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

[Jab jab boom]

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.

my point was exactly what you said... That Barrera was better & the excuse of Hamed declining while Barrera was ascending was inaccurate & had nothing to do with the outcome. Barrera was just the better man. And if you want facts.. Look at my post above & response to him and you'll see clear facts.

Si tu eres de puerto rico, tu sabes que benitez es un buen ejemplo de alguien que estaba descendiendo antes de los 27 aņos. Pero Hamed? No.

[sunny31]

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.

Haha absolute BS...you talk about multiple hard fights, Hamed was in wars, he also won the title in the same year as Barrera at the age of 21. So apart from having more learning fights, from the fact that he went pro at 16, a few years ahead of Hamed...that is where the extra fights came from. I really cant be bothered anymore, you dont know what you're talking about. Barrera WAS on the ascendancy, his only loss from 98-03 was Morales, he beat Morales, Hamed, Tapia 3 HOFers from 2001-2003 that is probably his best career run, he was top 3 p4p...yeah laughable. Hamed was performing worse as time went on...explained. for which you have NO counter argument.

Barrera turned the fight down in 95, 96 for a reason.

You cant give examples of 3 guys, put in your pre-set biased opinion to justify your argument...ridiculous.

Steward didnt want him to take the fight because he didnt like the style, he didnt like Barrera's new approach, he liked Morales more style wise.

[sunny31]

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.

Look at your original comment, this is why most in here are disagreeing with you. Your problem was people saying he didnt take it seriously.

When there is a documentary of the fight showing clearly that he wasnt taking the fight seriously, his trainer also said he didnt take it seriously, his camp were purposely showing old tapes of Barrera to give him a false sense of confidence...to which Manny Steward was admonished him for. He sparred 12 rounds in the entire camp, he was training at Oscar De La Hoyas mansion, this is all stuff which has been documented...

How much more evidence do you need?

At this point you're a waste of time, you'll believe what you want to believe

[sunny31]

my point was exactly what you said... That Barrera was better & the excuse of Hamed declining while Barrera was ascending was inaccurate & had nothing to do with the outcome. Barrera was just the better man. And if you want facts.. Look at my post above & response to him and you'll see clear facts.

Si tu eres de puerto rico, tu sabes que benitez es un buen ejemplo de alguien que estaba descendiendo antes de los 27 aņos. Pero Hamed? No.

Educate yourself

[Jab jab boom]

Educate yourself

more excuses and nothing changes from my original comment. Hamed didn't take Barrera any lighter than any other opponent. He was just a goof ball clown, much like you, who thought too much of himself and came across someone levels above him. So he got exposed.... He didn't decline, he was shown to be what he always was. A good puncher with limited boxing skills .... The fact that you replied 3 times in a row to my 1 reply shows your desperation. Steward knew Hamed was inferior and that's why he didn't want him to take the fight. And for the record, he's lucky he didn't pick morales instead. Morales is meaner than Barrera and would've massacred that hype job even more.

[Dasmius Shinobi]

my point was exactly what you said... That Barrera was better & the excuse of Hamed declining while Barrera was ascending was inaccurate & had nothing to do with the outcome. Barrera was just the better man. And if you want facts.. Look at my post above & response to him and you'll see clear facts.

Si tu eres de puerto rico, tu sabes que benitez es un buen ejemplo de alguien que estaba descendiendo antes de los 27 aņos. Pero Hamed? No.

Why do you ignore the declining of Hamed evidence?

[Jab jab boom]

Why do you ignore the declining of Hamed evidence?

what evidence?? 1 fight before Barrera, he wins in tko 4......
2 fights before Barrera wins by ko in 4.
3 fights before Barrera, unanimous decision win.. closest scorecard was 115-110....
4 fights before Barrera tko win in 11 in a fight he was ahead on all scorecards by no less than 7 points at the time of the stoppage.
5 fights before Barrera, ud win where he won by 4, 6, and 8 points on the scorecards....
6 fights before Barrera, ko'd puerto ricos own Wilfredo Vasquez in 7.

So there are your facts... Where's the decline? Gave you 6 fights before he faced Barrera and not 1 was even close.

[Bunch Pag]

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.

Hamed self imploded. He's local to me and round the time he conquered the world in boxing he also thought he conquered the whole area. He was even trying to promote Yemen (family birthplace) and get involved in some troubles over there his ego was that big..

Hamed was a fantastic fighter and the best about during his prime. Regardless of age, boxers like any sportsman can have prime years at different stages. Hamed was untouchable during his and he had a style which backed it up and made more people want to see him get chinned.

He was never going to undefeated, not because of his talent, but because of his focus and mentality.

[SweetPbfAli]

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 thought the same thing about him not flipping over the ropes in addition to the fact he took so long to come out.

I've recently heard that Hamed used to cut between the thumbs of his gloves to he could grab the rope to flip and that team Barrera knew and told the commission about it. That's why he didn't flip in that fight because the gloves weren't cut. I think it's a mix of both.

[Mindgames]

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.

Of course fighters decline at 27 years old. It's lifestyle outside the ring, reluctance to train, and bad weight management that does it. Mike Tyson had declined by the Ruddock rematch, age 24. It happens. Hamed may never have beaten Barrera, but he was slacking, and getting very fat between fights.