 5-2. Not for a split second would I think Hamed was a better fighter than Morales.

supersean1999

seadnamac wrote: »

Naz was just as motivated for that fight with MAB as he was for any other fight. He was always more concerned with other stuff like his ring entrance and making himself look like a star. Barrera was a class above anyone he had fought before that and he got found out, like has been said, he couldn't adapt and had no answer.

Naz was a very good fighter, who did a lot to bring more exposure to the lower weight classes but he was not an elite fighter and wasn't in the same league as the likes of Morales and Barrera. Whether we're talking Morales the brawler or when he developed into more of a boxer later on after around 2002, he would have beaten Naz handily enough.

did you see the documentary series following him before the fight??? can you remember the young naz in the ingle gym, they were two different animals FACT, i cant tell you for a fact he would of beaten anybody he never fought but by no means was that the best naz, against barrera, money fame had got to his head, ill say again i thought barrera was brilliant also

seadnamac

supersean1999 wrote: »

did you see the documentary series following him before the fight??? can you remember the young naz in the ingle gym, they were two different animals FACT, i cant tell you for a fact he would of beaten anybody he never fought but by no means was that the best naz, against barrera, money fame had got to his head, ill say again i thought barrera was brilliant also

Yea I saw the documentary but there's no way of knowing if his behaviour before the fight as evidenced in it was really that much different to how he acted before any of his other fights. There are no other documentaries to compare it to. I could be completely wrong but Naz always seemed to me to be too concerned with things that weren't as important as really focusing on the fight at hand.

Anyway, I liked Naz and loved watching him fight but I think what we saw in his fight with Barrera was a fair reflection of the abilities of both of those fighters.

strobe

Nas had a lot of raw talent, he did have a heavy shot on him but the whole "he hits like a welter" thing was way over the top. His upper body movement was mesmerizingly quick and he used it to incredible effect. His foot movement round the ring was also great in his prime. Plus he could take a shot, he had a decent chin and that was proven several times. It's easy to point out his flaws because the guy acted like such an asshole in the ring (dancing over fighters he'd put down etc), aswell as out, so it was so hard to like him. But he was a hard guy to go up against at his best.

That said though Morales was just in a different league, the same league Barrera and the other greats at the weight were in. El Terrible tears him apart over 12 rounds for the UD.

supersean1999

seadnamac wrote: »

Yea I saw the documentary but there's no way of knowing if his behaviour before the fight as evidenced in it was really that much different to how he acted before any of his other fights. There are no other documentaries to compare it to. I could be completely wrong but Naz always seemed to me to be too concerned with things that weren't as important as really focusing on the fight at hand.

Anyway, I liked Naz and loved watching him fight but I think what we saw in his fight with Barrera was a fair reflection of the abilities of both of those fighters.

we not far apart, really except both at the best that fight would of been different, i did see lots of other footage he seemed a lot different before that fight, a more annoying one as well haha, take it easy talk again

megadodge

God, I just have to get involved, as I have countless times before, repeating the same facts as before but which everyone conveniently ignores, as Naz is the guy everyone loves to hate.

If anybody actually took time to look at Hamed's entire career rather than his one loss, when for me at least the writing was on the wall (that he had long ago lost interest and discipline), they would realise how hard-to-beat a peak Hamed was.

He was extremely fast (both hand and foot), had shocking power in either hand, was physically very strong, had a good chin (any knockdowns suffered were because of balance issues brought around by bad fundamentals), was very hard to hit cleanly and had excellent stamina.

On the negative side, he got over-cocky in terms of what was required preparation-wise when up against the best in the world, had bad fundamentals (as already mentioned) which had a lot of pluses in terms of awkwardness but also left him overly-exposed at times and by the end of his career he completely ignored his earlier combination throwing / elusive style and relied almost exclusively on single big shots (not unlike the latter day Tyson).

On the last point, I actually believe the reliance on the big one was as a result of bad training habits he had fallen into, which meant he wasn't as fit/sharp as he used to be meaning he had to conserve energy rather than constantly moving.

Even allowing for the fact that I don't think he ever lived up to his full potential, he completely dominated the featherweight division for FIVE YEARS.

He actively sought out all the belt holders and beat them. How many boxers actually do that? He held (or beat the beltholder of) WBO, IBF, WBC & WBA titles in the minds of any fair-minded boxing follower. Just because the alphabet boys went and stripped the opponent the day before the bout shouldn't change anything. Hamed beat the top men in each organisation.

At one stage in his career, of all the active champions, only Roy Jones had beaten more former/current/future 'world' title holders and yet in the eyes of those who don't want to see he only fought "cans" and "bums". How does that add up?

