Hamed vs Morales

[Exige Jr]

Jose Badillo is the guy i meant.

True, u couldnt ask for more with Naz really.
Yet i still say Barrera's game exposed Hamed. A good fast jab, timed well, would upset Naz.

Oh man, Jose Badillo was 1st class boxing... 7 rounds of pure entertainment and boxing on the highest level. It was like he was fighting a punch bag with arms.

You say that about the fast jab, timed well. Well Medina had a good jab in his fight with Naz, so did Ingle in his fight. Naz was just more slippery than a bar of soap. Reach advantages made no difference, because as soon as they put their arms out in front of them they didnt like what was coming back. Cabrera, Badillo, Medina, McCullough, Vazquez, Kelley... Actually thats a point. Kevin Kelley... the man with a reputable jab, got outjabbed by Naseem Hamed... Ron Borges said that if Naseem leaps he sleeps... Kevin had a height and reach advantage along with an excellent snappy jab. It really didnt matter.

Barrera just done the best thing possible. Step off the aggression. Only commit yourself when Naseem is open. It was the only way to beat him, and this is in 2001 when he is way past his prime. In 95 I truly believe he would have beaten anyone in the world no matter who. He was on top of the world for a brief spell of about a year... unbeatable. Take it or leave it.

[rocco1252]

Well people misunderstood me about what I said about Naz. I never meant for people to get the impression that Naz was the best featherweight ever to fight. Dont get me wrong, the man is an idol of mine, but I would never put him at #1, and you know why? Because I know he didnt achieve well enough to think about it. Its the whole skill vs achievements debate. Im just complimenting his skill. Dont get it twisted im not saying he blasted out the best, because he didnt beat Barrera... its plain to see.

Bonafide he was more than just a flashy boxer with an arrogant persona. The man was special, just trust me. Really, if I could id upload all his fights onto youtube and show you Naseem Hamed at his prime. I have seen every single one of his fights, and have every single one of his fights... he was prime in 95. Take it from me. Not 2001.

Bozo, I would tend to agree with you. However if you look at the past record, EVERY SINGLE opponent of Naz's had reach advantages on him. No joke, from like 96 onwards they all had reach advantages. Do remember he is like 5'3. So he was stocky. Look at his calves they were ****ing enormous. He fought boxers, all day long and just killed them. You mentioned about Morales' 1-2 combination... ill quote George Foreman. "He has had a career of beating basic boxers, why change and make him a basic boxer too". This comment is so true. The basic boxing style would lose to Naz. It was so hard to pressure the man, because as soon as you did he just counters you with everything, factor in his power and thats how he was so succesful. Billy Hardy - "he was the best counterpuncher I have ever seen/fought against".

Ferocity, Marquez and Barrera. You are saying its wrong to suggest that they ducked Hamed. Ill quote Larry Merchant on the Wayne McCullough fight. "Nothings for certain, but a stable mate of Barrera's named Marquez, a young up and coming fighter, is a mandatory for the prince. However he will be fighting Barrera next". This was in 1998. They referred to Marquez as a "young up and coming fighter". Dont tell me Naz ducked someone who was a baby in the game... renember 1998 is the second half of Naseem Hamed's career. He finished in 2001 basically.

As for the power argument... take a look at Augie Sanchez. That man put him down legitimately in my opinion. The ref didnt count it but it was legit. Now that man had power... he was known for it. But Naz got up at the count of about 3 and composed himself and took him out the next round. Same applies with Kelley... he got knocked down. Kept a clear head, got up and finished the job, with much more convincing KD's. Honestly Naseem Hamed's chin is better than you guys think. He was never knocked out (Barrera beat him by 3 rounds), and was never on the floor dazed... he had superhuman stamina.

Well I hope I have convinced some of you guys. If not then you are really missing out on a 1st class boxer, who some of you guys never got to see until he blew up in America.

With all that said, im gonna upload the Robinson fight at the first opportunity. Then you guys will see what I mean.

I remember watching so many of his fights through the years and he was so off balance that he would fall down all the time when he missed or was moving out of the way of a punch or he spun and always ended up with his back turned and so on. Basically he was off balance regardless of his tree trunk legs and just pointing this out for ****s and giggles....When was the last time you saw a featherweight really out of stamina or a Featherweight that couldnt throw 50 plus punches a round? I cant remember any unless they were 40 years old and even they throw atleast 50 punches a round, thats why featherweights are exciting like that.

[oldgringo]

Erik Morales is one of the best 122 pounders ever and I don't feel like he ever really lost until he fought Barrera for a third time. I think he'd be too rangy and accurate for Hamed. His ability to box and brawl effectively would prove too much for Naseem.

[ferocity]

Ferocity, Marquez and Barrera. You are saying its wrong to suggest that they ducked Hamed. Ill quote Larry Merchant on the Wayne McCullough fight. "Nothings for certain, but a stable mate of Barrera's named Marquez, a young up and coming fighter, is a mandatory for the prince. However he will be fighting Barrera next". This was in 1998. They referred to Marquez as a "young up and coming fighter". Dont tell me Naz ducked someone who was a baby in the game... renember 1998 is the second half of Naseem Hamed's career. He finished in 2001 basically.

