Is Nate Campbell that good or overated

**Bhopreign** · 07-15-2008, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by Queen_Leia

I keep hearing that he the best boxer at 135 lbs and will steamroll throught Pac, Guzman and co.....is he that good? And the losses to Peden, Lorenzo and Hlyataso...were they fluke losses?

I think Nate is good when he has the right opponent. When he cant impose his will then he has a problem.

**OTSS** · 07-15-2008, 09:40 PM

I don't know who said all that **** but let's be real. Styles make fights and along with his exp. he ran into a up and coming fighter who wasnt ready no more no less. Best at 135? Are you serious? Who the **** said that?

**withoutthee88** · 07-15-2008, 09:42 PM

We'll see just how fast Guzman can run when they fight.

**Silencers** · 07-15-2008, 09:46 PM

He is a very good fighter, I don't see many people overrating him at all.

**MANGLER** · 07-15-2008, 10:01 PM

Nate is damn good when he's up for a fight. He's always had talent, but he don't always show up. He was at his best against Diaz and that form of Campbell can beat any LW.

**ElGranLuchador** · 07-15-2008, 10:02 PM

hes just a crafty veteran imo he got lucky against diaz
hes gonna get beat by guzman and then no one will hear from him

**Point Blank** · 07-15-2008, 10:12 PM

over rated. wannabe mayweather

**Scott9945** · 07-15-2008, 10:22 PM

Those losses weren't flukes. It just took Campbell this long to finally get it all together. Of course it is possible that Diaz just had the perfect style for him. Beating Guzman would go a long way in proving that Nate is the real thing.

**sylvestersweet** · 07-15-2008, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by Bobby Lee

over rated. wannabe mayweather

He isn't like Mayweather at all. His style is different, he's not in it for the money, and he actually cares about the sport.
Do think that some people are hailing him the best at 135 too quickly, 'cause he hasn't even defended his titles yet and he's lost a lot.

Is Nate Campbell that good or overated