His personality was very polarising. You either loved him or hated him. There seems to be no in-between. And that is the huge problem when having discussions on him.

Those that hated him (probably the majority) just point blank refuse to give him any credit for anything. Walshb for example will try and convince us that his power was nothing special - "if it was why didn't he KO Barrera?" has been used, to which I reply "why did MAB completely change his style from relentless aggressor to stand-off jabber for Hamed, do you really think it had nothing to do with power?" Cowzerp will call his opposition sub-standard, despite what I've already mentioned about belt-holders and also mention that he always liked Hamed, as if that gives credence to facts he doesn’t back up. There will doubtless be plenty of others to join them in the endless criticism, the vast majority of it based on their dislike of the man, when what should be discussed is his boxing ability and achievements. Boxing is not a popularity contest!

On a match with Morales, I think this would be a tremendous bout. Morales would not do a Barrera and change his style, he would come straight at Hamed, which is exactly what Naz loves. Morales didn’t have the quickest of feet, so would have real problems trying to pin Hamed down. When you throw in the fact that he also wasn’t the hardest to hit, but had a great chin, you can see how this would be a very hard fight for him, but very entertaining for the fans, as Morales just never backed down, so no matter what he was hit with he’d keep coming.

However, while in his prime, although Erik was never badly hurt, he was stunned a number of times by MAB in their all-time classic and Marco did NOT hit as hard as Hamed. If you also see how badly Erik struggled with (a supposed washed-up punchbag) McCullough ONE YEAR AFTER Wayne’s fight with Hamed, an honest person would have to admit, at the very least Hamed stands a reasonable chance of beating Morales.

I feel Hamed would go into a big lead early, stunning Morales regularly, but never really damaging him, realising that he wasn’t going to stop him (a la McCullough) and boxing after that. Morales would start winning rounds from the 8th but it would be too late. I think Hamed wins a hard-fought and close UD.

And FFS I am talking a peak Hamed not the celebrity-obsessed version that ended up facing Barrera.

seadnamac

I don't see much hate for Naz in this thread to be honest. Are you sure you're not getting carried away with yourself? All I can see is some people saying he was good/very good just not as good as Morales.

supersean1999

megadodge wrote: »

God, I just have to get involved, as I have countless times before, repeating the same facts as before but which everyone conveniently ignores, as Naz is the guy everyone loves to hate.

If anybody actually took time to look at Hamed's entire career rather than his one loss, when for me at least the writing was on the wall (that he had long ago lost interest and discipline), they would realise how hard-to-beat a peak Hamed was.

He was extremely fast (both hand and foot), had shocking power in either hand, was physically very strong, had a good chin (any knockdowns suffered were because of balance issues brought around by bad fundamentals), was very hard to hit cleanly and had excellent stamina.

On the negative side, he got over-cocky in terms of what was required preparation-wise when up against the best in the world, had bad fundamentals (as already mentioned) which had a lot of pluses in terms of awkwardness but also left him overly-exposed at times and by the end of his career he completely ignored his earlier combination throwing / elusive style and relied almost exclusively on single big shots (not unlike the latter day Tyson).

On the last point, I actually believe the reliance on the big one was as a result of bad training habits he had fallen into, which meant he wasn't as fit/sharp as he used to be meaning he had to conserve energy rather than constantly moving.

Even allowing for the fact that I don't think he ever lived up to his full potential, he completely dominated the featherweight division for FIVE YEARS.

He actively sought out all the belt holders and beat them. How many boxers actually do that? He held (or beat the beltholder of) WBO, IBF, WBC & WBA titles in the minds of any fair-minded boxing follower. Just because the alphabet boys went and stripped the opponent the day before the bout shouldn't change anything. Hamed beat the top men in each organisation.

At one stage in his career, of all the active champions, only Roy Jones had beaten more former/current/future 'world' title holders and yet in the eyes of those who don't want to see he only fought "cans" and "bums". How does that add up?

His personality was very polarising. You either loved him or hated him. There seems to be no in-between. And that is the huge problem when having discussions on him.

Those that hated him (probably the majority) just point blank refuse to give him any credit for anything. Walshb for example will try and convince us that his power was nothing special - "if it was why didn't he KO Barrera?" has been used, to which I reply "why did MAB completely change his style from relentless aggressor to stand-off jabber for Hamed, do you really think it had nothing to do with power?" Cowzerp will call his opposition sub-standard, despite what I've already mentioned about belt-holders and also mention that he always liked Hamed, as if that gives credence to facts he doesn’t back up. There will doubtless be plenty of others to join them in the endless criticism, the vast majority of it based on their dislike of the man, when what should be discussed is his boxing ability and achievements. Boxing is not a popularity contest!

