Prince Naseem Hamed v Manny Pacquiao

I'm not minimizing Pacquaio's skills in the least. He could easily win this fight. But Hamed was always the smaller guy and his style was developed to accommodate that. I just don't see Manny as being bigger enough to make that a major factor. If PAC goes at him like he did Barrera n jmm I can see him running into one of those big counter uppercuts or his bazooka left...the prince had a great chin n PAC would eat some bombs... The more I think about it ...I got the prince by kayo in a barnburner

Size is not something you want to give up to someone that is faster and a better fighter than you. Even at 126, Pac was highly skilled at what he did. He had speed, power, and even though he was more of a wild, pressure fighter at the time, was very good at countering during exchanges. I'm not minimizing Pacquaio's skills in the least. He could easily win this fight. But Hamed was always the smaller guy and his style was developed to accommodate that. I just don't see Manny as being bigger enough to make that a major factor.

Hamed often gave up more than that and won. He rarely fought anyone his size or smaller. Size is not something you want to give up to someone that is faster and a better fighter than you. Even at 126, Pac was highly skilled at what he did. He had speed, power, and even though he was more of a wild, pressure fighter at the time, was very good at countering during exchanges.

Just in case some of you forgot how talented and entertaining the prince was in the 90's

Prime for Prime at featherweight? I have to go with the Prince on this one...Both had heart and were natural talents....I give Hamed the edge in reflexes, footspeed. Manny was taller but was very aggressive but Hamed is top 3 all time at this weight win it comes to power. He knocked guys spark out. He did defeat Barrera and had a draw with Marquez here but there is a huge drop of in his competition at featherweight after them. Hamed would actually be the most unorthodox guy in the ring, which is something Pacquaio hadn't seen. Manny would have to bring it to him to win, but Hamed had good timing, speed, and hard counters from all angles. Hamed was also more elusive and was never stopped. I could see it going to a decision but if anyone wins by kayo it will be Hamed I'd favor Hamed of the 90's who was more proven at the weight and cleared out his division from 1995-2001 over any version of Pacquaio 126 and under.

I think people forget the sizes of these guys. In this match Pac would be about 3" taller and have a 4" reach advantage over Nas. Hamed often gave up more than that and won. He rarely fought anyone his size or smaller.

Styles make fights remember. Hamed has the advantage in chin (been knocked down due to being off balanced but never KO'd) and power (KO power in both hands). Pacquiao had the advantage in hand and foot speed. Pacquiao was the greater fighter in terms of career and people he beat but I think Pacquiao plays into Naseems game. At featherweight, Pacquiao was still a one handed fighter and wasn't as refined of a boxer as he was as he went up in weight. Barerra beat Hamed by outboxing him, Pacquiao wouldn't and couldn't do that.

I think people forget the sizes of these guys. In this match Pac would be about 3" taller and have a 4" reach advantage over Nas.

I watched an interesting interview with Nigel Benn the other day on BT Sport, that was a man with dedication and the right attitude, boxing needs characters like the prince and the dark destroyer, these are the fighters that make the sport exciting. Benn was awesome too, as was the great Eubank. In terms of Eubank, I think he had one of the standout boxing careers of the last 30 years, not just here in the UK but on a larger, world stage. He brought a world wide feel to the UK and it's sad when guys like Benn and Eubank get mentioned as great British fighters, as if they weren't great fighters compared to those plying their trades in the US. Eubank is arguably a top 3 super middleweight and one of the best offensive fighters on the planet...even in the hazy, post-Watson realm of his career.

You know why Barrera was so successful against Hamed? He fought a smart fight waiting for Hamed to attack. countering but taking little risk. Completely opposite to what Pacquiao would do. Pacquiao's style was exactly what Hamed would thrive on. This Hamed was a counter-puncher when made to lead against MAB he looked average. Pac is literally the best match up for naz not saying he would definitely win because manny is an extraordinary fighter but there is a decent chance Pacquiao would have been stretchered out of the arena

Look, I'm not gonna debate on how good the Prince was, at his best he seemed almost unbeatable and had more devastating punching power than almost any FW puncher I have seen in my life time. You're right, he just wasn't dedicated enough, anyone who was in the gym with him at the time knew it and have spoken about it widely. But still, Pacquiao is heads and shoulders above the guy in any form of ranking fighters. I watched an interesting interview with Nigel Benn the other day on BT Sport, that was a man with dedication and the right attitude, boxing needs characters like the prince and the dark destroyer, these are the fighters that make the sport exciting.

Yes that was his prime. We can't say oh well he retired, therefor he could have been even better! No numb nuts, we've seen all we need to see. He stepped up, got demolished, end of story. He never fulfilled his true potential, so all you saw was a boxer with 37 fights, 1 defeat, retiring at an early age. As for getting demolished? losing a fight on points because he was unprepared should have been a lesson for him, but again that all comes back to dedication and preparation and if you look through the history of boxing then all the true great boxers (entertainers) lose fights but unfortunately the Prince never had the desire to rebuild his career but Naseem had the potential to be better then Pacquiao and that you can't argue with...

