Why was Barrera able to beat Naseem Hamed so easily?

[LetOutTheCage]

Barrera is the best fighter named ever fought so gamed might have done better but you can't say he would have beat Barrera.

And I was big named admirer at time. But hindsight is helpful

Of course I can, it's just my opinion but the reason is because we didnt see the real Naz against Barrera. We saw a sloppy Naz devoid of his power. Issues with his hand, poor preparation and crucially the hunger was gone. It wasnt so much that Barrera put in a master class and dismantled Naz, Naz was already dismantled before the fight even started. Give me a fully fit, hungry Naz and I would favor him against Barrera. Barrera never really looked like stopping Naz. We know Naz has the tools to hurt and stop Barrera though.

"Muh shoulder doe". That's exactly what that sounds like.

Come on man, are you really trying to compare someone who broke his hand in a previous fight and regularly had to have injections in his hands (this was known before the fight) to someone who suddenly picked up an injury after getting whooped? I remember Stewart saying things about Naz before the fight which was ringing alarm bells.

[yngwie]

Styles makes fights, Hamed didn't have the workrate to stop Barrera's thinking, Barrera was having time to pick up his best shots and also was a fighter with huge heart and guts who wasn't scared of Prince tactics.

[b00g13man]

Come on man, are you really trying to compare someone who broke his hand in a previous fight and regularly had to have injections in his hands (this was known before the fight) to someone who suddenly picked up an injury after getting whooped? I remember Stewart saying things about Naz before the fight which was ringing alarm bells.

Excuses. That's what they all are. Same as the metal plate situation with Barrera. I don't care for excuses. Fighters have fought through serious injuries and won.

[LetOutTheCage]

Excuses. That's what they all are. Same as the metal plate situation with Barrera. I don't care for excuses. Fighters have fought through serious injuries and won.

No it's completely different to the example you gave with the shoulder. Naz never made any excuses in the post fight interview, he credited Barrera for being the better man on the night. We saw from Stewart that things weren't going right in the camp and it was only discovered later just how bad Naz's injuries were. Anyone who has watched a prime Naz could see something wasnt right in the Barrera fight, he looked a shell of his former self and that wasnt simply because of Barrera.

The guy relied on his reflexes and his power, that what his style was built on. None of that was present against Barrera.

[LetOutTheCage]

Exactly what did you see in the 1st fight that leads you to believe Hamed could ever beat Barrera? That's right. NOTHING!

So by your logic Roy Jones would never have beaten the likes of Danny Green, Glen Johnson or Enzo Maccarinelli? Yeah that's what I thought

[b00g13man]

So by your logic Roy Jones would never have beaten the likes of Danny Green, Glen Johnson or Enzo Maccarinelli? Yeah that's what I thought

Are you saying Nas was shot? There's a big difference between both situations.

[LetOutTheCage]

Are you saying Nas was shot? There's a big difference between both situations.

I'm saying Naz was by no means in his prime condition. Different circumstances but same outcome, two fighters devoid of their key attributes against the opponents mentioned.

[b00g13man]

I'm saying Naz was by no means in his prime condition. Different circumstances but same outcome, two fighters devoid of their key attributes against the opponents mentioned.

Hand problems happen all the damn time. Great fighters still find a way. Floyd had hand problems most of his career. He also managed a close fight with Castillo with an actual injured shoulder. Ward still schooled Froch with a broken hand. I'd react the same way if either of those fighters lost fights for those reasons.

The main part of your original post I took issue with was the "lazy" and "unmotivated" part. If you get lazy or are unmotivated, that's on you. I'll never take that as justification for losing a fight.

[sunny31]

Hamed was 27 and Barrera was 27 years old man it was a prime for prime match up wtf?

See what I hate about this is the double standards. When it comes to Mike Tyson all American's say that he peaked in his early 20's and he only lost to Buster Douglas because he was unmotivated, and by the time he fought Holyfield he was past his prime, even though Holyfield was older.

When it comes to Naseem - its an excuse. He just fought the best fighter he had fought and got exposed. He was 27, in his prime, etc.

If you followed his career closely it was clear he was not the same fighter anymore, he peaked in his early 20's. Fighters don't all peak in that 26/27-32/33 range. A lot of explosive fighters peak early and the candle doesn't burn as long. Especially when you have a lack of discipline and too much ego. It is a recipe for a huge fall, and that is exactly what happened to both guys.

With any kind of objectivity, and based on what people around him said, the guys who knew what was going on, you would have to see that he was not the same fighter. Someone like Manny Steward - who was about as blunt honest as you get has said the same thing in several interviews, some of the years after the event.

But then again everyone believes what they want.

[alexguiness]

Barrera's heart and desire was greater than Hamed's skill.

Hamed was out fought, not out classed.

It is interesting that this was Hamed's biggest fight (i believe) in terms of venue and profile etc and he failed to live up to his reputation.