On a match with Morales, I think this would be a tremendous bout. Morales would not do a Barrera and change his style, he would come straight at Hamed, which is exactly what Naz loves. Morales didn’t have the quickest of feet, so would have real problems trying to pin Hamed down. When you throw in the fact that he also wasn’t the hardest to hit, but had a great chin, you can see how this would be a very hard fight for him, but very entertaining for the fans, as Morales just never backed down, so no matter what he was hit with he’d keep coming.

However, while in his prime, although Erik was never badly hurt, he was stunned a number of times by MAB in their all-time classic and Marco did NOT hit as hard as Hamed. If you also see how badly Erik struggled with (a supposed washed-up punchbag) McCullough ONE YEAR AFTER Wayne’s fight with Hamed, an honest person would have to admit, at the very least Hamed stands a reasonable chance of beating Morales.

I feel Hamed would go into a big lead early, stunning Morales regularly, but never really damaging him, realising that he wasn’t going to stop him (a la McCullough) and boxing after that. Morales would start winning rounds from the 8th but it would be too late. I think Hamed wins a hard-fought and close UD.

And FFS I am talking a peak Hamed not the celebrity-obsessed version that ended up facing Barrera.

took me a cup of tea and two nice sandwichs later, but i read it all lol only joking, i agree with you, not anyone in this thread in particular, but being an annoying prick and a great boxer can be hard to seperate for some people,,

megadodge

seadnamac wrote: »

I don't see much hate for Naz in this thread to be honest. Are you sure you're not getting carried away with yourself? All I can see is some people saying he was good/very good just not as good as Morales.

As this is not the first debate on Hamed's worth I've had (not even close hence my opening sentence), I've experienced an awful lot of hate for him.

Can't say I liked his personality myself, but it's very obvious if you look at discussions on him (other forums also), he generates some very emotional responses.

walshb

Jeez, Mega, what has hate got to do with ones view on Naz the boxer? YOU are the one
bringing in hate and dislike to this debate, nobody else.

I never rated the guy from what I saw of him. He had qualities, like chin, movement and courage; but was never ever a great boxer from my position.

Who exactly did he beat?

When was his peak? He beat a faded and blown up Wayne, a dull and boring and difficult fight for him too.

Augie Sanchez? Kelley? Steve Robinson? Ingle? Hardy?

All good fighters, but nothing exceptional at all. We are pitting Naz against the cream, and here he comes up short, and glaringly.

No version of Naz beats a Morales or Barerra or some others. He hadn't got the skills. All he had was a punchers chance, and even at that, that didn't work against Wayne, and wouldn't work against other steel chinned and BIGGER men than Wayne.

Funny, the fight Naz lost was the fight where he showed me he had balls, heart and a good chin. The previous fights didn't do all that much for me, although I did really like the dispatching of Kevin Kelley.

Regarding the power. When I hear people throwing around terms like welter power, YES, I will question this
ridiculous statement. He had power, but it was feather power, that is it. If it was welter power, then
Barerra and all the others, Wayne included, would have been destroyed.

It's the typical bull**** hype from people that will be questioned by me. Welter power? Gimme a ****ing
break!

Bottom line: Naz wasn't near busy enough or fluid enough with punching
to beat Morales. Naz was a one, maybe two shots, take a 20 second break type
of fighter. Morales would be throwing far more and landing far more too.

cowzerp

Its worth noting i was probably Hamed's biggest fan, but when it really comes down to it he always fought lads with either no chin, or no power, lots of his opponents where good 5 years prior!

Mccullogh is a prime example and i think he was poor against wayne, Mccullogh had a chin but zero power at all-perfect fight for Naz, run away and just throw out nothing punches for 12 rounds and beating a top fighter! wayne with even average power would have mauled him.

His power was good for a feather but thats it, against good opposition it did not look to great though.

sxt

cowzerp wrote: »

, but when it really comes down to it he always fought lads with either no chin, or no power, lots of his opponents where good 5 years prior!

.

Same goes for Prince Amir ! except Naseem was great to watch.

megadodge

Of course I brought hate into it, as it's so obvious to me that a lot of opinions of Naz are coloured by emotion.

I don't have a problem with people thinking that Morales would win, it's the 'different league' type comments which suggest to me that they're not giving him a fair crack of the whip. I can't ever see anything other than a close fight between them.

Funny you should bring up the McCullough fight again though, as Hamed beat him without being impressive, whereas Morales had a serious struggle with him ONE YEAR LATER.

