Comments Thread For: Daily Bread Mailbag: Barrera-Hamed, Kell Brook, Canelo, More

[Jab jab boom]

Agree with Sunny31 & I'm afraid JJB continue to miss the point.

Yes, the last thing a fighter loses is his punch, but that isn't the point. At his best Naz combined cat-like reflexes, lightning speed, unorthodox movement & a big punch. Like Make Tyson or Edwin Rosario he fell in love with his own power & stopped training with real discipline. All he had left was his power.

Yes, Barrera was the same age & had had more hard fights but he was improving because he had really started training with real discipline. From being a pure slugger he learnt from the defeats to 'Poison' Jones to become box-fighter.

Naz was a big favourite because everyone in Britain thought MAB was the same man he had been before his losses to Jones & that he was going to storm forward into Naz's punches. I bet on MAB because I knew that wasn't how it would work.

no, the only ones missing the point are those who are too stubborn to acknowledge that Barrera was just better than Hamed. Age, or trainer, or camp had nothing to do with it. When you're the inferior boxer, you're just the inferior boxer. So all of these excuses about a 27 yr old with about 35 fights being on the decline in comparison to someone the same age with about 20 more fights is nonsense. As are excuses about him falling in love with his power. His technique was sloppy and was squashed with a jab. Plain and simple.

[Dasmius Shinobi]

Stephen Edwards is my Sensei for all Saturday's.

Great Mailbag as always. Interesting points of view about the career of Kell Brook, Buddy McGirt, Steve Collins and Naseem Hamed. I like the secret part too. Stephen Edwards Daily Mail Bag are entertaining and educational.

[Dasmius Shinobi]

Funny how people try to consistently imply that Hamed didn't take Barrera seriously. How? When Barrera was by far the best opponent of his career. We're supposed to believe that Hamed trained seriously for Augie Sanchez but took Barrera lightly? Fk outta here. And it doesn't matter if he picked the other Mexican in morales, because morales would've whooped his ass too.

Only Hamed knows how lightly he took Berrera during training.. however, lightly or not Berrera showed him and everyone else that you can't take ANY opponent lightly regardless because you WILL come unstuck..

I'm going to put your comments down to ignorance, it seems you weren't necessarily following boxing back then. Breads comments are absolutely on point here...Hamed didnt fall off a cliff, he was on a steady decline, but sometimes his punch power glossed over that decline. It's not as much as he wasnt taking Barrera seriously, but he wasnt taking anyone seriously, he started relying more and more on power bailing him out.

His Augie Sanchez performance was awful...Barrera was on the ascendancy.

Hamed was the cause of his own downfall, he controlled his camps and dictated the camps...never a good look for any fighter. It was the main cause for his break up with Brendan Ingle, his ego was out of control, and in the end he got what he deserved.

I think it's in reference to the documentary before the fight, where he was more interested in hes haircut then training. Hamed was always unorthodox, apparently started shunning roadwork after beating Belcastro, but like Tyson with Rooney, Hamed didn't look the same after he left Ingle.He got far too power happy, stopped boxing. Whether he would've beaten Barrera though, who knows?

I'm going to put your reply down to typical UK fan delusion when it comes to boxing. So let me get this straight, Hamed was on a steady decline while Barrera was ascending... This despite the fact that they were both the exact same age, Barrera had about 20 more professional fights than Hamed, had already taken losses while Hamed was undefeated, and Barrera had multiple punishing fights against top fighters while Hamed feasted on lower level or past prime names? Yeah, OK.

The truth is Hamed was always more hype than substance. He had good power but any elite fighter would've shut down his goofball style.. and the second he truly stepped up, the difference in class was very apparent.

You show some ignorance again by talking in generalisations. The ages dont mean much without context, Barrera was absolutely on the ascendancy before Hamed, Barrera's only loss in 3 years was Morales, in what was a career best performance and a fight he actually won, he had learned how to put boxing and fighting together, as Bread mentioned in this article, his performance against Salud was SCARY good.

You can have your own opinion about Hameds level of competition, but the fact is he WON every major belt in the division and was the defecto number 1 for over 5 years. Medina came back to win the belt 3 more times after Hamed beat him, Ingle won a title after Hamed beat him. The problem with that era is that you went from good/solid world champions to 3 ATG's.

Hamed, like a lot of punchers peaked younger, Barrera refined his style and put it all together in his late 20s. If you have an eye for it, you can see the differences in Hamed at age 21-23 to after 25, less workrate, sharpness, you see a fighter who is cutting corners in training. Was Augie Sanchez a better fighter than Tom Johnson?Medina? It's the same as Mike Tyson, you can see less and less of the things that made them successful and more emphasis on landing the big shot.

