Prince Naseem Hamed doesnt get his just due and never will

I see what you are saying as far as style...he hadnt had a hard fought career you are right and its his own fault for not training the way he used too after he started believeiing his own hype, but like I said tho in his prime whether he fought well schooled guys he stlll wasnt the same guy in 2001 that he was in the 90's...earlier in his career his footwork and movement was waay better than it was for Calvo, Barrera, Sanchez, and others he fought late.....people act like Barrera was the only technically sound guy he fought...Kelly was, Bungu was, Manuel Medina, Sanchez...he beat them....yeah he lost a decision to a great fighter thats all it is to me, not what some people see like he was a fraud, etc....being negligent and ****y caught up to him....as Judah career progressed even before he fought Baldo Cotto....he started believeing he was a puncher and forgot the things that made people believed he was special, which was footwork and combinations not just power I definitely agree with you on that last point. One of the worst things a fighter can do is to start to become enamoured by their own punching power. Nas was certainly guilty of that.

I see were you're coming from but I disagree with the reasoning. Nas was about what, 27 when he fought Barrera? He hadn't had a hard fought career. His inability to get out of the way of Marco's punches and his inability to land combinations against him for me is because he was in the ring with a far superior boxer who had a much better understanding of fundamental boxing techniques. Kevin Kelly caught him plenty of times for the same reason and that was in 97 which is at the peak of what you consider his prime. He deserves respect for his career as a whole like you say and double for the excitement that he brought to the ring and the pride that the engendered in British Muslims. The reason why I feel some fans look at that one fight though is because that was the one that defined his career. He said he was one of the greatest ever and when he had an opportunity to prove it he came up short. I see what you are saying as far as style...he hadnt had a hard fought career you are right and its his own fault for not training the way he used too after he started believeiing his own hype, but like I said tho in his prime whether he fought well schooled guys he stlll wasnt the same guy in 2001 that he was in the 90's...earlier in his career his footwork and movement was waay better than it was for Calvo, Barrera, Sanchez, and others he fought late.....people act like Barrera was the only technically sound guy he fought...Kelly was, Bungu was, Manuel Medina, Sanchez...he beat them....yeah he lost a decision to a great fighter thats all it is to me, not what some people see like he was a fraud, etc....being negligent and ****y caught up to him....as Judah career progressed even before he fought Baldo Cotto....he started believeing he was a puncher and forgot the things that made people believed he was special, which was footwork and combinations not just power

stefjonno1, did you happen to see the match between poison junior jones, and kennedy mckinney?...kennedy mckinney, cracked me up in the postfight interview, when he described how he was able to take poison junior jones best punch, and ended the fight with his own straight right hand...stefjonno1, i used to watch a lot of the fights around the featherweight division in the mid-late 90's-early 2000's, because the little guys, used to get it in, my man...(word) Yeah i've seen that fight and interview, i have it on vhs. Aint watched it in years, il have to dig it out.

The Nas of 2000+ wasnt the Naz of 1995 -1999....the combinations were gone, his reflexes and ability to roll shots or dodge them were slipping, and he became more of a fighter depending on his power than the fighter he was before then....we all know fighters that depend on natural gifts, swarmers, brawlers prime is a bit shorter especially if they dont train seriously...the Naz Barrera wasnt the best one IMO...Barrera made his name off beating Hamed and is clearly is biggest win...its not like Naz was kayoed or embarassed like some make it out to be I saw the fight Many times...all im saying is people look at one fight instead of his career as a whole and he deserves more than that...every great fighter or near great has lost except for Marciano, Calzaghe, Ricardo Lopez, and Mayweather so one loss past prime shouldnt hold so much water I see were you're coming from but I disagree with the reasoning. Nas was about what, 27 when he fought Barrera? He hadn't had a hard fought career. His inability to get out of the way of Marco's punches and his inability to land combinations against him for me is because he was in the ring with a far superior boxer who had a much better understanding of fundamental boxing techniques. Kevin Kelly caught him plenty of times for the same reason and that was in 97 which is at the peak of what you consider his prime. He deserves respect for his career as a whole like you say and double for the excitement that he brought to the ring and the pride that the engendered in British Muslims. The reason why I feel some fans look at that one fight though is because that was the one that defined his career. He said he was one of the greatest ever and when he had an opportunity to prove it he came up short.