It was generally accepted at the time, that although Morales probably won the judges tallies didn't quite reflect how hard the fight was. Even Erik admitted afterwards something along the lines of "there were times in that fight when I thought I was going to lose". Now, coming from the super-macho Morales that's some statement!

On the issue of power, I think you're one of the very few who doesn't rate it. Saying he didn't KO Wayne McCullough means what exactly? By that logic since Earnie Shavers couldn't KO Muhammad Ali or Gerry Quarry how can people call him the greatest puncher ever? I'm far from being alone in thinking Wayne's chin is among the 10 best p4p of all-time.

And if Hamed's power was just feather power how come his KO% is not just the standard feather KO%? Instead he has a way above average KO% (83%ish) which obviously means he had well above average feather power. Hardly a stretch to say he had (average) welter power. It's well known that he regularly rocked way bigger men (as high as cruiser) in sparring. I've read various interviews with different boxers over the years and they all refer to his power.

Bottom line: Naz wasn't near busy enough or fluid enough with punching
to beat Morales. Naz was a one, maybe two shots, take a 20 second break type
of fighter. Morales would be throwing far more and landing far more too.

As I said, the single punching Hamed was what he ended up being (just like Tyson, yet you don't hear people say that's what he was like in his prime), but he was far more active when training properly. It was well known in British boxing circles long before Barrera that his level of preparation had dramatically decreased. When he fought Barrera I actually tipped a gambling friend of mine who hated Hamed, that this could be just the right time to bet on him to lose.

megadodge

sxt wrote: »

Same goes for Prince Amir ! except Naseem was great to watch.

The difference in quality in Hamed's opponents and Khan's is so huge it's not even a debate.

walshb

Mega, I never said Naz couldn't punch, I just think the power is so overrated by some. Yes, he could bang, but was his power really above feather?

Put it this way: Throw in many of those guys that Naz was KOing to a Nelson, Gomez and even McGuigan and you can bet the KO percentage for them would sky rocket.

I rarely lend much weight to the training room stories concerning fighters.
Jeez, we had Dunne handling Pacquiao according to some stories I heard here:rolleyes: They are simply stories, they sound great, but mostly are exaggerated.

I look at Hamed's resume and watch him fight and just do not get all
that excited, and certainly wouldn't bet on him beating many past greats, Morals definitely being one.

As to the Morales-McCullough fight. Yes, he posed problems for Morales, but Wayne was well well beaten in that one. Wayne was more of an annoyance than any sort of threat to Erik.

Hamed beat Wayne, but never looked impressive or comfy.

There have been far too may instances with Hamed where sound technical fighters made him look very sloppy and awkward; had these been really good with solid beards, then Hamed was done for.

mark renton

walshb wrote: »

I rarely lend much weight to the training room stories concerning fighters.
Jeez, we had Dunne handling Pacquiao according to some stories I heard here:rolleyes: They are simply stories, they sound great, but mostly are exaggerated.

Actually its well known that the mighty dunne could put it up to pacman, some even say thats the reason pacman moved up weight :cool:

megadodge

walshb wrote: »

Mega, I never said Naz couldn't punch, I just think the power is so overrated by some. Yes, he could bang, but was his power really above feather?

Put it this way: Throw in many of those guys that Naz was KOing to a Nelson, Gomez and even McGuigan and you can bet the KO percentage for them would sky rocket.

Hamed was a bigger puncher than either Nelson or McGuigan. I'm not so sure about Gomez, he was a very good puncher but he also had a very high punch output (wore down a lot of opponents) and the huge bulk of his resumé is at Super Bantam. In fact he never KO'd any feather of remote consequence.

And despite the fact that Barry is my all-time favourite boxer and the main reason I got obsessed with the sport I have no hesitation in saying I think his style is tailor-mad for Hamed. Plus Hamed's overall standard of opposition was higher than Barry's.

I feel both Nelson and Gomez would beat Hamed in hard fights.

As to the Morales-McCullough fight. Yes, he posed problems for Morales, but Wayne was well well beaten in that one. Wayne was more of an annoyance than any sort of threat to Erik.

Hamed beat Wayne, but never looked impressive or comfy.

I keep coming back to this comparison because you used this fight as an example of how average Hamed was, but Wayne cause a hell of a lot more problems for Morales than he did for Hamed ONE YEAR AFTER you claimed he was a washed-up punchbag.

Surely an honest man would have to admit that's a serious flaw in his argument right there?

You also mentioned

Augie Sanchez? Kelley? Steve Robinson? Ingle? Hardy?

as standard bearers for the opposition he met, yet if I was naming his best opponents outside of Barrera I would say the following are all better than the ones you mentioned -(in no particular order) Bungu (ko4) the long-reigning super-bantam champ, Cesar Soto (reigning WBC champ), Wilfredo Vazquez (3 weight world champ and reigning WBA champ til the day before) (ko7), Tom Johnson (reigning IBF champ) (ko8).

