Identify a boxer (from a highlights video)

Gormley85

I was watching this video

youtube.com/watch?v=lLXcgZ84ndk&feature=player_detailpage#t=218

And Im trying to figure out who Naseem is fighting just at this exact point that video opens on....

walshb

It is Jose Badillo

You can watch full fight here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw_UhGigIJ0

Gormley85

Thanks for that walshb.... its some fight.

walshb

Gormley85 wrote: »

Thanks for that walshb.... its some fight.

Not for me, Gormley. Horrible style. Horrible fight. And that unsportsmanlike arrogant and pointless showboating...:rolleyes: Naz was very overrated.

FTA69

One of the most over-rated fighters ever in my opinion. Herol Graham coaches at our club and nobody can say a thing about Hamed as a result. Jesus, listening to the lads in the gym croon on about how he was so fantastic and the greatest British talent ever is a pain; I've to leave the room when they start.

He was knocked down three times against the decent enough Kevin Kelly and his first step into the big leagues he was embarrassed and never fought at that level again before retiring after one more fight. One of the biggest hype-jobs in boxing history I'd say.

walshb

FTA69 wrote: »

He was knocked down three times against the decent enough Kevin Kelly and his first step into the big leagues he was embarrassed and never fought at that level again before retiring after one more fight. One of the biggest hype-jobs in boxing history I'd say.

That's a big negative for me. Completely shown up vs. MAB, and never wanted to try and redeem himself. Never sought other big fights. Just quit. Feasted on many bums; had a couple of decent wins, but nothing great. Horrible to watch, and listen to.

Gormley85

walshb wrote: »

Not for me, Gormley. Horrible style. Horrible fight. And that unsportsmanlike arrogant and pointless showboating...:rolleyes: Naz was very overrated.

Well Im not a boxer..... but to my untrained eye I thought it was a very good fight. I mean Naz tore the guy apart and didnt get any real hits himself. Towards the end you can see Naz is completely untouched and still full of energy and the other guy is bruised and bleeding and not able to keep up. Naz just danced around him and as the commentator said "hes picking him apart". To my layman eye it was quite a good fight and I thought he did a good job

Are there any other videos, with a boxer with good style and good form that you recommend I check out?

walshb

Gormley85 wrote: »

Well Im not a boxer..... but to my untrained eye I thought it was a very good fight. I mean Naz tore the guy apart and didnt get any real hits himself. Towards the end you can see Naz is completely untouched and still full of energy and the other guy is bruised and bleeding and not able to keep up. Naz just danced around him and as the commentator said "hes picking him apart". To my layman eye it was quite a good fight and I thought he did a good job

Are there any other videos, with a boxer with good style and good form that you recommend I check out?

I saw completely different. Posing and threatening and jumping around, all against a very weak opponent. All that nonsense dancing and showboating. Brutal looking. Not a decent jab in sight, not a text book combination to be seen. Very little punching fluidity.

You could watch some MAB videos or Erik Morales videos or Orlando Canizalez videos or Wilfredo Gomez videos to see the difference.

megadodge

walshb wrote: »

I saw completely different. Posing and threatening and jumping around, all against a very weak opponent. All that nonsense dancing and showboating. Brutal looking. Not a decent jab in sight, not a text book combination to be seen. Very little punching fluidity.

You could watch some MAB videos or Erik Morales videos or Orlando Canizalez videos or Wilfredo Gomez videos to see the difference.

Do we really need to go through the usual again?

I'll save myself and yourself a lot of typing and dredge up the old threads on this topic.

See ya later.

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

Do we really need to go through the usual again?

I'll save myself and yourself a lot of typing and dredge up the old threads on this topic.

See ya later.

You rated him. I didn't. End of discussion, no?

megadodge

walshb wrote: »

You rated him. I didn't. End of discussion, no?

No.

It's impossible when you denigrate his opposition, despite me repeatedly going through their various achievments and also stating that there was a period when of all the active boxers in the world, only Roy Jones had beaten more current, future and ex-world champs than Hamed had.

He also reigned for FIVE YEARS beating all the other belt holders (in spite of the alphabet bodies trying to prevent it).

Most ridiculously of all is when you put down his saving grace - his phenomenal punching power. I have no problems with you not liking his style, or his attitude (I eventually hated it), but trying to pretend he wasn't a massive puncher is just stupid. And please don't embarrass yourself by coming back with "why didn't he knock out Barerra then?".

