Prime to Prime Floyd Mayweather Jr Vs Prince Naseem Hamed

FrankKay

Who would win prime to prime !

Paulie Gualtieri

Mayweather would win hands down imo , Hamed was good but he didn't fight that many great fighters , and when he did well we all know what happened when he was taken out of his comfort zone .

walshb

Has to be at SFW. If so, Hamed gets brutally exposed and most likely stopped later rds. Hamed could take a dig, but also, he was wobbled and hurts several times. Floyd has enough to KO Hamed at 130 lbs.

cowzerp

Not a competitive fight at all to be honest-Hamed while 1 of my favourite boxers was well protected and always fought suitable opponents, Old, chinny, if they had a chin then powder punchers-until Barrera and the difference in class was glaring then.

Maravilla33

Mayweather is a bad match up for Hamed. Too elusive, too accurate, basically too good. The Prince would have to hope to catch him off guard with one of his unorthodox shots from nowhere to have any hope. The pre fight press conferences and antics would be something else though.

Have to disagree that he was protected or hand picked his opponents. He'd beaten every world title holder in the division by the time he was 25 and beat something like 10 past, current or future world title holders. There's a bit of a myth that Barrera was his first decent opponent and that he was exposed in that fight. His level of opposition was pretty good and he dominated his division without avoiding anyone. For the record I think Barrera beats him at any stage but i cant say that it was the best Hamed that he beat when they fought.

boxer.fan

Dont see Hamed having much of a chance, if any, in this bout. The only thing he would beat Floyd at would be showboating - whenever he wakes up that is :rolleyes:

Spazdarn

I thought this thread was made in a jokey fashion until I actually got in here!

Floyd would destroy him, embarrass him.

Henno30

I don't think this one will ever make a 'what if' list

A cakewalk for Floyd

Big Ears

walshb wrote: »

Has to be at SFW. If so, Hamed gets brutally exposed and most likely stopped later rds. Hamed could take a dig, but also, he was wobbled and hurts several times. Floyd has enough to KO Hamed at 130 lbs.

Prime vs prime would be a Featherweight Naz vs a Light-Welterweight Mayweather, which becomes even more one sided, wouldn't last more than a couple of rounds.

walshb

Big Ears wrote: »

Prime vs prime would be a Featherweight Naz vs a Light-Welterweight Mayweather, which becomes even more one sided, wouldn't last more than a couple of rounds.

Yes, I agree. Floyd at his best was probably 140 lbs. Now, that is just a massacre.

megadodge

I agree Mayweather wins at any weight, but I have always maintained that Mayweather was at his best as a super-feather and have not seen anything to change that since.

He completely dominated a whole slew of really top-class contenders and made it look easy.

Who exactly did he beat at 140? He only had 3 fights there v Chop Chop Corley, Bruseles (who?) and a light years past his best Arturo Gatti. That's it.

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

I agree Mayweather wins at any weight, but I have always maintained that Mayweather was at his best as a super-feather and have not seen anything to change that since.

He completely dominated a whole slew of really top-class contenders and made it look easy.

Who exactly did he beat at 140? He only had 3 fights there v Chop Chop Corley, Bruseles (who?) and a light years past his best Arturo Gatti. That's it.

Yes, he only had a few bouts, but he looked to me to be at his physical best. Strong, mature, and still retaining ultra sharp feet and hands. I think Duran skipped 140 lbs, but I would still say at 140 he was a beast, and probably at his physical best.

megadodge

Problem is he didn't look good against Corley.
Bruseles was nothing and Gatti was shot to bits, so it wasn't exactly hard to look good there.
Comparing that to his super-feather resumé, where he really did look fantastic in every fight, but against far superior opposition.

mfceiling

Hamed was never "great".

The first credible opponent he fought beat him.

Going up against journeymen and past greats meant he could walk about the ring with his hands down hoping to connect with a lunging shot.

Mayweather would destroy him.

cowzerp

mfceiling wrote: »

Hamed was never "great".

The first credible opponent he fought beat him.

Going up against journeymen and past greats meant he could walk about the ring with his hands down hoping to connect with a lunging shot.

QFT

Maravilla33

mfceiling wrote: »

Hamed was never "great".

The first credible opponent he fought beat him.

Going up against journeymen and past greats meant he could walk about the ring with his hands down hoping to connect with a lunging shot.

Mayweather would destroy him.

Again I'll stress I'm not even a fan but Naz is unfairly judged these days.

Steve Robinson - Not going to claim he was great but you have to put this win into context. Robinson was champion for 2 and a half years making 7 defences. Naz was a 21 year old moving up in weight and fighting in Robinson's home town. Naz dominated him and was the first man to stop him. Not bad for a youngster fighting for his first title.