Plus Hamed in only his 12th fight at a mere 20 years of age won the European bantam title, winning every round against a man who only a few months and 2 fights later lost a split decision in a world title fight versus an unbeaten champ.

He fought a lot of very good fighters. And beat them convincingly!

walshb

I personally see nothing great with Hamed aged about 24 beating a well past it Vasquez, who was far better in his 118 and 122 days. Vasquez was a small small feather and was what, 38 or so at the time? What great feather would have struggled with this guy? I bet the greats would have dispatched this Vasquez well before rd 7. Vazsquez had nothing to offer the night Hamed beat him.

Soto? Who already had several losses, one to a guy Wayne beat, Rabanales.
Duke McKenzie also handed him a L before Hamed, 7 or 8 years prior to Hamed, and at 118 lbs. Soto wasn't anything to get excited about. Again, Hamed wasn't crap, but vs. elite and great feathers, he comes up short every time.

These wins need analysing closely. Wins over faded and well past it fighters.
Paul mentioned this right from the start. Gimme' Juan Laporte, Pedroza, Taylor
over any of these little men. Barry beat better opposition.
How you think Hamed's opposition was better stymies me. Hey, argue Barerra, but guess what?
Barerra dominated Hamed

Pedroza for example. Who did Hamed beat close to this guy? Laporte would
have handled Hamed fairly comfortably. Pedroza too. And, Pedroza
at 32 was still far tougher than little Vasquez at 38.

As for Barry vs. Hamed. Again, Barry's combination of chin, power, stamina, and wicked body
attack would be way too much for Hamed. No way in hell Hamed keeps Barry off him.

Look at the Wayne bout for even a sniff of what may happen. But, Barry was a far better
puncher, bigger, stronger and every bit as fit and was a NATURAL 126 lber.
Jeez, Barry even had a reach and two-three inch height advantage over Naz.

Hamed needs a KO here, he would not be throwing near enough
to earn a decision win against Barry. Will he get the KO?

Well, look at some of the men who lasted 12 with Hamed and I think it's
fairly logical to assume that Barry would have little problem going the distance.

I will take Barry by TKO rd 9, from simply an exhaustive and punishing attack to
body and head. That 1984-1985 Barry was sensational, and no Naz
is keeping that guy at bay. Loftus Road Barry was far too prepared
and hard for ANY Naz.

supersean1999

walshb wrote: »

Well, I personally see nothing great with Hamed aged about 24 beating a well past it Vasquez, who was far better in his 118 and 122 days. Vasquez was a small small feather and was what, 38 or so at the time? What great feather would have struggled with this guy? I bet the greats would have dispatched this Vasquez well before rd 7. Vazsquez had nothing to offer the night Hamed beat him.

Soto? Who already had several losses, one to a guy Wayne beat, Rabanales.
Duke McKenzie also handed him a L before Hamed, 7 or 8 years prior to Hamed, and at 118 lbs. Soto wasn't anything to get excited about. Again, Hamed wasn't crap, but vs. elite and great feathers, he comes up short every time.

These wins need analysing closely. Wins over faded and well past it fighters.
Paul mentioned this right from the start. Gimme' Juan Laporte, Pedroza, Taylor
over any of these little men. Barry beat better opposition.
How you think Hamed's opposition was better? Hey, argue Barerra, but guess what?
Barerra dominated Hamed

Pedroza for example. Who did Hamed beat close to this guy? Laporte would
have handled Hamed fairly comfortably. Pedroza too. And, Pedroza
at 32 was still far tougher than little Vasquez at 38.

As for Barry vs. Hamed. Again, Barry's combination of chin, power, stamina, and wicked body
attack would be way too much for Hamed. No way in hell Hamed keeps Barry off him.

Look at the Wayne bout for even a sniff of what may happen. But, Barry was a far better
puncher, bigger, stronger and every bit as fit and was a NATURAL 126 lber.
Jeez, Barry even had a reach and two-three inch height advantage over Naz.

Hamed needs a KO here, he woud not be throwing near enough
to earn a decision win against Barry. Will he get the KO?

Well, look at some of the men who lasted 12 with Hamed and I think it's
fairly logical to assume that Barry would have little problem going the distance.

