Hamed vs Morales

[GEOFFHAYES]

Naz was asked about Barrera after the Angeles fight.

Remember Warren and King originally wanted a triple-hitter at Wembley in July '95 - Hamed/Barrera, Eubank/Collins II and Bruno/McCall. Hamed winning the title, Eubank winning his title back, and Bruno finally winning the title - would of been the best night in British Boxing history if it came off. But yeah, Naz/Barrera was almost signed and sealed in mid-95 for Wembley Stadium (Bruno/Eubank undercard), but that card didn't come off..

[rocco1252]

this thread tought me a few things,i didnt really know naz was that feared or really was a huge name,i wasnt really into boxing when he was around,i like him thou after watchin some of his fights,and it makes me happy that he was feared by 2 great fighters like mab and morales

pac is 10 times the fighter Hamed was and if MAB and Morales dont duck him trust me they definately wouldnt duck a fighter like Hamed who was all flash and thats about it.

[Bonafide]

Who did Barrera fight or Morales fight?

In 1998 in the build up to the Naz-McCullough fight 3 days beforehand Naz held an open workout for the media, and all the other fighters on the card did too... Barrera was on the card.

Absolutely nobody turned up to watch Barrera and the rest. The media came out in full force and the room was packed by the time Naz was there training... Naz called the shots. Naz put his music on, answered the questions he wanted to answer and did what he wanted. There was a man in there from a British tabloid newspaper who got embarrased that day also... because of his hater attitude. But thats another story.

Perhaps that says something about the draw Naseem Hamed was, and how these "bums" you speak of were drawing more attention from boxing fans than Barrera was fighting "megafights" as I guess you would put it...

90s Featherweight Boxing. Prince Naseem Hamed. End of story.

Barerra and Morales have fought far better opposition then Naz. Morales has fought them all , ducked nobody. Barerra's record might be a little built up from his first 20 or so fights in Mexico but nonetheless the caliber of fighters were far more superior.

I agree with you though. All that **** at his open work out very ture. Naz is a draw...but thats all he was and thats all he will be remembered for. A flamboyant , ****y , loud and arrogant boxer with dazzling ring entrances and fancy footwork and an unorthodox style.

As for going down as a great...I highly think not.

[GEOFFHAYES]

Naz was asked about Barrera after the Angeles fight.

Remember Warren and King originally wanted a triple-hitter at Wembley in July '95 - Hamed/Barrera, Eubank/Collins II and Bruno/McCall. Hamed winning the title, Eubank winning his title back, and Bruno finally winning the title - would of been the best night in British Boxing history if it came off. But yeah, Naz/Barrera was almost signed and sealed in mid-95 for Wembley Stadium (Bruno/Eubank undercard), but that card didn't come off..

Oh and Tyson would of been ringside (so was the talk), which would of just added to the occasion. I was really looking forward to that shat, wish it came off.

[Bonafide]

Marshmallow , I aint hatin on Naz. Dont get me wrong. I didnt come here to bash the guy. I was just as drawn as you were in the beginning.

I thought he was going to steamroll over MAB then he lost ! I was like holy ****! Prince Naseem just lost !

[Double]

I think Morales get's in his a$$ in any time period or era.

[The Noose]

He was the best featherweight you are ever gonna see for raw skill, talent, showmanship, natural reflexes... but nope, people just wanna look at post Ingle 2001 Hamed. Seriously, go back to 1995 onwards and you will see what the **** I keep repeating myself for.

Pep was better IMO. As was Salvador Sanchez.

But i agree that Naz at his best was special. Not just a showman, but a very skilled fighter.

The only thing i question is where did it all go wrong for him? I know all about Ingle, but as far as his technique and ability in the ring, did he really decline as a fighter, or was it that his opponents were better quality and figured him out?

[Bozo_no no]

I think Morales was the man to stop Hamed. His jab and straight right with the reach would have given him the needed edge.

[Phantasm]

Morales takes him in any decade. Pre or Post Millenium.

Morales easily takes his will.

And who did Naz fight in the mid nineties ?
Nobodies. bums. Just look at his record from 92 to 96. I dont recognize one name excpet Medina and ALicea.

I dont think he neccesarily fought 'bums' in the decade. He fought good quality fighters in the division. Vazquez, McCullough, Kelley, Ingle...these were the top contenders in the division during the time.

[Phantasm]

Pep was better IMO. As was Salvador Sanchez.

But i agree that Naz at his best was special. Not just a showman, but a very skilled fighter.

The only thing i question is where did it all go wrong for him? I know all about Ingle, but as far as his technique and ability in the ring, did he really decline as a fighter, or was it that his opponents were better quality and figured him out?

I agree that Pep, Sanchez, Gomez are all guys that can be argued are better. But Hamed has to be mentioned along with them, and as I said before, the argument can be made that he was the greatest, even if I dont agree that he was.