Naz seems to be a little overated imo. He was exciting, but we all knew who the big test was 6 or 7 years before he fought him, and he got a whipping.It's his own fault he never came back cuz he could have added to his legacy. Barrera for me completely destroyed his confidence. Naz imo should never be mentioned in the same breath as Barerra/Morales/Marquez. People were saying Barerra should quit after the Junior jones loss! Look what he achieved after that, that's how a truly great fighter comes back. stefjonno1, did you happen to see the match between poison junior jones, and kennedy mckinney?...kennedy mckinney, cracked me up in the postfight interview, when he described how he was able to take poison junior jones best punch, and ended the fight with his own straight right hand...stefjonno1, i used to watch a lot of the fights around the featherweight division in the mid-late 90's-early 2000's, because the little guys, used to get it in, my man...(word)

i agree that, the minute prince naseem hamed, stepped up his competition, he would lose, and that actually happened, when he faced the baby faced assassin, marco antonio barrera, but i also thought, that naseem hamed, would show what a true champ he was, and order a rematch, on marco antonio barrera, to avenge the only loss on his record...I thought prince naseem hamed's competition, took a downward spiral since beating kevin kelly, and marco antonio barrera, would be catching prince naseem hamed napping, and prince naseem hamed, would make up and smell the coffee, so to speak...

Naz seems to be a little overated imo. He was exciting, but we all knew who the big test was 6 or 7 years before he fought him, and he got a whipping.It's his own fault he never came back cuz he could have added to his legacy. Barrera for me completely destroyed his confidence. Naz imo should never be mentioned in the same breath as Barerra/Morales/Marquez. People were saying Barerra should quit after the Junior jones loss! Look what he achieved after that, that's how a truly great fighter comes back.

Of course, in retrospect we can pull apart anyone's career and one loss doesn't erase everything that he did, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not particularly pulling apart his career after the fact either. Thompson and Kelley were a step up in class from what he'd faced before but they were ageing fighters who he was expected to beat as part of his career progression. My issue is that I see Barrera as the first real test that he faced in terms of proving his greatness and he failed. I can't help but remember the amount of times that he compared himself to Ali and said he was going to be one of the greatest ever. He didn't even come close for me, partly 'cause his boxing ability (as a martial art) was poor but also because he was tested, failed and then disappeared. The Nas of 2000+ wasnt the Naz of 1995 -1999....the combinations were gone, his reflexes and ability to roll shots or dodge them were slipping, and he became more of a fighter depending on his power than the fighter he was before then....we all know fighters that depend on natural gifts, swarmers, brawlers prime is a bit shorter especially if they dont train seriously...the Naz Barrera wasnt the best one IMO...Barrera made his name off beating Hamed and is clearly is biggest win...its not like Naz was kayoed or embarassed like some make it out to be I saw the fight Many times...all im saying is people look at one fight instead of his career as a whole and he deserves more than that...every great fighter or near great has lost except for Marciano, Calzaghe, Ricardo Lopez, and Mayweather so one loss past prime shouldnt hold so much water

Saying he was the best in his era when the fab four were no names is one thing. Putting nas in your top 10 of all time is something else, especially since he lost to one of the fab four. And between them the fab four pretty much ruined each other making it much harder for any one of them to grab all the belts. That fab four era was better than any comp that nas fought. Besides all that, I don't agree that nas doesn't get his just due. He gets plenty of love on these boards. on the boards he does....outside not too much most people call him a joke

the reason why i made this thread is because the majority of people who are casual fans or peope who base their opinions based on if they like a fighters personality...they dont give him enough credit and are overly critical...he was the best featherweight of his era When Barrera, Morales, JMM, and Pacquaio were no names and not even at the weight he was already an established star Also he started as a teenager and his era was in the mid to late 90's....not the 2000's so to say he avoided the best of his time is a bit off....He actually beat the best of his time and all the title holders around of each organization and did something that the people compare him to didnt do at all of often..... He was lineal champ at the weight won every title, except for the ones they stripped his opponents off before facing him and actually defended his lineal title several times....No one has done this since him I dont judge fighters if I like them as a person, I based my opinion on them in the ring...He was entertaining, had a great heart, very good chin and loads of talent and power...was the best of his time and nothing more can be asked of him Saying he was the best in his era when the fab four were no names is one thing. Putting nas in your top 10 of all time is something else, especially since he lost to one of the fab four. And between them the fab four pretty much ruined each other making it much harder for any one of them to grab all the belts. That fab four era was better than any comp that nas fought. Besides all that, I don't agree that nas doesn't get his just due. He gets plenty of love on these boards.