I will take Barry by TKO rd 9, from simply an exhaustive and punishing attack to
body and head. That 1984-1985 Barry was sensational, and no Naz
is keeping that guy at bay. Loftus Road Barry was far too prepared
and hard for ANY Naz.

in all fairness you can pick holes in every fighters career, haha you have some imagination ill give you that,

walshb

supersean1999 wrote: »

in all fairness you can pick holes in every fighters career, haha you have some imagination ill give you that,

Hardly a sterling rebuttal, now.

supersean1999

walshb wrote: »

Hardly a sterling rebuttal, now.

i did not think it was even an attempt, iv said all iv to say, will you give me a run down on the mayweather pac fight please, we may never get to see it

walshb

supersean1999 wrote: »

i did not think it was even an attempt, iv said all iv to say, will you give me a run down on the mayweather pac fight please, we may never get to see it

Funny you should ask. I have been thinking about it, and here we have two excellent fighters who BOTH have the ability to beat each other. Rarely do we get this, apart from the lucky punchers chance that one fighter may have. Their styles contrast and clash just perfectly to give us the possibility of a toss up.

If I had to bet right now I would pick Manny to win, 51 percent confidently.

Also, another thought that crossed my mind was Mayweather-Mosley.

Mayweather has to be happy about such a dominant win, BUT, he cannot ignore the elephant in the room. He knows full well that Shane was past it, and a fair few years too. Now, he also must be thinking and wondering
to himself about that 2nd round.

His choices in his mind:

1. I proved how tough and resilient I am, and how good my recovery
powers are.

2. I proved how tough i was vs. a fighter who couldn't close the show, follow up fast and hard enough to seal the deal.

3. What if Manny gets me hurt like that, can I expect Manny to slow down, fade and end up almost losing the round?

As good as the win seemed, Mayweather in no dummy, and he knows that
Mosley wasn't close to peak. He also knows how hurt he was from TWO
separate incidents in one rd. Time is ticking by, and Mayweather is declining.
He must know that he could well be badly rocked vs. a far more peaked
and speedy animal, in Manny, a man who can pull the trigger for 12 rds if needed.

supersean1999

walshb wrote: »

Funny you should ask. I have been thinking about it, and here we have two excellent fighters who BOTH have the ability to beat each other. Rarely do we get this, apart from the lucky punchers chance that one fighter may have. Their styles contrast and clash just perfectly to give us the possibility of a toss up.

If I had to bet right now I would pick Manny to win, 51 percent confidently.

Also, another thought that crossed my mind was Mayweather-Mosley.

Mayweather has to be happy about such a dominant win, BUT, he cannot ignore the elephant in the room. He knows full well that Shane was past it, and a fair few years too. Now, he also must be thinking and wondering
to himself about that 2nd round.

His choices in his mind:

1. I proved how tough and resilient I am, and how good my recovery
powers are.

2. I proved how tough i was vs. a fighter who couldn't close the show, follow up fast and hard enough to seal the deal.

3. What if Manny gets me hurt like that, can I expect Manny to slow down, fade and end up almost losing the round?

As good as the win seemed, Mayweather in no dummy, and he knows that
Mosley wasn't close to peak. He also knows how hurt he was from TWO
separate incidents in one rd. Time is ticking by, and Mayweather is declining.
He must know that he could well be badly rocked vs. a far more peaked
and speedy animal, in Manny, a man who can pull the trigger for 12 rds if needed.

mayweather wont engage like he did with moseley, why would he. he knows he can box the ears off manny, i think this has ud written all over it,

walshb

supersean1999 wrote: »

mayweather wont engage like he did with moseley, why would he. he knows he can box the ears off manny, i think this has ud written all over it,

Who says you have to "engage" to get clocked with a punch, and then maybe a potent follow up?

Floyd wasn't engaging when Shane tagged him real hard and had him
badly hurt.

Also, Floyd at some stage has to engage and commit and throw shots, if he
wants to "box the ears off Manny."

Like I said, BOTH have such contrasting styles, that I am betting that this is a real hard and closely fought fight. I don't see Floyd dominating at all. He may win, but he will be real hard pressed.

This really is off thread topic. Apologies.

strobe

FANTASY FIGHT - NASEEM HAMED v ERIK MORALES

supersean1999 wrote: »

i did not think it was even an attempt, iv said all iv to say, will you give me a run down on the mayweather pac fight please, we may never get to see it

walshb wrote: »

Funny you should ask. I have been thinking about it, and here we have two excellent fighters who BOTH have the ability to beat each other. Rarely do we get this, apart from the lucky punchers chance that one fighter may have. Their styles contrast and clash just perfectly to give us the possibility of a toss up.

If I had to bet right now I would pick Manny to win, 51 percent confidently.

Also, another thought that crossed my mind was Mayweather-Mosley.