Marquez was not a baby, finally getting a name yes (hbo, showtime, he already had a name in the West Coast), but he was ready. Marquez probably started around the time Barrera started or i think he came a little bit after Barrera. But he was very well respected for his boxing and fighting skills.

Marquez was Hamed's mandatory, and somthing happened and Hamed never fought him. I remember later on they offered Marquez low money and little time to prepare to fight, so Marquez didn't accept the fight. As when they offered the fight to Barrera and Morales they had just come off their 1st war and nobody gave them any lip, cause it was a grueling war that they needed time out, but Hamed was trying to get them quick without a rest.

Hamed has gotten dropped by other fighters, by a few fighters before he came to the states, before he fought on hbo. And his figh with McCullough is no glory fight for Hamed. Nor, is his fight with Cesar Soto, both McCullough and Soto walked through all of Hameds punchs.

Hamed was a good fighter, i don't doubt that but he was not unbeatable. He's been dropped by lesser fighters. Hamed got Tom Johnson towards the end of his career, Medina was a bit long in the tooth too but still became Champion after loseing Hamed so Hamed deserves prop. In other words he deserves props for those win, but only get him so far because they were on their end, well maybe not Medina.

I've see a few of Hameds fight, when he was with Showtime before he went to Hbo. I thought he was good, but a lot of stuff i wondered if he could do that against the elite fighers, the best he did was ko Kelly. Bungo was a good win, but he lost to Romero imo, and i don't think he came to win but i may be wrong. Augie Sanchez gave him a good scare, but i give him credit for that win Sanchez was a good fighter just didn't have a good chin.

In fact to be honest when Barrera signed to fight Hamed, i honestly thought Hamed would possable ko Barrera. After all Barrera was never the same aggressive style after his Jones lose. But i was a bit surprised how Barrera beat Hamed. And in the Barrera fight Hamed didn't flip over the ropes as he usally did in every fight before Barrera so that was a tell sign that Barrera had Hamed a bit spooked.

Could Hamed have beaten Morales or Barrera I don't think so, would he given a better effort back in the mid 90's im not sure, Hamed got droped when he fought Kelly, imo Barrera and Morales have better chins then Kelly. And they hit as hard, if not harder then Kelly, i think Morales may hit harder then Kelly.

Actully the more i think about it the more i favor Morales and Barrera over Hamed. And lets be honest, Hamed fought Barrera at a time when we all thought Barrera was a done fighter.

Again, i think Hamed was a good fighter, but at the same time he was a bit boring when fighter could take his shot. And i don't think he ever would of beaten Morales or Barrera.

You mention that his fight with McCullough was still his prime as you'd call it? Is that the Hamed that you think would have beaten Morales or Barrera? Cause I dont think he ever would have. And Hameds lucky he didn't get disqualifed in the Soto fight. But i understand your point of view of an early Hamed, you seen him since the begining, and i didn't, but i just don't see when he could have beaten either.

I'd give Hamed more of a shot against Pacquiao then i would against Barrera or Morales. Reason i say this is because pacquiao comes forward and is easy to hit. He'll trade shot with you. Hamed power is at best when a fighter swings at him with little defence, thats pacquiao. Just my opinion, no need for pacquiao fans to get upset.

[The Noose]

I remember watching so many of his fights through the years and he was so off balance that he would fall down all the time when he missed or was moving out of the way of a punch or he spun and always ended up with his back turned and so on. Basically he was off balance regardless of his tree trunk legs and just pointing this out for ****s and giggles....When was the last time you saw a featherweight really out of stamina or a Featherweight that couldnt throw 50 plus punches a round? I cant remember any unless they were 40 years old and even they throw atleast 50 punches a round, thats why featherweights are exciting like that.

I think his balance was great. It had to be for him to move the way he did.
Of course sometimes he looked messy or was off balance. But his style meant he had to be.
He never just fell over.

[The Noose]

Kevin Kelley... the man with a reputable jab, got outjabbed by Naseem Hamed... Ron Borges said that if Naseem leaps he sleeps... Kevin had a height and reach advantage along with an excellent snappy jab. It really didnt matter.

Barrera just done the best thing possible. Step off the aggression. Only commit yourself when Naseem is open. It was the only way to beat him, and this is in 2001 when he is way past his prime. In 95 I truly believe he would have beaten anyone in the world no matter who. He was on top of the world for a brief spell of about a year... unbeatable. Take it or leave it.

Im sure Kelly's jab worked better. I believe it was his jab that showed Barrera wat to do. He snapped Naz's head back a few times in the 2nd or 3rd round.

As far as Naz being way past his best, i still am not sure. But u know him better than me.
With Tyson, his head movement, and combos and jab were forgotten. With Naz...i dont know.

[The Noose]

Hamed has gotten dropped by other fighters, by a few fighters before he came to the states, before he fought on hbo. And his figh with McCullough is no glory fight for Hamed. Nor, is his fight with Cesar Soto, both McCullough and Soto walked through all of Hameds punchs.


