Amir "King" Khan vs "Prince" Naseem Hamed

sxt

In their prime etc. I think Amir would be winning the early rounds but would favour Hamed to win by devastating KO in the later rounds, after executing a barage of rocket launchers from acute angles to the temple of Khan

What says you?

cowzerp

I think Khan is the better boxer but Naz had power and more than Khan's chin could handle-i think Naz could/would win this fight for that reason..

walshb

One is a FW and one is a LWW.

Hamed has no chance at all. Unless Khan does nothing, sticks his chin out and allows Hamed to unload. Hamed is 6 inches shorter too. Hamed has no chance whatsoever to outbox Khan. FW power is not knocking out Amir Khan. Maidana couldn't, LP couldn't and some others couldn't. Hamed isn't!

MAB showed that a skilled boxer can beat Hamed. Now, Khan is a very good boxer, but a deal bigger than MAB too.

Henno30

Was Naz not massively overrated? Granted MAB was an excellent boxer but he made Naz look dreadful that night. No punch variation at all.

Khan vs Hatton would be an interesting fight.

Dohnny Jepp

Henno30 wrote: »

Was Naz not massively overrated?

Ricky Hatton syndrome!!

In my opinion he was over-rated before the MAB fight, but then massively under-rated after it because he lost to a better fighter.

Spazdarn

I'd expect Khan to outbox him, don't think Naz's style would take advantage of any of Khan's more obvious flaws.

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

One is a FW and one is a LWW.

Hamed has no chance at all. Unless Khan does nothing, sticks his chin out and allows Hamed to unload. Hamed is 6 inches shorter too. Hamed has no chance whatsoever to outbox Khan. FW power is not knocking out Amir Khan. Maidana couldn't, LP couldn't and some others couldn't. Hamed isn't!

MAB showed that a skilled boxer can beat Hamed. Now, Khan is a very good boxer, but a deal bigger than MAB too.

Agree with pretty much all of this.

Disagree with the comments that Naz was massively over rated though. His career before MAB was very impressive. Said on another thread that MAB beats Naz at any stage for me but there were a few outside factors that contributed to that loss. It seems that Naz's poor showing against MAB has tarnished his whole legacy for some people. I think before that fight there were signs that his motivation and skills were declining. Also no Ingle in his corner was a big miss. In his pomp he fought the best around with successful and usually exciting results.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

In his pomp he fought the best around with successful and usually exciting results.

He didn't-almost everyone he fought where ex good boxers who where finished, Or powder punchers like Mccullogh, who did he beat that was any use or the best around?

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

He didn't-almost everyone he fought where ex good boxers who where finished, Or powder punchers like Mccullogh, who did he beat that was any use or the best around?

Or to turn it on its head who was around that he didn't beat?

Said on another thread he had beat every champion in his weight class by the time he was 25 and beat something like 10 past, present or future world champions.

Before MAB

Ring Magazine Featherweight ratings of Hameds opponents when he faced them:
Steve Robinson #3
Manuel Medina #3
Tom Johnson #1
Kevin Kelley #5
Wilfredo Vazquez #4
Cesar Soto #5
Vuyani Bungu #4
World Title fights record : 16-0 with 14 KOs

What else could he do? He cleaned out the division. I'm not a big fan but seems like his record is unfairly judged these days.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Or to turn it on its head who was around that he didn't beat?

Said on another thread he had beat every champion in his weight class by the time he was 25 and beat something like 10 past, present or future world champions.

Before MAB

Ring Magazine Featherweight ratings of Hameds opponents when he faced them:
Steve Robinson #3 was british level 21-9-1 when they fought and feather fisted
Manuel Medina #3 had lost 2of his last 5

Tom Johnson #1 1 number 1, and he was coming off a draw to journeyman Javier Marquez

Kevin Kelley #5 was a decent looking prospect who lost half his fight after naz as he had gone up a level

Wilfredo Vazquez #4 featherfisted 38 year old

Cesar Soto #5 Start of a 10 fight without a win streak, he'd already lost 6 and drawn 2, poor boxer.