Mayweather has to be happy about such a dominant win, BUT, he cannot ignore the elephant in the room. He knows full well that Shane was past it, and a fair few years too. Now, he also must be thinking and wondering
to himself about that 2nd round.

His choices in his mind:

1. I proved how tough and resilient I am, and how good my recovery
powers are.

2. I proved how tough i was vs. a fighter who couldn't close the show, follow up fast and hard enough to seal the deal.

3. What if Manny gets me hurt like that, can I expect Manny to slow down, fade and end up almost losing the round?

As good as the win seemed, Mayweather in no dummy, and he knows that
Mosley wasn't close to peak. He also knows how hurt he was from TWO
separate incidents in one rd. Time is ticking by, and Mayweather is declining.
He must know that he could well be badly rocked vs. a far more peaked
and speedy animal, in Manny, a man who can pull the trigger for 12 rds if needed.

supersean1999 wrote: »

mayweather wont engage like he did with moseley, why would he. he knows he can box the ears off manny, i think this has ud written all over it,

walshb wrote: »

Who says you have to "engage" to get clocked with a punch, and then maybe a potent follow up?

Floyd wasn't engaging when Shane tagged him real hard and had him
badly hurt.

Also, Floyd at some stage has to engage and commit and throw shots, if he
wants to "box the ears off Manny."

Like I said, BOTH have such contrasting styles, that I am betting that this is a real hard and closely fought fight. I don't see Floyd dominating at all. He may win, but he will be real hard pressed.

This really is off thread topic. Apologies.

supersean1999

walshb wrote: »

Who says you have to "engage" to get clocked with a punch, and then maybe a potent follow up?

Floyd wasn't engaging when Shane tagged him real hard and had him
badly hurt.

Also, Floyd at some stage has to engage and commit and throw shots, if he
wants to "box the ears off Manny."

Like I said, BOTH have such contrasting styles, that I am betting that this is a real hard and closely fought fight. I don't see Floyd dominating at all. He may win, but he will be real hard pressed.

This really is off thread topic. Apologies.

well i think he will win easy so i guess you can quote me all you like, we will just have to see, ill be putting my money by my choice, anyway one true point we are off thread , so good luck,

megadodge

walshb wrote: »

These wins need analysing closely. Wins over faded and well past it fighters.
Paul mentioned this right from the start. Gimme' Juan Laporte, Pedroza, Taylor
over any of these little men. Barry beat better opposition.
How you think Hamed's opposition was better stymies me.

Interesting that you should mention examining wins closely and in the same breath talk about faded and past it fighters.

Juan LaPorte already had five losses on his record by the time he faced Barry including a loss to a fighter with NINETEEN LOSSES on his record only three fights before Barry! LaPorte had a great chin, good stamina and decent punch and that was about it. He was very one-dimensional and would have been easily outboxed by Hamed and most top class feathers.

Eusebio Pedroza was a great fighter and at his best would have been a hard fight for anyone, but let's be brutally honest here, I don't think anyone on the planet thinks the version that Barry beat was remotely close to the best Pedroza. He was 32 and making his 20th defence in his eighth year as champ.

Bernard Taylor was an excellent amateur who never really lived up to his potential as a pro. By the time he fought Barry the only decent result on his record was the draw with Pedroza. He never actually beat anyone of consequence.

After that ?

Nobody really.

Barry's peak lasted about about 18 months and at his peak his opposition wasn't exactly hectic. Hamed has a far better and longer resumé and was still winning well after his peak.

As for a fight between them, Barry's habit of dipping and coming in low would have been tailor-made for Hamed's uppercuts, plus Barry overused his left hand which often left him open for the right (a la LaPorte). Barry had a good chin (though he never really faced a top puncher), but he would be taking regular punches from a bigger puncher than he ever faced in his whole career and sadly I reckon he would be stopped in the mid rounds.

walshb

And as I said, Pedroza even at 32 was streets ahead of anything Hamed faced. You cannot compare a Vasquez at 38 and 5 feet 4, blown up bantam, to Pedroza, nor a Soto, nor a Steve Robinson, an Augie Sanchez, a Billy Hardy or anything else.

LaPorte ran JCC right to the wire in their fight, which was after Barry had beaten him. I think
you are underrating Juan. Solid as hell, tough and Hamed's clowning and
posing and lunging wouldn't trick a fighter like Juan, who IMO walks Hamed down
for a beating. You also should have said that of the 5 losses, he lost to GREAT
and legendary men. Sanchez, Pedroza and Gomez, and all close bouts. His 6 rds
loss early on, was, according to Howard Cosell, a bad decision.

