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.
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.
Comment