Vuyani Bungu #4
World Title fights record : 16-0 with 14 KOs, .Another shot fighter who was picked at the end of his career and had boxed nobody of note anyway

What else could he do? He cleaned out the division. I'm not a big fan but seems like his record is unfairly judged these days.

Mine is all in the bold, you really proved my point here-it was so obvious at the time these lads where picked at the right time, or with the right weaknesses for Naz to do his thing, as i said i was a fan but it was clear to see he was been fed suitable opponents, those who had no power, or where chinny or where just no use, 1st fighter that had no obvious weakness destroyed him and thats why people question his reign.

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

Mine is all in the bold, you really proved my point here-it was so obvious at the time these lads where picked at the right time, or with the right weaknesses for Naz to do his thing, as i said i was a fan but it was clear to see he was been fed suitable opponents, those who had no power, or where chinny or where just no use, 1st fighter that had no obvious weakness destroyed him and thats why people question his reign.

Who didn't he fight during his reign?

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Who didn't he fight during his reign?

simple answer, he did not fight all the number 1's or 2's but by your own list lot's of 3's 4's and 5's


Ok i picked 1 year randomly in 2000 and the ring ratings for that year and he did not fight anyone from that top 10, not 1 that year.

Thats why he was never considered the Ring champ because he never beat the best out there.

cowzerp

*

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Who didn't he fight during his reign?

Morales, Marquez, Tapia, Espinosa who was number 2 from 95-98, Their is many more and then the ones he did fight but as they where on the slide.

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

simple answer, he did not fight all the number 1's or 2's but by your own list lot's of 3's 4's and 5's


Ok i picked 1 year randomly in 2000 and the ring ratings for that year and he did not fight anyone from that top 10, not 1 that year.

Thats why he was never considered the Ring champ because he never beat the best out there.

You haven't given me a name? He fought and beat every champion in his division. The two lads he fought in 2000 were good fighters. Bungu was ranked #4 when they met, unbeaten in 19 and had made 11 title defences. are you telling me he was a bad opponent at the time? When Naz fought him Morales wasn't even a featherweight and had just beaten Barrera at Super bantam weight. Its easy to retrospectively pick apart someones record I'm pretty sure I could do it to most other than a handful. I don't see who he didn't fight.

Edit: you have now given me some names

Big Ears

cowzerp wrote: »

Mine is all in the bold, you really proved my point here-it was so obvious at the time these lads where picked at the right time, or with the right weaknesses for Naz to do his thing, as i said i was a fan but it was clear to see he was been fed suitable opponents, those who had no power, or where chinny or where just no use, 1st fighter that had no obvious weakness destroyed him and thats why people question his reign.

So you're basing a fighters whole career on a loss to an all-time great when they were arguably past their best and still managed to win 3/4 rounds ?

The RING's rankings are released in March of each year btw, so in the year 2000 I'd assume the reason Bungu wasn't ranked is because Hamed had stopped him easily, as Bungu had been #4 in 1999 and #1 at Super-Bantamweight the year before.

Morales and Tapia hadn't moved to Featherweight until the time Hamed fought Barrera, there's nothing to say he wouldn't have fought them had he won, but you can't criticise him for not fighting fighters below his weightclass. I doubt Tapia wouldn't have troubled him either.

Espinosa is the only big omission from his resume for the time and weight division he fought in, and he did beat Soto after Soto beat Espinosa.
A Marquez fight was muted at one point, but he wasn't a big name at the time in the division, illustrated by the fact he didn't pick up a version of a World title till 2003.

Maravilla33

Espinosa was beat by Soto (a poor fighter in your words) and stopped by Augie Sanchez both Naz victims. As I said I can pick apart nearly anyone's record if I try. Fact is all these lads were rated when Naz fought them. Nobody really questioned his opponents then and he was very highly thought of during his career even in The States. He really did dominate the division for a few years.

