Hamed vs Morales

Possibly...I think the only two guys in the world during that time that would have a chance at beating Naz would have been Barrera and Morales. It would have been a beautiful fight to watch tho. Juan Manuel Marquez

Naseem Hamed was a better, and a more focused fighter in 95. He deteriorated as a fighter leading up to the Barrera fight, especially post Brendan Ingle. Hamed claimed that when he seperated from Brendan Ingle he would bring in a trainer that would help his progress as a fighter, and when Steward was mentioned i thought that this would be the case, however, as already mentioned, Saurez was added to the mix and Hamed didn't progress at all IMO, which is a great shame because he was possibly the most talented fighter in British history. I know all that. But wat i was asking is as far as Hamed's performance aginst Barrera goes. Compared to Hamed at his best. What would he of done differently? I havent studied his technique, his fights and his career so i dont know. Many will argue he got hit more because the quality of opposition grew higher. That seems to be true.

Hamed will not stop and certaily not out box the slicker Morales. SO Morales will win UD. That's what I said.

that's what I said

Naz's downfall was when he made an effort to become more orthodox. The crazy, dancing Prince was great and might've done better against the tough and proficient, but uncreative Barrera. I think, though, Morales would've done good against Naz too. Morales was more of a boxer. I agree with you 100% That is his style for many years and you cant change him. sometimes some people thing he is dancing is part of showing off but it also confuses many boxers.

Naz Naz's downfall was when he made an effort to become more orthodox. The crazy, dancing Prince was great and might've done better against the tough and proficient, but uncreative Barrera. I think, though, Morales would've done good against Naz too. Morales was more of a boxer.

Tarver would have had nothing special to bring if the two met at their peaks. And no Tarver ain't great and he aint a hall of famer. I agree with you i seen Tarver-Jones 3 it looks he is just waiting to couterpunch. that style is no good and made Tarver look bad.

I think Tarver might actually make it. His battles with Roy is considerable mention. But let's see what happened with shot Roy and enigmatic Tarver on the twilight of their career. Tarver would have had nothing special to bring if the two met at their peaks. And no Tarver ain't great and he aint a hall of famer.

So Tito is not legit great middleweight. To me that is more his natural weight. Tito was a welterweight who punched like a middelweight. 160 was no way in hell his natural weight. He was a myth at 147.

I think Tarver might actually make it. His battles with Roy is considerable mention. But let's see what happened with shot Roy and enigmatic Tarver on the twilight of their career. but people hate him. Tarver is a good fight each guy who beat him he beat him back. the first to KO Roy Jones and give him his real loss. so no doubt about it.

There's no question how entaertaining he was and he was a pretty good fighter. But he is not a great fighter. You can talk all about his full potential but when we talk about greatness, we are talking about what they have done. Not what could they have done. I got your point now. but many guys here post that Hamed is a bum and all that and that is not the case.

So Tito is not legit great middleweight. To me that is more his natural weight. but still he was a dangerous MW he KOed some MW. Tito's left hook is dangerous at anywieght

Roy Jones and Hopkins are Canastota bound and Hamed is not. you cant really tell because he never really showed his full potential during MAB fight and then went to off the scene. But if you seen Hamed moves around espcaily hes begining fight how he dodges punchs. He is like punching to many combos and in a flash the guy punch and he slips it. you gotta say that he is entertaining and that what drew crowd to him. There is many fighters in England but he success against there odds.

you cant tell because he made most of the look ordinary. and the MW division has a lot of people. He made Tito and DLH look ordinary espcailly Tito because damn he is a puncher could really punch DLH and Tito were NEVER legit middleweights. Tito had the power at middleweight but that don't make you one.

Hopkins made the previously undefeated Johnson ordinary. Hopkins made Tarver ordinary. Put the word "great" next to Johnson or Tarver and tell me what how you feel...

name me a legit "great" middleweight that he made look ordinary. you cant tell because he made most of the look ordinary. and the MW division has a lot of people. He made Tito and DLH look ordinary espcailly Tito because damn he is a puncher could really punch

What about Hopkins? He was so great that even he did make anyone look great. He dominated the MW division for a long time. Roy Jones too was way outta his league in his time and he used to play basketball at the same day of the fight. name me a legit "great" middleweight that he made look ordinary.

You guys keep stating Hamed is supposedly this but this clown would never set his foot in Canastota. I do not give a shit how Hamed took down bums left and right. A true measure of greatness is how you fought greats and last time I check, Naz fought only one great fighter and was schooled. So the end justify the means, Naz was a pretty good fighter, not great. What about Hopkins? He was so great that even he did make anyone look great. He dominated the MW division for a long time. Roy Jones too was way outta his league in his time and he used to play basketball at the same day of the fight.

he had a great 90's run, but shit i wanna see him fight again! i dont know if hes released yet, but i dont believe that his career is over yet. that style is still awkward and the power in both his hands are still there.

I dont agree. Although Hamed totally outclassed and destroyed Robinson, i think Robinson's style was taylor made for Hamed. I honestly believe the way in which Barrera fought was the main reason Hamed was beaten. Not that Hamed wasnt focused or in his 'prime'. But Barrera waited for Hamed to make mistakes then made him pay with his fast jab. I can see the same thing happening if they fought in 1995. No one here has yet given examples of how Hamed was poor that night. People say either "he was exposed" or "he wasnt focused or in his prime". But wat DIDNT he do that night against Barrera that he would have done in 1995/6? Against Barrera he lunged in and was punished, but he also tried boxing, and that didnt work either. I understand his preparation was poor, and he was relying on his power too much. But what would be different in 1995 if Barrera fought the same way? Naseem Hamed was a better, and a more focused fighter in 95. He deteriorated as a fighter leading up to the Barrera fight, especially post Brendan Ingle. Hamed claimed that when he seperated from Brendan Ingle he would bring in a trainer that would help his progress as a fighter, and when Steward was mentioned i thought that this would be the case, however, as already mentioned, Saurez was added to the mix and Hamed didn't progress at all IMO, which is a great shame because he was possibly the most talented fighter in British history.