Anyway, we've gone through this before. I'll search for the threads later when I get time.

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

No.

It's impossible when you denigrate his opposition, despite me repeatedly going through their various achievments and also stating that there was a period when of all the active boxers in the world, only Roy Jones had beaten more current, future and ex-world champs than Hamed had.

He also reigned for FIVE YEARS beating all the other belt holders (in spite of the alphabet bodies trying to prevent it).

Most ridiculously of all is when you put down his saving grace - his phenomenal punching power. I have no problems with you not liking his style, or his attitude (I eventually hated it), but trying to pretend he wasn't a massive puncher is just stupid. And please don't embarrass yourself by coming back with "why didn't he knock out Barerra then?".

Anyway, we've gone through this before. I'll search for the threads later when I get time.

What threads? Me not rating him and you rating him? Not sure what purpose that serves. I don't rate him as anything special. Never did. I think his opposition was average. Many very weak opponents. Some better ones and decent ones, but nothing approaching quality.

As to punching power. Yes, he had power. I believe it was exaggerated. Heard it all about he was knocking out HW men in sparring. Nonsense. He himself claimed as a 12 year old he was beating up grown men in the gym. More nonsense.

I was impressed with his win vs. Kelly, who wasn't great anyway. He did a number on him.

MAB was clearly the best fighter he faced. Clearly. He was well out boxed, despite the scoring. He then retired. Never sought a rematch and never sought to fight anyone else of note.

Gormley85

walshb wrote: »

All that nonsense dancing and showboating. Brutal looking. Not a decent jab in sight, not a text book combination to be seen. Very little punching fluidity.

You could watch some MAB videos or Erik Morales videos or Orlando Canizalez videos or Wilfredo Gomez videos to see the difference.

I just had a look at the Morales greatest hits video. It was pretty good but to be honest I dont think I see it the same way you do. He wins the fights but a lot of them he seems to walk away pretty beat up himself.... whereas in the Naseem ones he tends to walk away with very little damage.

Not trying to be funny here, but does it really matter if Naseem didnt follow the text book so to speak?

FTA69

Erik Morales is a boxing legend.

megadodge

walshb wrote: »

What threads?

I know there were more, but these will do for now.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056001395&page=2

I join on post 26 and we go at it..... again!!



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=78792811

Maravilla33 (now where did he disappear to, good knowledgable poster – not just cos he agreed with me here) makes a lot of good points starting on page 2 before I join on page 3 and we go at it...... again!!

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

I know there were more, but these will do for now.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056001395&page=2

I join on post 26 and we go at it..... again!!



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=78792811

Maravilla33 (now where did he disappear to, good knowledgable poster – not just cos he agreed with me here) makes a lot of good points starting on page 2 before I join on page 3 and we go at it...... again!!

Ah, the old days. Like I said, nothing changes for me. I never rated him like others did. I do think that many of his opponents were very ordinary. One fight against a top quality fighter and he lost clearly, and then quit.

walshb

pac_man wrote: »

And so is Hamed(inside the ring).Outside the ring, I can't stand him, even to the present day. Apparently his power is exaggerated when he knocked out 31 of his 37 opponents.

Look at the opposition. And yes, when you hear crap like him knocking out heavyweights and having WW power then it is exaggerated.

megadodge

walshb wrote: »

Look at the opposition. And yes, when you hear crap like him knocking out heavyweights and having WW power then it is exaggerated.

The most annoying thing on this is your double standards when it comes to Hamed and Tyson. You don't have to look very hard to see an awful lot of similarities between the two, yet you make every excuse under the sun for Mike and his "86-88" peak. Everything else is discounted and we never hear anything about the ordinariness of his opposition and their cocaine-addicted ways. The first opponent he faced who wasn't afraid of him he lost to. Sound familiar? Oh yeah, he wasn't as dedicated then. Sound familiar?

Consistency please.

BTW I never, ever, ever heard of Hamed knocking out heavyweights. Never! Can you provide any proof of anyone claiming this? And no, some loo la on some obscure forum doesn't count.

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

The most annoying thing on this is your double standards when it comes to Hamed and Tyson. You don't have to look very hard to see an awful lot of similarities between the two, yet you make every excuse under the sun for Mike and his "86-88" peak. Everything else is discounted and we never hear anything about the ordinariness of his opposition and their cocaine-addicted ways. The first opponent he faced who wasn't afraid of him he lost to. Sound familiar? Oh yeah, he wasn't as dedicated then. Sound familiar?

