Anyone who has seen Prince Naseem Hamed fight will know he was one of the most extravagantly talented boxers of his generation, and perhaps all time. Hamed was also one of the most exciting because of his showmanship in the ring, his elaborate entrances and his bare-faced ****iness in interviews. He of course never recovered from his only loss to Barrera.

I have two questions for you folks:

1. If Hamed hadn't been such a showman and instead concentrated on getting the max out of his athleticism, his power-hand and ruthless accuracy, would he have beaten Barrera and gone on to even greater things?

2. Would you have rather he was less exciting, but more textbook sound? Or do you think what he brought to boxing was essential at the time?

I personally think he is one of the great wastes of boxing talent, but I'm not altogether sure if I'd have got rid of his entertaining showmanship.

Naseem Hamed and all time great should not be spoken in the same sentence. Im no hater, id rather watch Hamed than 90% of all other fighters.
But to answer ur questions.

1. His showmanship didnt effect how well he boxed. His main problem was he wanted to KO everyone and neglected his boxing skills. He became easier to hit and thought his power would win him every fight.
I think Kelly, Sanchez even Ingle showed Barrera how to beat him; by picking him off when he lunged forward with his chin exposed.
Im not sure how much of his decline was due to his poor training or just the higher level of opposition.
He could have beaten Barrera by KO, but even if he did, i dont see him achieving much more. It was only a matter of time before he was beaten or KO'd.

2. His unorthodox style and power was what made both exciting and successful. I dont think he could have been more text book, in the same way i dont think Tyson could ever fight like Floyd Mayweather.

But he made his mark. He delivered both in great fights and being a entertainer which are both very imortant to the sport. He probably gets way too much critisicm.

1. If Hamed hadn't been such a showman and instead concentrated on getting the max out of his athleticism, his power-hand and ruthless accuracy, would he have beaten Barrera and gone on to even greater things?

Maybe, you cant really say because he was too much of a showboater but it would have been a real good fight. Personally i think barrera would beat him

2. Would you have rather he was less exciting, but more textbook sound? Or do you think what he brought to boxing was essential at the time?

I think at that time boxing did need a spark to it and naseem brought it. He came at the best time possible.

To be fair he brought not only his talent but entertainment to the boxing industry. i think ,and having been an example myself, he influenced quite a few young people to take up boxin.

I mean look at money mayweather and his ****iness (not on the same level as naz though) but thats made him another excitin athelete along with his talent and great record.

AND Ricky Hatton the way he makes a bit of a joke of things (they way he ripped into mayweather) i mean it just brings that little bit more excitement to boxing and Prince Naseem was awesome at it.

Also Muhamed Ali, who also brought that lil bit of comedy

The list goes on. theres no point in bein so damn serious, sport - unlike most jobs - is barely a job its purpose originally was enjoyment so stop winging and be greatful lol :P i see where your coming from though about his loss maybe he shoulda known where to draw to line and put his head down and focus but **** happens lol

Hamed was a very good fighter who beat a lot of contenders and titllists during his time at 126, but ATG is a stretch.

Prince Naseem was a great fighter, a great showman and very exciting to want. But he can't be considered a true all time great of boxing, he retired way to early, ducked too many fighters and fought no other true greats. Though he will always be remembered as one of the most entertaining to watch.

Anyone who has seen Prince Naseem Hamed fight will know he was one of the most extravagantly talented boxers of his generation, and perhaps all time. Hamed was also one of the most exciting because of his showmanship in the ring, his elaborate entrances and his bare-faced ****iness in interviews. He of course never recovered from his only loss to Barrera.

I have two questions for you folks:

1. If Hamed hadn't been such a showman and instead concentrated on getting the max out of his athleticism, his power-hand and ruthless accuracy, would he have beaten Barrera and gone on to even greater things?

2. Would you have rather he was less exciting, but more textbook sound? Or do you think what he brought to boxing was essential at the time?

I personally think he is one of the great wastes of boxing talent, but I'm not altogether sure if I'd have got rid of his entertaining showmanship.

Ha Ha, ruthless accuracy, atg?!! Hamed had great reflexes and great power but never actually learned how to box because quite simply he never had to, until he ran into the likes of Barrera where he was made to look amateurish. Against Barrera and the 2nd best boxer he faced, Wayne McCulluogh, even his power didnt count for **** and what did he have to fall back on? Nuffin!

I enjoyed Hamed's stay in boxing, while I disliked him &always wanted to see him get beat, he was exciting to watch...and it was funny to Listen to George Foreman get all excited about him haha, I always tuned into his fights. He had talent, for sure. His KO punch, leaky defense, and shakey chin made for fun fights. I think once he &Brenden Ingal parted ways, it was over, he was the only guy who understood Hamed's unique boxing style.

Man I wanted Kevin kelly to KO him, but it didn't happen, great fight though.

Yeah ATG is a little far fetched, but had he not retired at 28, and picked up a better trainer, he might have gone on to a much better career. Loads of natural talent, power, speed, reflexes, but not very sound technically.

Used to crack me up when he'd throw an uppercut and looked like he was dunking a basketball.

But to answer the thread, showman.

The prince had me questioning some of his match expectations... he used tohave his hair "perfect" rite beofre a match and ofcorse, spend alot of time planing his entrance.

Could he have performed better in the ring if he put that extra focus into the match?

The prince had me questioning some of his match expectations... he used tohave his hair "perfect" rite beofre a match and ofcorse, spend alot of time planing his entrance.