Manuel Medina - 5 time FW champion and went on to win a belt 3 times after Naz stopped him. Marquez fought him 7 years after Naz did and Johnny Tapia scaped by him 6 years later yet Naz gets stick for beating him?

Remigio Daniel Molina - was 27-0. Marquez and Morales fought him after Naz did.

Tom Johnson - Was ranked #1 in the division and had made 11 defences. You cant do much more than fight a unification bout against the divisional #1 and knock him out

Kevin Kelly - 47-1. Was a quality operator who Morales and Barerra deemed good enough to fight after Naz did. Naz showed his heart in a FW classic. This was done in Kelly's home town.

Wayne McCullough - Had only lost once. Morales fought him after Naz.

Paul Ingle - Was undefeated and won a belt after Naz beat him. He beat Junior Jones who had beat Barrera twice.

Soto - Was WBC champ when Naz fought him. He'd previously KO'd Castillo in 2 rounds. As we know Castillo gave PBF his toughest fight and could have got the nod in that one. Another unification fight.

Vuyani Bungu - Was IBF champ. Was unbeaten in 19 had made 11 defenses and was #4 in the division. Another unification fight.

Vazquez - was WBA champ when Naz signed to fight him. Unfortunately he was stripped before the fight. But you cant criticise someone for signing to face a fellow belt holder can you?

Sanchez - was 26-1 and a big puncher. He had beaten PBF as an amateur so obviously had some talent.

Barrera - We all know about Barrera. This is where the bubble burst although it can be argued Naz showed signs of decline years before against Kelly, Ingle and Sanchez. A clearly unmotivated Naz without his long time trainer was beat by an ATG. Despite reports of him being humiliated he only lost 115-112 on 2 of the judge's cards.

Now I'm not claiming Naz is the greatest boxer ever but his reign was very impressive and included some quality opponents. He doesn't have the best record ever but he didn't exactly hand pick his opponents like some people claim. He fought 5 champions for their belts. You cant criticise anyone for fighting a beltholder. He fought 9 current, past or future champions. His record in title fights before MAB was an incredible 16-0 (14KOs) He fought away from home and had an exciting style. What more can you ask for?

Its his mentality and early retirement that let him down rather than his ability or opponent's fought.

cowzerp

All very carefully picked, old, weak chins, or No power such as wayne mccullogh who troubled him and if he had power would have easy beat him, and mostly ex good boxers, Robinson was easy and had lost 9 of 30 or something and was weak and slow.


As i said i was a Naz fan, very entertaining but i knew i was watching lad's that where picked to lose.

Maravilla33

5 of the lads above held belts when he fought them. How are they handpicked? Surely the aim is to collect all of the belts so I don't understand how they're hand picked?

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

5 of the lads above held belts when he fought them. How are they handpicked? Surely the aim is to collect all of the belts so I don't understand how they're hand picked?

Ok i will entertain you, of the 5 who did you think was a challenge?

Maravilla33

I don't need you to entertain me thank you. I'm disagreeing with you saying he "handpicked" his opponents. How do you handpick fighting the current champions?

The way you go on you'd swear he sat at home in Sheffield fighting binmen year in year out. My disagreement is that he didn't handpick his opponents. Not his fault he was that much better than the champs he beat or his mandatorys. Maybe you don't rate them but they were hardly handpicked. I've given valid reasons why the 12 above were suitable opponents never once said they were all world class.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

The way you go on you'd swear he sat at home in Sheffield fighting binmen year in year out. My disagreement is that he didn't handpick his opponents. Not his fault he was that much better than the champs he beat or his mandatorys. Maybe you don't rate them but they were hardly handpicked. I've given valid reasons why the 12 above were suitable opponents never once said they were all world class.

You didn't give any valid reasons for any of them-his management hand picked them not him-I'm actually shocked you can't see that,

Cruz title fight was vacant

Robinson was weak as piss and had a record that some journeymen have,

Johnson was coming off a draw with a lad who lost 12 on the trott and was battle worn and chinny

Soto had already lost 6 and drew 1 aswell, and lost his 8 of 9 and drew the other 1 after this fight, thats not a good opponent in any world.

The Cruz, and Barrera and Calvo title fights where vacant titles.

is there something i am missing as without studying there records it was clear to see these where not great opposition.

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

is there something i am missing as without studying there records it was clear to see these where not great opposition.

Maybe a dictionary?

Hand picked and not great opposition aren't the same thing. You can say they aint great all you want but I disagree that they were handpicked.

He fought Robinson because he had the belt end of story. To get the WBO belt or whatever it was he had to fight him.