I'd give Hamed more of a shot against Pacquiao then i would against Barrera or Morales. Reason i say this is because pacquiao comes forward and is easy to hit. He'll trade shot with you. Hamed power is at best when a fighter swings at him with little defence, thats pacquiao. Just my opinion, no need for pacquiao fans to get upset.

He was only dropped once by Alicea before the Kelly fight.
And although he couldnt hurt McCullough and Soto, but outpointed them easily.

I dont know Morales that well. But i would say Hamed could beat Morales the same way he could beat Pac.
Neither of them could beat Hamed at range.

[Bonafide]

Well people misunderstood me about what I said about Naz. I never meant for people to get the impression that Naz was the best featherweight ever to fight. Dont get me wrong, the man is an idol of mine, but I would never put him at #1, and you know why? Because I know he didnt achieve well enough to think about it. Its the whole skill vs achievements debate. Im just complimenting his skill. Dont get it twisted im not saying he blasted out the best, because he didnt beat Barrera... its plain to see.

Bonafide he was more than just a flashy boxer with an arrogant persona. The man was special, just trust me. Really, if I could id upload all his fights onto youtube and show you Naseem Hamed at his prime. I have seen every single one of his fights, and have every single one of his fights... he was prime in 95. Take it from me. Not 2001.

Bozo, I would tend to agree with you. However if you look at the past record, EVERY SINGLE opponent of Naz's had reach advantages on him. No joke, from like 96 onwards they all had reach advantages. Do remember he is like 5'3. So he was stocky. Look at his calves they were ****ing enormous. He fought boxers, all day long and just killed them. You mentioned about Morales' 1-2 combination... ill quote George Foreman. "He has had a career of beating basic boxers, why change and make him a basic boxer too". This comment is so true. The basic boxing style would lose to Naz. It was so hard to pressure the man, because as soon as you did he just counters you with everything, factor in his power and thats how he was so succesful. Billy Hardy - "he was the best counterpuncher I have ever seen/fought against".

Ferocity, Marquez and Barrera. You are saying its wrong to suggest that they ducked Hamed. Ill quote Larry Merchant on the Wayne McCullough fight. "Nothings for certain, but a stable mate of Barrera's named Marquez, a young up and coming fighter, is a mandatory for the prince. However he will be fighting Barrera next". This was in 1998. They referred to Marquez as a "young up and coming fighter". Dont tell me Naz ducked someone who was a baby in the game... renember 1998 is the second half of Naseem Hamed's career. He finished in 2001 basically.

As for the power argument... take a look at Augie Sanchez. That man put him down legitimately in my opinion. The ref didnt count it but it was legit. Now that man had power... he was known for it. But Naz got up at the count of about 3 and composed himself and took him out the next round. Same applies with Kelley... he got knocked down. Kept a clear head, got up and finished the job, with much more convincing KD's. Honestly Naseem Hamed's chin is better than you guys think. He was never knocked out (Barrera beat him by 3 rounds), and was never on the floor dazed... he had superhuman stamina.

Well I hope I have convinced some of you guys. If not then you are really missing out on a 1st class boxer, who some of you guys never got to see until he blew up in America.

With all that said, im gonna upload the Robinson fight at the first opportunity. Then you guys will see what I mean.

Marshymallow,
I agree with you the man was special. The guy had incredible boxing skill and crushing power in either hand. I've seen some of his PRE KEVIN KELLEY fights in England and he was Knocking guys out routinely. The only thing I question is when you say he was in his prime in 95. I know Naz is still somewhat young at only 32 years of age. In 95 he would have been 21 years old. In 2001 he would have been 27 which was the year he lost to Barerra. Most fighters IMO reach there prime at 27 - 30 years of age. At 21 , he would have been just a raw talent just learning to perfect his craft in the PRO GAME. I think he started his career in 92 which would have made him 18 when he turned PRO. Maybe your right I dont know? but IMO Prime age for a fighter is usally in the late twenties. When he lost to Barerra I admit I was shocked. No shame in losing to Barerra who clearly executed the perfect game plan in beating Hamed. What dissapointed me was the fact that he just dissapeared from boxing after that. He should have rebounded from the loss, he was still young at 27.

[Phantasm]

Jose Badillo is the guy i meant.

True, u couldnt ask for more with Naz really.
Yet i still say Barrera's game exposed Hamed. A good fast jab, timed well, would upset Naz.

Funny you mention Badillo; I just saw him fight on the undercard of Maussa's fight and imo he got robbed. Anyway, I didnt realize it till fight night that is was the same man who fought Naz. Really doesnt add to this topic, other than I started the topic, so I'm entitled to a post that has nothing to do with it .

[HendrixLove]

Is this Rky_Marshymllow guy ever gonna take Hamed's **** out his ass? This guy's love over the biggest overated fighter of the 90's is ****en funny, he's making excuses then trying to cover them up by saying "Well they can't be real excuses because this is a pro sport"....It's like your saying,"If he was more professional he would have beat Barrera"..... If Hamed was as good as he claimed he was, he would have found a way to beat Barrera regardless of the way Barrera fought him, and wasn't Barrera a big underdog coming into this fight....????????? Hamed got pretty far with his one-dimensional style but once he stepped up he got shutout.