Worst British Boxer of all time.

[Franko]

[B]

*yawn* again you're comments are senting me to sleep! Didn't Barrera step up from bantamweight to fight Hamed? There's Hameds angle, he believed because he could destroy featherweights he would easliy destroy a bantamweight, erm not true, he was given a boxing lesson which ultimately retired him - think on that!?! He dodged Barrera and Morales for ages! Were you there when Barrera challenged Hamed to sign a contract about 18 - 24months before the actual fight, which I may add Hamed and Warren refused!

Why do people like yourself never accept someone else's opinion, amd simply offer personal insults *by the way keep them coming, they are the only thing not sending me to sleep*, if you disagree then offer a rationale, which you have in part, I guess!
Oh, and the words 'who do you think' can be used in any context! Same time, same bat-channel!

First of all, my rationale from the offset has been that Naseem Hamed should not be brought into any conversation regarding the worst british boxer of all time, as in my 'opinion' he clearly does not fit into the catergory and you used his name when you posted a list on the subject. This is my opinion, regardless of the words 'who do you think?' being used in any context, why do you not accept that?
Also, before you question why i've resorted to insults i suggest you take another look through your posts on this thread! Is it not insulting to ridicule the education of someone who was only giving their opinion? Try to disguise that if you will but it is still insulting.

I'm not sure that it's a fact that Hamed only chose to fight Barrera after he had been defeated! Had this been the case then why didn't he fight him back in 1996, or 1997 when he was defeated not once, but twice by Junior Jones? That may have been as good a time as any, no? That's my opinion.

[Flagellum Dei]

[B]




First of all, my rationale from the offset has been that Naseem Hamed should not be brought into any conversation regarding the worst british boxer of all time, as in my 'opinion' he clearly does not fit into the catergory and you used his name when you posted a list on the subject. This is my opinion, regardless of the words 'who do you think?' being used in any context, why do you not accept that?
Also, before you question why i've resorted to insults i suggest you take another look through your posts on this thread! Is it not insulting to ridicule the education of someone who was only giving their opinion? Try to disguise that if you will but it is still insulting.

I'm not sure that it's a fact that Hamed only chose to fight Barrera after he had been defeated! Had this been the case then why didn't he fight him back in 1996, or 1997 when he was defeated not once, but twice by Junior Jones? That may have been as a good a time as any, no? That's my opinion.

Right, you are using my own arguments now *yawn* I made the above arguments numerous times, is that your get out clause, as opposed to looking stupid? And I think it is you who didn't accept my opinion initially lol *critically analyse your previous comments*!

And as stated above it is FACTUAL that Hamed only chose to fight Barrera, once Barrera had been defeated - believe that or not I don't really care! There, you see I'm giving you the option to express an opinion!

LOL! I only insult those who insult me FIRST, i.e. YOU! If your reading skills were adequate then you would have observed this pattern! And as stated earlier how do you tangibly measure who actually was the worst British boxer of all time? I'll bet we have never even heard of 98% of all professional boxers over the past 30 years or so! So Is the worst boxer the person with the most defeats, erm no that wouldn't work, the least number of professional bouts, erm how so? The most wins against easy opposition erm, could be, define easy opposition though etc etc! LOL, it is subjective, if you're so intelligent then YOU devise a system as even the WBC get it wrong when they rank fighters - but not you apparently!

Yea I may be considered condescending by many, but people are all to quick to pro-offer personal insults and arguments without any cogent rationale or reason, you included!

[Franko]

Right, you are using my own arguments now *yawn* I made the above arguments numerous times, is that your get out clause, as opposed to looking stupid? And I think it is you who didn't accept my opinion initially lol *critically analyse your previous comments*!

And as stated above it is FACTUAL that Hamed only chose to fight Barrera, once Barrera had been defeated - believe that or not I don't really care! There, you see I'm giving you the option to express an opinion!

LOL! I only insult those who insult me FIRST, i.e. YOU! If your reading skills were adequate then you would have observed this pattern! And as stated earlier how do you tangibly measure who actually was the worst Bristish boxer of all time? I'll bet we have never even heard of 98% of all professional boxers over the past 30 years or so! So Is the worst boxer the person with the most defeats, erm no that wouldn't work, the least number of professional bouts, erm how so? The most wins against easy opposition erm, could be, define easy opposition though! LOL, it is subjective, if you're so intellignet then YOU devise a system as even the WBC get it wrong when they rank fighters - but no you apparently!

Yea I may be considered condescending by many, but people are all to quick to pro-offer personal insults and arguments without any cogent rationale or reason, you included!

I'm not using your arguments at all, and my reading skills are adequate enough to know when someone posts utter b*llocks! Initially i gave my opinion! And don't feel i need to again. It was an opinion which i felt was obvious and which i feel that most would agree with, except yourself of course. It has ****all to do with devising a system to prove a point because i really cannot say for sure who i think was the worst british boxer of all time. Sure i'm man enough to admit that i can get things wrong! Who doesn't? But i don't feel i've got anything wrong on this thread.

Also, it's a fact that Hamed fought Barrera after defeat, that's obvious. But i'll express an opinion as i did regarding this on the previous post...
Had Hamed only chose to fight Barrera after he was defeated then why not choose to do so after he was defeated twice by Junior Jones in 1996 and 1997?

[Flagellum Dei]

Yeah, yeah!

[gangland_kingpi]

A thread titled 'Worst British Boxer of All Time' should not include Naseem Hamed. That is obvious to most I'm sure! It may very well be YOUR opinion that Hamed was over rated, but he certainly wasn't average, and certainly should not be mentioned when discussing 'The worst british boxer of all time! Maybe you should 'educate' yourself a little more on Hamed before posting 'opinions' about him.