The truth is...there are very few featherweights in history that would actually be able to handle his power. Barrera did and had the ability to put offense around it. Barrera isnt just an elite fighter, he is an ATG. Morales is an ATG. Marquez is an ATG. Hamed is a HOFer that's the difference. If you consider the 126lbers fighting today...there a few I would call "elite" but I'd def like Hamed over most of them.

I dont mean to demean you or anything, I followed the 90-00s featherweight scene pretty closely. A lot of my all time fav fights are in those eras. Barrera-McKinney, Hamed-Kelley, Kelley-Gainer, Morales-Barrera, Morales-Pac 1 to name a few.

To answer your last point...was Hamed overhyped? Yes...when he was active, because he was seen as far superior to the others, people always over hype punchers, it still happens now, all the time with fighters far inferior to Hamed. But in time he has become under appreciated by many, including yourself.

Good points! Those were some ATG's!!!

I would favor Hamed to beat

Him to KO Stevenson
12 rounds decision win over Russell Jr.
I'm torn either decisions or KO's Leo?

I would probably give up my right or left nut to see PRIME Lomachenko vs. PRIME Hamed!!!

Fun Fact: Kid Vegas beat Mayweather back in the day

I think GRJ close decisions Hamed after getting off the floor, I was impressed by his chin and toughness against Loma.

I think Hamed KO's Santa Cruz after being behind on the cards.

I think that's an easy fight for Loma, too much size and ability, it would be like Rigo all over again.

Yeah thanks, Augie was a def a good amateur and a good puncher. Hamed basically ended his career. He actually stretchered a handful of fighters, I cant explain how extraordinary that is as a featherweight. He was a truly gifted puncher, Manny Steward said he was p4p one of the 2 or 3 hardest punchers he had on the mitts and punched like a solid 154lber

I'm reading a lot of excuses and further proof of YOUR ignorance. Hamed was an undefeated fighter and 8 of his 10 wins leading into his fight with Barrera were ko wins, with the other 2 being ud wins. Barrera had already lost to junior Jones and faced nobody elite until morales, a fight that he was an underdog in because it was believed that he was on the decline... Not ascending. There's a reason why Hamed went into that fight as the favorite and it wasn't because he was perceived to be on the decline while Barrera was ascending. In fact, the opposite was believed to be true. So the only factor that determined the outcome of that fight was that Barrera was better than Hamed in every way. Not because Hamed was on the decline, or because he didn't take the biggest name on his resume seriously. He just wasn't as good as advertised.

Lastly, your excuse that he was on the decline as most punchers.... Power is the last thing to go. You would've been better off arguing that his reflexes slowed. But that's not very common for a 27 yr old featherweight.

Can’t argue there

Agree with Sunny31 & I'm afraid JJB continue to miss the point.

Yes, the last thing a fighter loses is his punch, but that isn't the point. At his best Naz combined cat-like reflexes, lightning speed, unorthodox movement & a big punch. Like Make Tyson or Edwin Rosario he fell in love with his own power & stopped training with real discipline. All he had left was his power.

Yes, Barrera was the same age & had had more hard fights but he was improving because he had really started training with real discipline. From being a pure slugger he learnt from the defeats to 'Poison' Jones to become box-fighter.

Naz was a big favourite because everyone in Britain thought MAB was the same man he had been before his losses to Jones & that he was going to storm forward into Naz's punches. I bet on MAB because I knew that wasn't how it would work.

IDK about training but fight night was one of the only times he didnt flip over the ring and the commentators picked up on it, he knew he was in for a tough fight.

Biggest surprise or stand out thing to me is there wasnt really much handspeed difference. MAB and morales at 122-126 were fast.

I wont touch the last part as it's already been answered by others.

It's very clear to me now that you dont have any context of the time, or you weren't watching boxing back then. If I had to guess by your responses you are just reading off boxrec. Hamed's performances were getting more sloppy as time went on, the Mcullough fight was a low because of the turmoil in camp, but Hamed still played with him when Morales had issues, but that was Naz last camp with Ingle.

The performances got worse, Ingle was patchy, Soto was really bad, he was lucky to get away without a DQ, Bungu was good but in my opinion Bungu froze up as soon as he felt the power. Sanchez was bad.

The Jones fights were a distant memory once the Hamed fight came along. Yes there were people writing Barrera off after the Jones fights, but he went back to the drawing board, recreated himself and came back better than ever. This isnt my opinion, it is a widely accepted opinion.