Yes, but the prince retired at 28 and its widely been reported he wasn't as focused on training the more popular he became So did the Prince actually reach his prime? maybe not and respect to the prince for not making excuses when he lost to Barrera, as he could have said he had an injury. Look, I'm not gonna debate on how good the Prince was, at his best he seemed almost unbeatable and had more devastating punching power than almost any FW puncher I have seen in my life time. You're right, he just wasn't dedicated enough, anyone who was in the gym with him at the time knew it and have spoken about it widely. But still, Pacquiao is heads and shoulders above the guy in any form of ranking fighters.

Pacquiao is a top 20 ATG, there is no comparison in terms of who was better prime for prime, however, if they two had ever fought at FW, prime v prime...now that could have been magic. Yes, but the prince retired at 28 and its widely been reported he wasn't as focused on training the more popular he became And he kept winning, even though he was slipping from the moment he beat Robinson. As John Ingle laments: “Unfortunately the more successful Naz got, the less he trained. He worked harder as an amateur than he did as a professional. He could have been a five-times world champion.” So did the Prince actually reach his prime? maybe not and respect to the prince for not making excuses when he lost to Barrera, as he could have said he had an injury.

You must be joking right? Who are his biggest wins against? Freaking Wayne McCullough? Kevin Kelly? Erik Morales called him out, so did Floyd Mayweather at 130, he didn't answer the bell. Heck, he could have fought Ayala. To suggest a guy whose best wins were Kelly and McCullough cleaned out his division is laughable. He also called Erik Morales out...many times. Calling someone out and getting the fight on are two different things, I am sure Mayweather called him out, Arturo Gatti called him out, Acelino Freitas called him out, why?? Because he was by far the biggest cash cow from lightweight down. The only person you can legitimately make a case for is JMM. You're welcome in advance for the history lesson. In terms of his accomplishments, I am not sure if Kevin Kelley or Wayne McCullough were his best wins, because quite frankly he beat a lot of guys of a similar level to those guys. Manuel Medina was a good win, and become featherweight champion again twice after Hamed beat him. Tom Johnson was a good featherweight champion (IBF) when Hamed beat him albeit slightly past his prime, but still a good win. Paul Ingle was a very underrated win, went on to win the IBF strap after Hamed knocked him out, Ingle beat Medina and Junior Jones. Hamed beat Cezar Soto for the WBC strap (not the best performance). When Hamed beat Vuyani Bungu he had been on a long unbeaten run and been Super Bantamweight champion for around 6 years, in that run he beat Kennedy Mckinney twice. These guys were good fighters, whether you care to admit it or not. I am not sure what you consider cleaning out a division, but he beat all the other champions, so I'm pretty sure that qualifies, he pretty much unified without keeping the belts occupied, you can't do much more than that. This does not even include the fact that he beat Steve Robinson for a strap in his 20th fight, aged 21. Going into the guys backyard and totally annihilating him like he did at that age was impressive.

Pacquiao is a top 20 ATG, there is no comparison in terms of who was better prime for prime, however, if they two had ever fought at FW, prime v prime...now that could have been magic.

Just cause floyd beat pac, don't think for 1 second pac still ain't a great fighter . Pac would destroy hamed ..... More people than Floyd Mayweather have beaten Manny Pacquaio.....

Just cause floyd beat pac, don't think for 1 second pac still ain't a great fighter . Pac would destroy hamed .....

You must be joking right? Who are his biggest wins against? Freaking Wayne McCullough? Kevin Kelly? Erik Morales called him out, so did Floyd Mayweather at 130, he didn't answer the bell. Heck, he could have fought Ayala. To suggest a guy whose best wins were Kelly and McCullough cleaned out his division is laughable. He literally beat every single champion at featherweight.

Yeah...nobodies, only a bunch of alphabet champions. I hate this misconception, its so misinformed and ignorant. He beat a lot of good/very good fighters, just not any really outstanding one's. His career is more reminiscent of Mike Tyson then Gennady Golovkin at this point. He beat everyone around his day at featherweight, and although it might not have been the strongest featherweight division we have seen, it was solid enough and he cleaned it out. He beat 9 future/present/or past world champions in a 5 year period. That along with his incredible showmanship which made 7 figure pay days possible for him and future fighters in the lower weight classes is probably why he got voted in the IBHOF this year. He lost to Barrera comprehensively, but I always felt there was an overreaction because A - Hamed was an overwhelming favourite and often took on a villain role similar to Mayweather. B - Everyone underestimated Barrera massively, he went on to prove himself to be a first ballot HOF, and probably a ATG featherweight. Finally and this is not an excuse, but in hindsight looking back Hamed was clearly out of his prime and the motivation had wained by the time the fight happened. You must be joking right? Who are his biggest wins against? Freaking Wayne McCullough? Kevin Kelly? Erik Morales called him out, so did Floyd Mayweather at 130, he didn't answer the bell. Heck, he could have fought Ayala. To suggest a guy whose best wins were Kelly and McCullough cleaned out his division is laughable.