Mega, Wayne lasts 12, others last 12 and you think Barry, a big and strong and natural feather cannot? That puzzles me.
Hamed is in for a torrid time when he meets a heavy handed guy like Barry, with loads more strength
than the likes of Wayne, Soto, Vasquez and others.

Barry's chin at 126 was every bit as good as Wayne. Now, P4P, you could argue for Wayne.

McGuigan hits quite hard, has unreal stamina and is relentless. Hamed's style would not cope with the power and volume and body punching. He has ONE chance, a lucky KO shot, and from what I seen with others surviving Hamed, I will tale my chances with Barry. Those shots LaPorte landed were
whoppers, and Barry still stood and still fired back.

I have watched handfuls of Hamed fights, and jesus, the opponents were dreadful. Yes, he stepped up then, but still nothing approaching great.

megadodge

LaPorte ran JCC right to the wire in their fight, which was after Barry had beaten him. I think
you are underrating Juan. Solid as hell, tough and Hamed's clowning and
posing and lunging wouldn't trick a fighter like Juan, who IMO walks Hamed down
for a beating. You also should have said that of the 5 losses, he lost to GREAT
and legendary men. Sanchez, Pedroza and Gomez, and all close bouts.

I appreciate we're never going to agree on the whole issue, but LaPorte's losses to Sanchez and Gomez were NOT close. You also ignore the loss to Gerald Hayes (who?) 3 fights before Barry, who had 19 losses on his ledger at the time.

Yes he gave Chavez a very good fight, but in terms of style, Chavez's up-close and physical in-fighting type style would suit Juan down to the ground - he didn't have to go looking for him. Compare that to a constantly moving speedster and logically you can see they would be completely different fights. There's not a chance in hell would LaPorte beat Hamed.

Barry had a lot of very average opponents and I remember even when he was defending his European title against a French perfume-maker (Gallouze) the opponent was so abysmal Barry was virtually crying in the post-fight interview he was so embarrassed. And that was the fight before Pedroza!

And as I said, Pedroza even at 32 was streets ahead of anything Hamed faced. You cannot compare a Vasquez at 38 and 5 feet 4, blown up bantam, to Pedroza,

I never said Vasquez was as good as Pedroza. Outside of Barrera Pedroza is definitely the best fighter of either lad's career. But he was way past his best in 1985 and you know it.

If I was being really pernickity I could say Pedroza was also a blown-up bantam. He challenged for a world title there and got starched in two. In fact he was KO'd three times before he won the title. You can pick holes in any fighter's career.

walshb

Mega, I know well one can pick holes in MANY fighters' ledgers, but Hamed's consisted of a lot of very suspect opponents.

Ok, Barry too fought suspect and less than great guys, but if they met I think Barry runs Hamed out of the ring. That is based on looking at the two of them, who they fought and how they did.

IF Wayne and Soto and others, who were not in McGuigan's league in relation to power, strength and being a natural feather, could last 12, then Barry has no issue.

He would be on Hamed non stop, and hitting him with far heavier shots than practically ALL of Hamed's past opponents. Add in the vicious body atacks too and it's a bad night. Hamed relies on singles far too much, he rarely ever sustains attacks when the
opponent is a good oponent. Against punishing and volume punching, this cannot work.

BTW, I still cannot see Hamed beating Juan LaPorte at Juan's best. No way.

megadodge

Hamed relies on singles far too much, he rarely ever sustains attacks

The problem here is you're comparing Barry at his best (fair enough) with Hamed at his worst (unfair).

If I was to do the same I'd say Barry's chin can't have been that great if Cruz was able to deck him, cos Cruz was no puncher. Or that his stamina was suspect (as some American posters say) but I don't say it because that was not Barry at his (brief) best and the heat very obviously took it's toll.

BTW Jean Marc Renard floored Barry early in his career also. Barry got up to win on points and Renard was a hard hitter, but it does show that his chin wasn't quite as cast-iron as you think. Plus he never actually faced a very big puncher.

Danilo Cabrera gave Barry a hell of a lot of problems and he was pretty average boxer. There's no way you can pretend he's better than Hamed.

So, in the same way I don't expect people to regard the badly trained, single punching Hamed as the best Hamed. When at his best he was an extremely fast, exceptionally awkward, combination puncher whose constant movement (feet, body, head) made him very hard to pin down meaning opponents got very frustrated hence leaving themselves more open. Of course, there's also his huge power. Just because two guys with excellent chins (Wayne and Soto) went the distance doesn't mean his power was overrated. Soto spent the entire fight holding on and made it an awful spectacle.

By the later fights of his career, I agree, he was punching singles only, looking for the big KO, just like the past-it Tyson, but you should compare like with like.