Johnson was the divisonal number 1 and had the IBF title. Naz had to fight him if he wanted that title.

Vasquez had the WBA title thats why he signed to fight him.

Soto had the WBC title. Again he had to fight him to get that title.

There's a pattern emerging here. He made fights against men with titles to win their titles. Not exactly the definition of hand picked for me.

You think his opponents weren't great. I think they weren't handpicked. We can both be right.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Maybe a dictionary?

Hand picked and not great opposition aren't the same thing. You can say they aint great all you want but I disagree that they were handpicked.

He fought Robinson because he had the belt end of story. To get the WBO belt or whatever it was he had to fight him.

Johnson was the divisonal number 1 and had the IBF title. Naz had to fight him if he wanted that title.

Vasquez had the WBA title thats why he signed to fight him.

Soto had the WBC title. Again he had to fight him to get that title.

That does not mean they where not hand picked!

He simply was matched for the titles because they where easy wins-soto won the title of a finished espinosa and was easy prey and the management knew that.

Any way that you try to twist it he was a fighter who was given fighters who where suitable to his style, chin and power.

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

That does not mean they where not hand picked!

He simply was matched for the titles because they where easy wins-soto won the title of a finished espinosa and was easy prey and the management knew that.

Any way that you try to twist it he was a fighter who was given fighters who where suitable to his style, chin and power.

You don't just arrange a fight with a champion. You have to have a ranking and have earned your ranking to be in a position to get a title shot. You don't just go oh Soto he's easy I'll arrange a fight with him. Naz beat everyone that was put in front of him and put himself in the position to challenge these champs. Not hand picked at all. Only person he could have really fought with that would have been a challenge was Marquez. I'd back Naz to beat Marquez back then who wasn't the fighter back then that he would become. Morales timing didnt really match up and he fought Barrera. Naz did a lot in his short career.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

You don't just arrange a fight with a champion. You have to have a ranking and have earned your ranking to be in a position to get a title shot. You don't just go oh Soto he's easy I'll arrange a fight with him.

Yes you do on both counts, he was high profile so got whatever his management wanted-he fought Robinson for the Feather title even though he was not ranked as a feather at all, once he won that easy match up then he was viable for any other title shot.

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

Yes you do on both counts, he was high profile so got whatever his management wanted-he fought Robinson for the Feather title even though he was not ranked as a feather at all, once he won that easy match up then he was viable for any other title shot.

How did he become high profile though? By knocking out everyone in his wake. I don't think Robinson was great. He was solid and durable and a decent fighter nothing more. But 8 men had tried to beat him before Naz and 8 had failed. Robinson was on a good run against some decent opponents. It was a good win for the young Naz. His opposition wasn't always stellar but much better than you're making out.

Who would you rate as Naz's best opponent pre Barrera?

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

You don't just arrange a fight with a champion. You have to have a ranking and have earned your ranking to be in a position to get a title shot. .

What?

Bernard Dunne got a shot at a title without a justified ranking. Many other men did too.

As to this debate, yes, you both can be right. I saw nothing great with many of Naseem's foes. Many were blown up 118-122 fighters. If they were champs at the time, it says a lot about the quality around.

And I cannot see how Naz ever beats Marquez. No real hope except for a lucky pot shot, and even then, Juan was tough as nails.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

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

Bum's, his opponent at Bantam before he got the easy fight with Robinson had 12 losses and 2 draws, before that 5 losses, 4 losses and 17 losses-these where journeymen that any average pro should be beating easily, and with Naz's power Koing them.

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Who would you rate as Naz's best opponent pre Barrera?

Not much to choose from so maybe Mccullogh and he was tailor made for Naz with his powder puff punches-and he troubled Naz who was so 1 dimensional that fight is was awful.

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

What?

Bernard Dunne got a shot at a title without a justified ranking. Many other men did too.

As to this debate, yes, you both can be right. I saw nothing great with many of Naseem's foes. Many were blown up 118-122 fighters.

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.

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

Bum's, his opponent at Bantam before he got the easy fight with Robinson had 12 losses and 2 draws, before that 5 losses, 4 losses and 17 losses-these where journeymen that any average pro should be beating easily, and with Naz's power Koing them.

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.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

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

walshb wrote: »

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

Maravilla33 wrote: »

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

Maravilla33 wrote: »

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

cowzerp wrote: »

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" :rolleyes: 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 :rolleyes:. 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

megadodge wrote: »

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

cowzerp wrote: »

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

MMAIRELANDFAN wrote: »

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

Henno30 wrote: »

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

walshb wrote: »

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/boxingchronicle/articles_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.