Could he have performed better in the ring if he put that extra focus into the match?

yeah I think he had all the tools to be an all time great but he didnt focus on them enough. And who ever said he doesnt have a good chin? Name one fight were he was hurt. And btw being knocked down doesnt mean you're hurt, especially when your up by the count of 3.

He was an all-time-great ****SUCKER

No way is Hamed an all-time great. Too much of a showman, and ducked legit competition.

Professional sportsmen earn money not because they contribute in the society (not in a direct way atleast) but to entertain the viewers, like singers, circus etc...
Naseem Hamed can afford to be a clown in the ring grace to his boxing talent obviously. And yes, he'd probably have done better if he focused less on showmenship but I believe less people would remember him if so.
(Another example: 99% of the non-boxingfans will say Ali is the greatest boxer of all time. Because they only know about him due to his reputation)
Boxing NEEDS people like Naseem, Ray Leonard, Ali... to keep the sport fun to watch.

Basicly: for the boxers individually its all about the skills but in general its about showmenship.

All time great. Although his reign was brief he was basically on his way to being the first boxer to hold four titles in one weight division (cheated out of it).

Boxing NEEDS Prince Naseem NOW. Maybe then it wouldnt be so ****ing **** behind UFC.

Great and Naseem don't belong in the same sentence. He was a flashy fighter at the most but that's about it. A fighter is judged by his level of opposition and when he stepped up in opposition he got beaten and beaten bad.

Boxing is much more than physical ability. If every guy that ran a 4.3 40 yard dash made the NFL, then there would be 50 teams instead of 32.

In boxing it's the same, just because you are strong or fast doesn't mean you are a great fighter. I spar with loud mouthed 19 year olds all the time that think they can beat my ass because I'm in my 30's and they end up getting taught a lesson.

Hammed had all the natural abilities but had no heart or backbone. He was the ultimate bully for most of his career and the second he found someone that wasn't buying into his bull**** and loud mouth, he got his ass beat into retirement.

Great? Never......good, maybe. He was just a flash in the pan, a minor footnote in the history or boxing.

Why didn't the Prince Naseem KTFO JMM before he retired.:crying:

I can only say from what he did upon coming to America, he was mostly a showman. Hamed was no one to take lightly, he was knocking people out while jumping in the air for Pete's sake. What he lacks are career-defining wins. Knocking out Tom Johnson and Kevin Kelley, those are good wins. Morales, Barrera, those are great wins.

Hamed did a lot for boxing while he was here, the defining fact is that he is not here anymore.

All time great. Although his reign was brief he was basically on his way to being the first boxer to hold four titles in one weight division (cheated out of it).

Boxing NEEDS Prince Naseem NOW. Maybe then it wouldnt be so ****ing **** behind UFC.

If Hamed came back, he would get the living **** beat out of him. It would be sad. Besides, what would Prince coming back accomplish? He isn't a top fighter anymore and he wouldn't fight anyone of note.

No, not an all time great for me.........but he could have been, his march to the title fight with Steve Robinson was fantastic, he was fast, elusive, a good combination puncher who had power.

His fight with Robinson was a superb display of powerful combination punching combined with defensive genius, its just that his peak lasted only two years....till the end of 1997 when he nearly came a cropper against Kevin Kelly.

The post Robinson Hamed looked impressive against good world championship fighters Tom Johnson, Manuel Medina (even when obviously full of a cold), Wilfredo Vasquez and spectacular against fringe contenders Jose Badillo, Juan Cabrerra and Billy Hardy. This Hamed was pound for pound rated by all the boxing publications of the time, he could have gone on with this form to be an all time great.

The Kevin Kelly fight was for Hamed a poor display of boxing, he was obviously trying to KO Kelly with one shot, which he obviously did at the end! But from here on his reliance on his one punch power became symptomatic of a fighter in decline.

Then came the split with Brendan Ingle, the trainer who knows that style better than any other trainer, the McCullough performance reflected problems in the camp. From here on in Hamed fell from greatness very quickly, he look ed vulnerable in winning against Paul Ingle, Cesar Soto and Augie Sanchez.....what was missing? Answer combination punching! What else? He wasn't quite as elusive as he once was! Why? Because he was taking more punches trying to land his own bombs. Taking hard whacks to the head does little good for improving cat like reactions which Hamed once had!

He was employing two trainers who did not specialise in training southpaws, Oscar Suarez and the great Emmanuel Steward and would have each offer advice in turn after alternative rounds.............ridiculous! Was it a suprise that he lost to Barrera? Barrera had looked amazing against Moralles and yet he was still the underdog, remember that even a faded Hamed was favoured to beat him.

I truely believe a pre 1997/98 Hamed would have done far better against Barrera, I think he is responsible to a degree for his own downfall. With the right direction, attitude and form of the Robinson, Johnson and Badillo fights I really think Hamed could have prevailed in fights with Barrera and Moralles, victories here would have cemented his legend and left critics with little alternative to consider him an all time great.

Shame he didn't make an effective comeback after the Barrera loss, this would have helped soften criticisms against him, some fighters come back better, his lacklustre display against Manuel Calvo lead to Hamed ditching the ring, getting out of condition, putting on weight and retiring. I'd show interest in a comeback, I'm sure he will make one some day.............they always do and he has said he will within the last year or so! Think Ray Leonard, Herol Graham, Muhammed Ali, Chris Eubank. I just doubt he'll be back at featherweight! Or with anything like the form of the mid 90s!