Maravilla33

Just to show you that your system is flawed. Picking the same year 2000. PBF fought nobody in the top 10 in his division.

walshb

All the reserach has been done. I won't add anything other than the fact that to me Hamed just was not a good boxer. He had lovely balance and neat fet, but never came across to me as a good boxer.

He may well have fought "rated" men, but none to me where anything great. I would pick any recent great FW to dissect and beat and stop Hamed.

In realation to this thread. I think it's a joke. Hamed was a FW, a 5 feet 3 FW. Khan is a 5 feet 9/10 LWW. How can Hamed win? I mean, nothing is impossible, but this is damn close. And, KO is absolute clutching. Khan was 21 when he was knocked out. most likely weight drianed, and was still a LW. He is now a mature LWW who has proved that his punch resistance is that bit better. Bigger, stronger and overall better at 140 lbs, and folks think Hamed, a FW giving away six inches height and probably 8-10 inches reach beats him?

What thread is next? Hagler vs. Tyson @ peak?

walshb

The posts here seem to favor Khan, yet the poll favours Hamed. I take it some posters see the poll, vote and disappear.

cowzerp

as far as the thread goes i just done it like a lb 4 lb fight, most the time thats what i do when asked these questions, put them in the same class.

if they where the same weight my original post would still be my feeling, 1 thing Naz did have was power.

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

What thread is next? Hagler vs. Tyson @ peak?

Hagler had a great chin, very good jab and was afraid of no one. I think he KOs Mike in 3 who didn't really like fighting anyone who fought back :eek:

Henno30

I'm with cowzerp and walshb. When you see Manny Steward still saying he could have been the greatest featherweight ever, and then you look at his record, it's just a joke. He wasn't a bum, but he's the kind of fighter that justifies American disrespect for hyped UK fighters. His technical skills were nowhere near good enough to be considered a really great fighter, even Steward himself acknowledges that they ducked JMM for two years because they thought JMM (even then) would have taken Naz apart.

Maravilla33

Henno30 wrote: »

I'm with cowzerp and walshb. When you see Manny Steward still saying he could have been the greatest featherweight ever, and then you look at his record, it's just a joke. He wasn't a bum, but he's the kind of fighter that justifies American disrespect for hyped UK fighters. His technical skills were nowhere near good enough to be considered a really great fighter, even Steward himself acknowledges that they ducked JMM for two years because they thought JMM (even then) would have taken Naz apart.

Roy Jones didn't exactly do things by the technique text book. Even someone like Ali did some things "technically wrong" Once Roy Jones reflexes went it became more than apparent he was lacking in solid boxing fundamentals. Still a great fighter.

Not saying Naz is in their league but you don't have to be technically perfect to be a great fighter. He had great speed, power in both hands, superb reflexes and even showed his heart in fights like the Kelly one.

JMM wasn't as well known or rounded back then and would have been one of those high risk low reward fights that many top fighters avoid. Even then I would have made Naz favourite. Note: JMM is my favourite active fighter but he wasn't the same fighter back then as he is today.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

as far as the thread goes i just done it like a lb 4 lb fight, most the time thats what i do when asked these questions, put them in the same class.

if they where the same weight my original post would still be my feeling, 1 thing Naz did have was power.

But, if you put them in the same weight class, in essence you are making it lb for lb.

Here's one: Anyone picking Sal Sanchez or Nelson or Barry at FW to beat a 140 lbs Khan? I certainly am not. And, thse three to me where much better overall than Hamed, plus, all could bang, and as hard as Hamed too.

Hamed has not got the text book skills for starters, and secondly, he is far too small.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

But, if you put them in the same weight class, in essence you are making it lb for lb.

Here's one: Anyone picking Sal Sanchez or Nelson or Barry at FW to beat a 140 lbs Khan? I certainly am not. And, thse three to me where much better overall than Hamed, plus, all could bang, and as hard as Hamed too.

Hamed has not got the text book skills for starters, and secondly, he is far too small.

Thats exactly what i was doing, Lb 4 Lb.