Consistency please.

BTW I never, ever, ever heard of Hamed knocking out heavyweights. Never! Can you provide any proof of anyone claiming this? And no, some loo la on some obscure forum doesn't count.

There is no proof that he was beating up or knocking out heavyweights, unless you believe his boasts to Gary Newbon. I am not 100 percent sure he said knocking them out, but I am almost certain it was beating them up. I will gladly admit that I got that wrong if that is the case. But do you not ever recall the stories of him punching like a WW and beating up much bigger guys in the gym?

Tyson was a HW who was regarded as one of the deadliest hitters in history. He knocked out a lot of HW men, including some who were never knocked out before. He was a proven power puncher. No double standards at all.

"The first opponent he faced who wasn't afraid of him he lost to." Do you somehow know that all previous opponents lost because they were afraid? Bit of a silly statement in fairness. Many tried their asses off and still got soundly beaten.

"yet you make every excuse under the sun for Mike and his "86-88" peak." Why would I make excuses for a period of time where Mike was considered the baddest man on the planet, and possibly the GOAT

Naseem could hit at FW. Not saying that he couldn't. His power IMO was overrated, and his opposition was a lot less stellar than Tyson's.

Cannot get away from the fact that he lost to the first top quality fighter, and then quit. Posing/threatening/leaping in/wild, and silly and arrogant showboating against a lot of ordinary opposition.

megadodge

walshb wrote: »

There is no proof that he was beating up or knocking out heavyweights, unless you believe his boasts to Gary Newbon. I am not 100 percent sure he said knocking them out, but I am almost certain it was beating them up. I will gladly admit that I got that wrong if that is the case. But do you not ever recall the stories of him punching like a WW and beating up much bigger guys in the gym?

Tyson was a HW who was regarded as one of the deadliest hitters in history. He knocked out a lot of HW men, including some who were never knocked out before. He was a proven power puncher. No double standards at all.

"The first opponent he faced who wasn't afraid of him he lost to." Do you somehow know that all previous opponents lost because they were afraid? Bit of a silly statement in fairness. Many tried their asses off and still got soundly beaten.

"yet you make every excuse under the sun for Mike and his "86-88" peak." Why would I make excuses for a period of time where Mike was considered the baddest man on the planet, and possibly the GOAT

Naseem could hit at FW. Not saying that he couldn't. His power IMO was overrated, and his opposition was a lot less stellar than Tyson's.

Cannot get away from the fact that he lost to the first top quality fighter, and then quit. Posing/threatening/leaping in/wild, and silly and arrogant showboating against a lot of ordinary opposition.

You seem to have misinterpreted me when I threw in the typical lazy analysis of Tyson's loss to Douglas. I'm not saying that's necessarily what I think, but it's a pretty common train of thought when people talk about Tyson's career, just as people say similar type things about Hamed/Barrera.

Both boxers' fans counter with the 'didn't train properly' defense which I do agree with in both cases. There are two big differences though - 1. Mike was KTFO! 2. By Buster Bloody Douglas - not exactly on the same planet as Marco Antonio Barerra in terms of quality! And all that at a mere 23 years of age! Yet you don't hold that against him while going on and on about Hamed losing on points to an All-time great! That's the double-standards I'm talking about.

You also seem to have misunderstood my line of your excuse-making AND Tyson's "86-88" peak. I was suggesting that you only ever seem to talk about that "86-88" peak and you have no problem making excuses for or simply ignoring the rest of his career after that. Again double-standards.

As for Mike's "stellar opposition"..... really? The 'cocaine generation'? I strongly disagree with you. I think the fact that they were American and you were familiar with their names as a result, might make them seem decent but they were definitely no better than Hamed's title opponents. Plus most of them were cocaine abusers.... did I mention that before?

Cannot get away from the fact that Tyson was KTFO by a very ordinary opponent at 23 years of age. Any actual top quality fighter he fought - he lost to! Yet you regularly mention him as potentially the GOAT? Serious double-standards.

megadodge

pac_man wrote: »

Just elected into the hall of fame this evening, great fighter!

Just heard that this evening on Ringside.

That's a pretty good validation of your career.

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

Both boxers' fans counter with the 'didn't train properly' defense which I do agree with in both cases. There are two big differences though - 1. Mike was KTFO! 2. By Buster Bloody Douglas - not exactly on the same planet as Marco Antonio Barerra in terms of quality! And all that at a mere 23 years of age! Yet you don't hold that against him while going on and on about Hamed losing on points to an All-time great! That's the double-standards I'm talking about.
.

