Would 'prime' Hamed have done better versus MAB?

Ok, so there's a lot of different opinions on whether Hamed, in 2001, come the Barrera fight, was actually still in his prime, or he had past it. He was 35-0 still but those in the know among us will admit he had lost much of his focus, and started to show more frequent signs of weakness than in his devastating 'peak' (95-98) Some other people just think he got exposed by a superior fighter, that the Naz in 01 was really just the same as he had always been, only this time he was fighting quality opposition and his power didn't topple the other guy. Basically I think Naz, 2001, had abandoned a lot of what originally made him such a difficult opponent. He relied too much on his power as opposed to his speed, his ego was out of control, he didn't train as hard, he had a yes-man as a trainer (Suarez, a far cry from the tough taskmaster Ingle) and his opponents had been poor, he'd hand-picked them ever since the Kelley fight (at the time a major shock to his system; floored 3 times) For what its worth I think Hamed in 96 or 97 would've fared better against Barrera but maybe not won. a closer decision