We could nitpick everyone's competition like that...Kelly only had one loss at the time and was 29/30, I agree Robinson wasnt that good, but Tom Johnson was past prime but had racking up title defenses and was on the best run of his career when he faced Hamed and got beat, Vuyani Bungu and Wilfredo Vazquez were very good fighters as well....Hamed wasnt in his prime when he lost to Barrera so one loss erases everything he did? In retrospect, he beat every titlist of his time and was lineal champion at 126 for 4 years and only 37 fights beat 9 champions, thats pretty impressive....he is the last dominant featherweight champion their has been in a longtime Of course, in retrospect we can pull apart anyone's career and one loss doesn't erase everything that he did, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not particularly pulling apart his career after the fact either. Thompson and Kelley were a step up in class from what he'd faced before but they were ageing fighters who he was expected to beat as part of his career progression. My issue is that I see Barrera as the first real test that he faced in terms of proving his greatness and he failed. I can't help but remember the amount of times that he compared himself to Ali and said he was going to be one of the greatest ever. He didn't even come close for me, partly 'cause his boxing ability (as a martial art) was poor but also because he was tested, failed and then disappeared.

the reason why i made this thread is because the majority of people who are casual fans or peope who base their opinions based on if they like a fighters personality...they dont give him enough credit and are overly critical...he was the best featherweight of his era When Barrera, Morales, JMM, and Pacquaio were no names and not even at the weight he was already an established star Also he started as a teenager and his era was in the mid to late 90's....not the 2000's so to say he avoided the best of his time is a bit off....He actually beat the best of his time and all the title holders around of each organization and did something that the people compare him to didnt do at all of often..... He was lineal champ at the weight won every title, except for the ones they stripped his opponents off before facing him and actually defended his lineal title several times....No one has done this since him I dont judge fighters if I like them as a person, I based my opinion on them in the ring...He was entertaining, had a great heart, very good chin and loads of talent and power...was the best of his time and nothing more can be asked of him

In my eyes of the feathweights I have seen he is definitely one of the top ten ever.....I never got to see Abe Attell, George Dixon..but from the 1930's on I have seen him all and he beats most of them...only lost once to an ATG fighter....one of the highest kayo percentage for a champ in his division or others for that matter....in just 37 fights defeated 9 former,future, or current champs of his time....definitely cleaned out his era the mid 90's til early 2000's my List in no particular order Greatest featherweights of all-time ive seen Wille Pep Sandy Saddler Salvador Sanchez Eusebio Pedroza Naseem Hamed Vincente Saldivar Alexis Arguello Sugar Ramos Henry Aromstrong Tony Canzoneri Naseem Hamed was alright

:D that comment is one of those one's that people put in their hall of shame sig. Hahahaha. You enjoying that reach around?

Kindly And Slowly http://startupstats.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/keyboard-cat.png :D that comment is one of those one's that people put in their hall of shame sig. Hahahaha.

Kindly And Slowly http://startupstats.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/keyboard-cat.png You think the Barerra who fought nas was at his peak? You think that was the best Barerra you have ever seen? I don't think he peaked till a few years after that fight. And I think nas was was pretty much at his peak around that time. So I stand by everything I've said

:D :D Wow, think that confirms it. You should just stop posting in this thread. That is one of the most retarded posts i've ever read on this forum, and i've seen quite a lot. Bahahahaha. 27 or 28 year old Barerra was not a prime Barerra, in my opinion he had not reached his full potential yet. You are welcome to believe otherwise :fing02:

Hamed was a hell of a lot closer to his peak than Barerra. Barerra was still a pup then. Kindly And Slowly http://startupstats.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/keyboard-cat.png

One of my favorite fighters of all time...his post fight interviews were classic!! He was getting touched but that KO and interview after the Aggie Sanchez fight had me laughing like crazy.

Sorry but you certainly do let your bias get the better of you and this is a weak post. He got schooled? Why because you've seen the highlights and pictures of his arms flying all over the place and him looking daft? Go watch his earlier fights, he did that a lot against Kelly and even in a few earlier fights. The thing about Hamed was he defied Boxing logic with his balance and style, he had a freaky style and that meant he was always going to be off balance. Just because you have seen a few funny looking pictures of him against Barrera doesn't mean he got schooled, that was just because of his crazy style. He was beaten yes, no doubt about that, but he was not schooled. ''First real legit challenge''? Seriously? Your talking as if MAB was just anybody? Do you class that as the same for every other fighter aswell? That their first real legit challenge is against a ATG? He had many good wins on his record, no ATG's though i admit that, but for you to claim MAB was his first real legit challenge shows you are being very unfair on his resume. Yes we know Nas's resume is weak, that is unanimously accepted by all Boxing fans, however he had some good solid win's on there, and MAB was certainly not his first real legit challenge, he was his first real ATG he challenged. Also John made his debut less than a year before Hamed's last fight. You dont need to bring up John to me, I already said not all the fighters were around at the same time. As for pictures and highlights well, I saw the fight live. I didn't need to see photos or highlights to know it was a bad loss. Was Naseem brutalized? No. But he was never really in that fight. The fact that he never really came back from that loss should be proof enough of the schooling. Came back for 1 fight after that and went 12 rounds with a bum while Barerra went on to become a legend. I never said Naseem was a rubbish fighter, also admitted that I might be a little biased. I just don't get how people could possibly think he is top 10 or even top 5 of all time. Do you really think he is top 10 or top 5?