You tell him Franko lad, lol well said. Naseem lacks heart not skill.

[Flagellum Dei]

You tell him Franko lad, lol well said. Naseem lacks heart not skill.

*yawn* come back when you actually know something about boxing *second yawn*

[Jazzy Paul]

Hamed was a very good fighter...to achieve what he did proves that beyond doubt.

To suggest he was merely 'average' at best, is ignorant.

[Flagellum Dei]

Hamed was a very good fighter...to achieve what he did proves that beyond doubt.

To suggest he was merely 'average' at best, is ignorant.

lol Look at his record, fighters all past their best! Well, except Barrera and at the time he was considered to be on a downward slope! Oh, and what did he achieve, remind me please.

[Jazzy Paul]

lol Look at his record, fighters all past their best! Well, except Barrera and at the time he was considered to be on a downward slope! Oh, and what did he achieve, remind me please.

Barrera obviously wasn't on the downward slope. You and me both know that.

Yes, agreed, Hamed did indeed box fighters who were past their best. No-one is disputing that. Most boxers fight fighters past their best.

I'm not claiming for a second that Hamed was something great. Absolutely not. He was severely flawed if you judge him in a text-book manner. He was so unorthadox, so unconventional...yet he still got results and his punching power can never be disputed.

I feel that he believed his own hype and lost focus long before he fought Barrera. Barrera is, without doubt, a great fighter and perhaps he would have always beaten Hamed. Hamed is NOT a great fighter and even with focus he probably never would have been.

However, I can't agree with any list that puts him in a bracket amongst the 'worst British boxers ever'. He was world class for a time...can you not agree with that?

[Franko]

lol Look at his record, fighters all past their best! Well, except Barrera and at the time he was considered to be on a downward slope! Oh, and what did he achieve, remind me please.

More than you're achieving by continuing to post replies on this thread! Maybe you're just stubborn.
As i've said before, Hamed had all the potential to become a great! He wasted it, but that certainly doesn't mean that he was a below average fighter, on the contrary he was an awesome fighter, and your arguments as to otherwise show more flaws than the flaws you claim that Hamed had!
You continually state supposed 'facts' but are no good at disguising the fact that you've made a glaring error on this thread!
Now i'm not intending to 'insult' your intelligence, but i don't see the point in accepting or respecting an opinion when i think that the opinion is clearly ridiculous! Nevertheless, take that as an insult if you want to, as you've claimed that you only insult those who insult you first which i think is a fair comment in the right circumstances. However, i'm pretty sure that Shanus posted that your opinion had been negated by posting Hamed on a 'list' of boxers in reference to the worst of all time. Now let's not get back to the 'What do you think?' debate because Hamed's name shouldn't have featured on that list, and his wasn't the only one, therefore, the post by Shanus wasn't insulting IMO, it was fact. Hamed should not be mentioned in any context if it means he is being discussed in reference to the worst british boxer of all time!!! It doesn't take the most 'educated' boxing enthusiast to know that, but maybe it does need to be printed a few times before it eventually sinks in!

If you want to be reminded of what Hamed achieved then let's have a little look at some 'facts' to put closure on the discussion...

The fighters that Hamed has beaten who are far from chumps are as follows...

Vincenzo Belcastro, for the european bantamweight title in 1994.
Belcastro was a dangerous fighter, and many thought it may have been a step too far, too soon for Hamed. He outclassed Belcastro.

Steve Robinson, for the WBO featherweight title in 1995.
Robinson was no chump, and was not past his best, in FACT, many thought he would beat Hamed, not including the people of Wales.

Manuel Medina, in a title defence in 1996.
Medina was another who was no chump and no way near past his best. Obviously he later went on to win a title, and he gave Hamed a tough fight.

Tom Johnson, for the IBF and WBO title in 1997.
Johnson IMO was never going to test Hamed, but i wouldn't label him a chump.

Of course, i have already mentioned Wilfredo Vazquez and Kevin Kelley. Again, i expected Hamed to beat these two, because you expect a good champion to do that. Yes, maybe they were past their very best but they still represented a threat to Hamed.


Wayne McCullough, in a title defence in 1998.
How you could regard McCullough as either a chump or past his best is baffling. The man was a good fighter.

Paul Ingle, in a title defence in 1999.
Ingle was another good fighter who i think Hamed underestimated. He was no chump and not past his best and he tested Hamed.
It was tragic what happened to him, and he deserves more than to be labelled a chump.

Cesar Soto, for the WBO and WBC title in 1999.
A good solid pro. Neither great nor a chump.

Augie Sanchez, in a title defence in 2000.
Dangerous fighter, who was exposed due to his recklessness. A devestating KO ended this fight.

And then there was Barrera (but i've said enough about that) and Manuel Calvo. True, Hamed laboured to victory over Calvo and we haven't seen him box since. However, Hamed was far from average. He was a very talented fighter who never realised his full potential and believed in his own hype too much. IMO he made a mistake parting company with Brendan Ingle but i suppose it happens. You would think that Emmanuel Steward would be a more than capable replacement for Ingle, but Steward played only a bit part. Oscar Saurez was said to be the 'head trainer' which may lend weight to any argument that Hamed never progressed after leaving Ingle. IMO Hamed looked a better fighter under Brendan Ingle, and as i've stated before, he seemed to be neglecting his work.
However, this still doesn't disguise the 'fact' that he was an awesome fighter, who was no way near average, and that's final.