They are not excuses - there are reasons. The whole narrative that Hamed got wiped as soon as he stepped up is false. Everything has to be looked at with perspective...I can see why people ran with that narrative immediately after the fight, but now it doesnt hold water because of what Barrera went on to achieve. It doesnt wipe out all of Hameds career.

You can believe what you want, but I know what a 23 year old Hamed looked like and a 27 year old Hamed looked like...you cant erase footage. Would the best Hamed beat the best Barrera...no I dont think he would that is why one is an ATG and the other is not. But if you think that was the best Hamed...I dont know what to say to you.

I would take Emmanuel Stewards opinion over yours, you are basically arguing the opinion of one of the 2 or 3 greatest trainers of all time, who happened to be in the camp, who was known to be brutally honest about his fighters and to his fighters. He literally said "the kid simply did not want to fight" "he sparred maybe 12 rounds"...that says it all

Excuses, excuses, excuses. You can try to defend yourself by pretending that I don't know boxing but I'm clearly more knowledgeable than you are by far. I've watched several of his fights before he got embarrassed by Barrera. Which is why I had no clue why everyone was so enamored with him and why anyone thought he had a shot vs Barrera. Nevertheless being a favorite. Hamed was always sloppy. He just got away with it because of the level of competition he faced. The guy went life and death with a washed up Kevin Kelly. I don't care if Hamed was 23 or 27, if he sparred 12 rounds or 120 rounds, he wasn't ever going to beat Barrera or morales or Marquez. So back to my original point, he didn't lose to Barrera for lack of preparation or being on a decline, he lost because he was never as good as his UK fans wanted to believe he was.... And making outside factor excuses diminishes Barrera just being the better man.

no, the only ones missing the point are those who are too stubborn to acknowledge that Barrera was just better than Hamed. Age, or trainer, or camp had nothing to do with it. When you're the inferior boxer, you're just the inferior boxer. So all of these excuses about a 27 yr old with about 35 fights being on the decline in comparison to someone the same age with about 20 more fights is nonsense. As are excuses about him falling in love with his power. His technique was sloppy and was squashed with a jab. Plain and simple.

I agree completely with sunny31, Bunch Pag, Mindgames, Shadoww702, Eriugenus and Elfag. Jab jab boom is going in circles and the defensive nature he portraying in this thread said it all. He lost this debate against the other members in this one. And yes, both boxers in the best night, I see Barrera winning.

[Jab jab boom]

I agree completely with sunny31, Bunch Pag, Mindgames, Shadoww702, Eriugenus and Elfag. Jab jab boom is going in circles and the defensive nature he portraying in this thread said it all. He lost this debate against the other members in this one. And yes, both boxers in the best night, I see Barrera winning.

clearly you lack intellect as I'm not talking in circles. I'm making 1 main point which is that Barrera was just better than Hamed and that's why he won. So his lame excuses are pointless. Now whats their point? That he was declining at just 27 yrs old while Barrera was ascending, despite Hamed having been in less wars and having less fights than Barrera .. That he didn't take the best opponent of his career seriously. Who's to say he took him less seriously than any other opponent he faced? The guy by nature was an arrogant clown who thought he was greater than what the reality was. So Barrera brought him back down to earth. Fighters who face low level opposition don't decline at 27 yrs old. What happens is they get exposed for not being as good as perceived when they face an elite level fighter. Kind of like an Adrien broner.

See, it's not about how many people want to cling onto an argument or debate, it's about who's making the most valid point. So you can join them in the loss column.

[Bigchip]

McClellan passed out at Kronk I gym a few times. I guess nobody thought much of it at the time, which is a shame.

[Dasmius Shinobi]

clearly you lack intellect as I'm not talking in circles. I'm making 1 main point which is that Barrera was just better than Hamed and that's why he won. So his lame excuses are pointless. Now whats their point? That he was declining at just 27 yrs old while Barrera was ascending, despite Hamed having been in less wars and having less fights than Barrera .. That he didn't take the best opponent of his career seriously. Who's to say he took him less seriously than any other opponent he faced? The guy by nature was an arrogant clown who thought he was greater than what the reality was. So Barrera brought him back down to earth. Fighters who face low level opposition don't decline at 27 yrs old. What happens is they get exposed for not being as good as perceived when they face an elite level fighter. Kind of like an Adrien broner.

See, it's not about how many people want to cling onto an argument or debate, it's about who's making the most valid point. So you can join them in the loss column.

You still repeating the same, but in other words. That is why I said about going in circles. This is only my opinion of this, but again I see Barrera winning against Hamed 10 times of 10 in their best nights. Simply, Marco Antonio Barrera is better fighter compared to Naseem Hamed. My opinion is that stuff like the ascending (Barrera) and declining (Hamed) or other stuff was not going to play a factor in this outcome. That is my opinion alone without the debate of the other members. And yes, If I have to take sides, I prefer the loss column with sense that a win column without sense.