Mcguigan would KO Khan if they where the same weight.

he's a good boxer with suspect chin and average power-Never will be much more im afraid.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Thats exactly what i was doing, Lb 4 Lb.

Mcguigan would KO Khan if they where the same weight.

he's a good boxer with suspect chin and average power-Never will be much more im afraid.

Ok, but like you, I too am not a fan of lb for lb

The thread title is NOT lb for lb, so I don't see how anyone could favour Hamed in this position.

Spazdarn

Another thing to possibly knit pick, the thread states both have to be at peak. Khan still has a few years before he hits his peak I'd imagine.

walshb

ToiletFusion wrote: »

Another thing to possibly knit pick, the thread states both have to be at peak. Khan still has a few years before he hits his peak I'd imagine.

Yes, so in being precise, Khan could be peak in a year or two. Anyway, Khan's best weight is probably 140 lbs. This version obliterates a 126 lb Hamed.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Ok, but like you, I too am not a fan of lb for lb

I actually don't mind P4P, It's when people go on about p4p between heavyweights it annoys me as they are already in a weight division so P4P is pointless in that case. basically they a small heavy could fight the biggest heavy and its all legit, making it P4P is silly in that case.

I see your point on Khan and think most people where viewing them if they where matching weights, another words they feel Naz was better.

Maravilla33

I'm not a fan of pound for pound match ups. No problem with comparing a lightweight to a middleweight for achievements and quality of opponents fought etc but don't see the point pitting them against each other. If they didn't fight in the same division or a division either side I don't see the point of matching them up in most cases.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

I'm not a fan of pound for pound match ups. No problem with comparing a lightweight to a middleweight for achievements and quality of opponents fought etc but don't see the point pitting them against each other. If they didn't fight in the same division or a division either side I don't see the point of matching them up in most cases.

Yes, I agree to some extent, although some of the tastiest matches involve men from close divisions. Calzaghe-Hagler or Hagler or SRR against any 168 lb man.

LWs against LWW etc etc.

Take a fighter like Toney. A MW, but really he was best suited at 168-175 lbs. One could pit him against any MW or SMW or LHW that ever lived and argue a case. Jones Junior too. Heck, you could put Toney and Jones in against men above 175 and there are some real tasty style matches.

One of my favs would be a LHW/CW (175-190) Holyfield against a LHW/CW (175-190) Toney. Hell of a scrap there.

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

Yes, I agree to some extent, although some of the tastiest matches involve men from close divisions. Calzaghe-Hagler or Hagler or SRR against any 168 lb man.

LWs against LWW etc etc.

Take a fighter like Toney. A MW, but really he was best suited at 168-175 lbs. One could pit him against any MW or SMW or LHW that ever lived and argue a case. Jones Junior too. Heck, you could put Toney and Jones in against men above 175 and there are some real tasty style matches.

One of my favs would be a LHW/CW (175-190) Holyfield against a LHW/CW (175-190) Toney. Hell of a scrap there.

That's why I said I don't mind pitting someone against someone a division above or below their best weight.

Yeah but Toney and RJJ fought up as high as HW so we have some sort of blueprint for assessing how they'd get on against bigger men.

Question: What is more impressive weight hopping and having a few fights in different divisions picking up titles along the way or staying in one weight class for your whole career clearing it out and dominating it? I tend to go for the weight hoppers.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

That's why I said I don't mind pitting someone against someone a division above or below their best weight.

Yeah but Toney and RJJ fought up as high as HW so we have some sort of blueprint for assessing how they'd get on against bigger men.

Question: What is more impressive weight hopping and having a few fights in different divisions picking up titles along the way or staying in one weight class for your whole career clearing it out and dominating it? I tend to go for the weight hoppers.

Me too. Weight hoppers. Thing is, it always seems that the HW men then are penalised. They to me should be awarded extra s it is them who meet ALL COMERS.

Any GOAT lists wity boxing sees me separate the HWS on their own. They are the kings.