Double standards my ar&E.

Knocked out after 10 hard rds where he took a pretty steady beating. Hamed was on queer street every time MAB landed clean. MAB was pretty ordinary and cautious and patient in that fight. Dull fight. Yes, maybe both Tyson and Hamed had off nights, but Hamed was never going to beat MAB apart from maybe a lucky shot. Tyson prepared and trained and with Rooney would have dismantled Buster.

Comparing careers of HW fighters to FW fighters is not something I generally do. As ONE off nights go, Buster Douglas IMO fought more brilliantly than MAB did vs. Hamed, who was in 2nd gear, yet was still clearly better than Hamed.

Tyson as a fighter and a boxer was streets ahead of Hamed in terms of skills and class inside the ring, ear biting notwithstanding. Tyson's 3-4 year reign at the top trumps anything Hamed ever did as a fighter. The undisputed and unified HW champion. Tyson met "all comers." Hamed met washed up bantams and super bantams, the odd decent guy, and one great fighter who dominated him. He then quit!

Hamed isn't close to Tyson in terms of greatness inside a boxing ring. Mike lost once, then he came back and had some solid wins ( including two over HW number 1 ranked fighter, Ruddock) and then he went to prison for 3 years.

I don't really look much into Tyson's post prison career. It's like looking at Ali post Manila. After prison he still came back and did well, albeit losing some fights. He kept going and trying. Hamed, on the other hand, quit after his first loss.

megadodge

walshb wrote: »

Double standards my ar&E.

Knocked out after 10 hard rds where he took a pretty steady beating. Hamed was on queer street every time MAB landed clean. MAB was pretty ordinary and cautious and patient in that fight. Dull fight. Yes, maybe both Tyson and Hamed had off nights, but Hamed was never going to beat MAB apart from maybe a lucky shot. Tyson prepared and trained and with Rooney would have dismantled Buster.

Comparing careers of HW fighters to FW fighters is not something I generally do. As ONE off nights go, Buster Douglas IMO fought more brilliantly than MAB did vs. Hamed, who was in 2nd gear, yet was still clearly better than Hamed.

Tyson as a fighter and a boxer was streets ahead of Hamed in terms of skills and class inside the ring, ear biting notwithstanding. Tyson's 3-4 year reign at the top trumps anything Hamed ever did as a fighter. The undisputed and unified HW champion. Tyson met "all comers." Hamed met washed up bantams and super bantams, the odd decent guy, and one great fighter who dominated him. He then quit!

Hamed isn't close to Tyson in terms of greatness inside a boxing ring. Mike lost once, then he came back and had some solid wins ( including two over HW number 1 ranked fighter, Ruddock) and then he went to prison for 3 years.

I don't really look much into Tyson's post prison career. It's like looking at Ali post Manila. After prison he still came back and did well, albeit losing some fights. He kept going and trying. Hamed, on the other hand, quit after his first loss.

As I said, you always make excuses for Tyson, that you're not prepared to make for anybody else.

Gormley85

pac_man wrote: »

Just elected into the hall of fame this evening, great fighter!

For us lay people, how does a boxer achieve such an award? Is it by winning so many fights? Or just a panel of people are handed a bunch of names and pick your favourite type job?

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

As I said, you always make excuses for Tyson, that you're not prepared to make for anybody else.

What excuses? His one loss to Buster? Fair enough. I just happened to think that at that time Mike's life was unraveling. He wasn't as dedicated as he had been with Rooney/Cayton and Jacobs. I personally saw a decline in his performance right from the first rd vs. Douglas. There was a definite lack of real Tyson sharpness that we had seen when Rooney was with him. That is not an excuse. That is just an opinion on what I saw in February 1990. Buster that night fought brilliantly. Buster wasn't some nobody journeyman. He was a ranked HW at the time who had prepared brilliantly and executed brilliantly. 6 feet 4 and 230 + lbs with a terrific jab. Excellent stamina that night and took all that Mike threw at him.

Like I said, his post prison career is something I don't analyse too much. If that is making excuses so be it.

His opposition between 1986 and 1990 was the best HW men on the planet. He beat all comers for the belt and the unified belt. He had all all the belts from 1987 to 1990. Can't see any excuses there. He beat what was in front of him. All highly ranked challengers.

I am trying to hard to see here I made excuses for Tyson. Excuses for what is more the question.....