[Jab jab boom]

You still repeating the same, but in other words. That is why I said about going in circles. This is only my opinion of this, but again I see Barrera winning against Hamed 10 times of 10 in their best nights. Simply, Marco Antonio Barrera is better fighter compared to Naseem Hamed. My opinion is that stuff like the ascending (Barrera) and declining (Hamed) or other stuff was not going to play a factor in this outcome. That is my opinion alone without the debate of the other members. And yes, If I have to take sides, I prefer the loss column with sense that a win column without sense.

the bold is exactly what my point was... So I'm not even sure what you're disagreeing with when it comes to my post.

[sunny31]

clearly you lack intellect as I'm not talking in circles. I'm making 1 main point which is that Barrera was just better than Hamed and that's why he won. So his lame excuses are pointless. Now whats their point? That he was declining at just 27 yrs old while Barrera was ascending, despite Hamed having been in less wars and having less fights than Barrera .. That he didn't take the best opponent of his career seriously. Who's to say he took him less seriously than any other opponent he faced? The guy by nature was an arrogant clown who thought he was greater than what the reality was. So Barrera brought him back down to earth. Fighters who face low level opposition don't decline at 27 yrs old. What happens is they get exposed for not being as good as perceived when they face an elite level fighter. Kind of like an Adrien broner.

See, it's not about how many people want to cling onto an argument or debate, it's about who's making the most valid point. So you can join them in the loss column.

I've answered your points numerous times...you seem to think age is the only factor in decline. I could name plenty of fighters that were past there best after 25, for varying factors.

The bold is the entire point he wasnt taking boxing as seriously as he should, you keep saying "who's to say" well how about his HOF trainer haha, he wasnt putting in the hard yards, and you are contradicting yourself by those statements, it was his arrogance that led him to make those decisions. In those early years, and during the early part of his title reign he was known as an elusive boxer who countered with ko power, but he also jabbed, put punches together...by the end he was a one punch at a time counter puncher, who waited for his opponent to over commit and then punched between their punches. Take Barrera out of the equation and his performances were getting worse and the competition was similar...common ****ing sense

You're a lost cause.

[Dasmius Shinobi]

the bold is exactly what my point was... So I'm not even sure what you're disagreeing with when it comes to my post.

Because they are posting facts that are truth when they debate you and the consistent, but in the end that not change the outcome and better boxer that night. If that post that you answer me was before my post, then I see you have a good argument to debate them and in that sense I agree with you. Adrien Broner is a good example for this case, like you said.

[Jab jab boom]

I've answered your points numerous times...you seem to think age is the only factor in decline. I could name plenty of fighters that were past there best after 25, for varying factors.

The bold is the entire point he wasnt taking boxing as seriously as he should, you keep saying "who's to say" well how about his HOF trainer haha, he wasnt putting in the hard yards, and you are contradicting yourself by those statements, it was his arrogance that led him to make those decisions. In those early years, and during the early part of his title reign he was known as an elusive boxer who countered with ko power, but he also jabbed, put punches together...by the end he was a one punch at a time counter puncher, who waited for his opponent to over commit and then punched between their punches. Take Barrera out of the equation and his performances were getting worse and the competition was similar...common ****ing sense

You're a lost cause.

I never said that age is the only factor that would cause a decline... Thats why I also mentioned the Number of fights... Years as a pro & being in multiple wars... Which Barrera had over Hamed in every category. So making an excuse if Hamed slowing down while Barrera was ascending is laughable and inaccurate. Barrera was just better. Now being in a real decline at 27 is not common but yes, it's happened. But let's look at the main guys it's happened to. Benitez.. The guy was a world champion at 17 and by 23 or 24 had already faced duran, Leonard and hearns during the 15 round era. That will take yrs off. Fernando vargas... By 22 had already faced campas, winky, quartey and a brutal war with Trinidad, followed that with very tough fights against Oscar and mosley.. ....thats what slowed his career and ended his prime early. Tyson... The guy infamously had one of the most wresckkess lifestyles outside of the ring in the history of sports. Plus he had about 35 fights the first 3 yrs of his career from the age of 19-22 yrs old, where he went from debut to winning & defending the world hw title multiple times with some defenses being against future hall of famers. Hamed encountered nothing close to what those guys did.

As far as his hall of fame trainer... His trainer also said he didn't want Hamed to take the fight with Barrera at all in the first place. So this was even before training camp started... So training aside, what steward knew was that Barrera was flat out better than Hamed.