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

Me too. Weight hoppers. Thing is, it always seems that the HW men then are penalised. They to me should be awarded extra s it is them who meet ALL COMERS.

Any GOAT lists wity boxing sees me separate the HWS on their own. They are the kings.

True about the heavys being penalised. I also think it penalises guys like Hagler who fought everyone he could have and reigned for years. I don't see why he should have been expected to fight someone like Michael Spinks. 15lbs is a big difference especially when its against a fellow all time great yet I rate weight hoppers above poor Marv..

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

True about the heavys being penalised. I also think it penalises guys like Hagler who fought everyone he could have and reigned for years. I don't see why he should have been expected to fight someone like Michael Spinks. 15lbs is a big difference especially when its against a fellow all time great yet I rate weight hoppers above poor Marv..

Indeed, and so true regarding Hagler. The comp level was so tough back in the 70s and 80s that weight jumping was not at all as "easy" as it is today and from recent years.

Hagler would be giving away too much to the LHW men from the 70s and early 80s

walshb

That is why I love a fighter like Toney; he was so slick and tough and durable that he could move thru the weights and still be fairly competitive. Hagler, as good as he was, hadn't got that slick and amazing defense that a Toney had. So, Marvin would end up eating heavy leather from men who were a deal bigger. And, chin or not, you cannot do that for too long against giys like Spinks and Holyfield. Toney on the other hand had a great chin, but he also rarely got tageed flush and clean. His D was unreal.

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

That is why I love a fighter like Toney; he was so slick and tough and durable that he could move thru the weights and still be fairly competitive. Hagler, as good as he was, hadn't got that slick and amazing defense that a Toney had. So, Marvin would end up eating heavy leather from men who were a deal bigger. And, chin or not, you cannot do that for too long against giys like Spinks and Holyfield. Toney on the other hand had a great chin, but he also rarely got tageed flush and clean. His D was unreal.

Now there's a serious waste of talent. He was sublimely gifted and utterly frustrating at the same time. He had as complete a skill set as you could wish to have as well as being good inside and out and then that chin.

The fact that he could mix it at cruiser and above despite being grossly overweight shows you how talented he was..

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Now there's a serious waste of talent. He was sublimely gifted and utterly frustrating at the same time. He had as complete a skill set as you could wish to have as well as being good inside and out and then that chin.

The fact that he could mix it at cruiser and above despite being grossly overweight shows you how talented he was..

Absolutely. Of any man below HW, he to me was probably the one who was as close to unstoppable (unable to be stopped or knocked out) as possible. I honestly cannot see any man stopping him (when in shape and above 175 lbs), Tyson and Foreman included. He was just so durable, slick and tough.

Jayob10

The way I see it Naz coasted on natural skills. God given gifts. He supposedly hated the gym and consistently cut corners, yet he still achieved a hell of alot in the fight game.

A MAB result was always going to happen to him, when he met someone with skills to match, but a far greater desire and work ethic.

He is a great example of the saying "being talented only gets you so far". And he did go far, could have went further if he was committed enough to the fight game.

walshb

Jayob10 wrote: »

The way I see it Naz coasted on natural skills. God given gifts. He supposedly hated the gym and consistently cut corners, yet he still achieved a hell of alot in the fight game.

A MAB result was always going to happen to him, when he met someone with skills to match, but a far greater desire and work ethic.

He is a great example of the saying "being talented only gets you so far". And he did go far, could have went further if he was committed enough to the fight game.

I am not sure about this god given talent? If you mean his neat feet and balance and reflexes, ok, but as for natural boxing skill and ability, no way. He hadn't go that. No even jab. I mean, he was badly exposed by MAB, not because he was past it, but because he met someone with real fundamental skills.

I don't think Hamed's opposition was up to much. I just didn't see anything special with it.

As for desire and work ethic etc. He had what he had. That was it. How could he have changed? His style was his style. The lunging in, wild and telegraphed shots, the posing etc, worked agaisnst many, but would never beat the real great FW men, and not a hope in hell it beats a LWW Khan.