Prince Naseem Hamed

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
54,035
Location
Manchester
What do, or did, we think of this man?

Absolute character and showman. He was also quite good. Perhaps the division he was fighting in at the time wasn't too great, granted, but his record is brilliant and he always chased the best. No fights agaisnt "paper" challengers. You couldn't ask for more from him really. Just a shame he lost his heart for the sport. Even when Barrera beat him, he was nowhere near his best. The Naseem Hamed of 97/98 would have beaten him in my opinion.


Rated at Featherweight
Height 5 ft 5 in (1.65 m)
Nationality British/Yemeni
Birth date February 12, 1974 (1974-02-12) (age 35)
Birth place Sheffield, England
Stance Southpaw

Boxing record
Total fights 37
Wins 36
Wins by KO 31
Losses 1
Draws 0
No contests 0

Entrance for his first American fight vs Kevin Kelley - Never seen anything like this before in boxing


Entrance agaisnt Wayne McCullough "Thriller" - Halloween, Cue mock graveyard, smoke, skeletons and Naseem


Highlights - Look at some of his showboating. Great skills too.
 
All mouth with nothing to back it up when it mattered.
 
Dunno, his only defeat came against a prime Barrera, and that wasn't the beating many make out it was. Naz still made Barrera work hard for the win.

At his best he was a brilliant showman (complete and utter cock as well, to be fair), had amazing reflexes, good speed, threw all sorts of weird punches from all sorts of angles and had scary power for someone his size. On top of that, he dominated his weight class for a good few years.

Love him or hate him, he was entertaining as feck.
 
TheReligion said:
What do, or did, we think of this man?

Absolute character and showman. He was also quite good. Perhaps the division he was fighting in at the time wasn't too great, granted, but his record is brilliant and he always chased the best. No fights agaisnt "paper" challengers. You couldn't ask for more from him really. Just a shame he lost his heart for the sport. Even when Barrera beat him, he was nowhere near his best. The Naseem Hamed of 97/98 would have beaten him in my opinion.
]
Click to expand...

He fought a lot of nobodies too pad out his record and make him look better then he really was.
When he came up against a real quality fighter like Barrera he was found out. He was only 27 when lost to him as well, hardly over the hill.
 
mr.suave said:
Dunno, his only defeat came against a prime Barrera, and that wasn't the beating many make out it was. Naz still made Barrera work hard for the win.

At his best he was a brilliant showman (complete and utter cock as well, to be fair), had amazing reflexes, good speed, threw all sorts of weird punches from all sorts of angles and had scary power for someone his size. On top of that, he dominated his weight class for a good few years.

Love him or hate him, he was entertaining as feck.
Click to expand...

I would agree - even Barrera's win was somewhat controversial.

I posted the question mark Drifter, as I was interested to see why you have this opinion...
 
starman said:
He fought a lot of nobodies too pad out his record and make him look better then he really was.
When he came up against a real quality fighter like Barrera he was found out. He was only 27 when lost to him as well, hardly over the hill.
Click to expand...

No one said he was over the hill, but he had fell out of love for the sport and wasn't at his best.

Alot of people dislike Hamed, and it's clear why, but you must put personal opinion aside and realise he was a class act. If he had the dedication to the sport, of say De la Hoya, he would have been a legend. No question about it, he had the goods.
 
Good fighter. Great reflexes and a fantastic chin. Shame about his defence though. Didn't look the same fighter after being floored by Kelly. . .and he looked like an amateur against Berrera. That said, he seemed slower in his last few fights, I think he would've given Berrera a much better fight a couple of years earlier. Can't deny that he was a good boxer and great to watch. But not as great as he perhaps should've been. And rather than retiring he should've called Berrera out for a rematch. True champions do just that.
 
Ha yeah, his defence was nonexistent. His reflexes stopped him getting hit most of the time, but he took too many shots against smarter opponents. He did have a solid chin, though - the only times he went down were when he was caught off-balance. Struggling to think of a time when he was badly hurt...

I do, however, think he started to lose the hunger long before the Barrera fight, and getting beaten was just the final nail in the coffin. He was fecking obsessed with remaining unbeaten as well, and when his 0 went his ego couldn't deal with it. He honestly thought he'd never be beaten with Allah on his side an' all that... unbelievably deluded guy all round, really.

Having said that, boxing needs characters like Naseem. Don't think I can think of anyone else that I both simultaneously liked and hated as much as Naz.
 
TheReligion said:
No one said he was over the hill, but he had fell out of love for the sport and wasn't at his best.

Alot of people dislike Hamed, and it's clear why, but you must put personal opinion aside and realise he was a class act. If he had the dedication to the sport, of say De la Hoya, he would have been a legend. No question about it, he had the goods.
Click to expand...


That excuse just gets get thrown out a lot, Barrera was just a better fighter, simple as, I don’t dislike Hamed, infact I quite liked him and was very entertaining, but just like Hatton was never top class.

The fact is he is more legendary for his antics then he was as a boxer, he is no way near being considered an all time great and him leaving boxing is his own character fault much like when Foreman lost to Ail, there no shame in losing, its how you come back from it that matters.
 
I was trained by his first trainer at the gym in Sheffield. Naz, like Graham before him, had a very unconventional defence style which was built on speed and reading stance and footwork. He peaked early and once he started to slow down became vulnerable. In truth he was not training properly by the end and had massive fall outs with Brendan.

As a person he was so up himself that he disappeared up his own arse and I was quite pleased to see him get stuffed in the end. My brother had the privilege of knocking him on his arse at a petrol station one time.

None of which should take away from the fact that in his early twenties no one could get in the ring and do anything with him except make themselves look foolish. He did not get the big fights until he had started to slip because none of the champions would fight him and face the humiliation. He didn't just fight he ridiculed and that is something no proud champion is going to want to have happen.
 
TheReligion said:
No one said he was over the hill, but he had fell out of love for the sport and wasn't at his best.

Alot of people dislike Hamed, and it's clear why, but you must put personal opinion aside and realise he was a class act. If he had the dedication to the sport, of say De la Hoya, he would have been a legend. No question about it, he had the goods.
Click to expand...
Terrible example
 
Great fighter. He was never in the same league as Barrera and a few other fighters in his weight division at the time, though.
 
rednev said:
Great fighter. He was never in the same league as Barrera and a few other fighters in his weight division at the time, though.
Click to expand...


They wouldn't fight him though

I think he was in their league, he faught everyone infront of him
 
TheReligion said:
Don't think it is

Why so?
Click to expand...

Because De La Hoya is not/ was not dedicated to the sport. He was more interested in the financial than the actual fighting. This is a quote from Bob Arum:
What Might Have Been

De La Hoya did fight most, if not all, of the big names during his career. But he lost more big fights than he won. Arum suggested that was De La Hoya's fault.

"Oscar was a great attraction, the biggest attraction of his time and he was a very good fighter that fought all the competition that was around at the time," Arum said. "But he was never a great fighter. Later on in his career, when he wouldn't or couldn't push himself like a Manny Pacquiao does in training, he ended up losing fights that he should have won.

"I thought he won the (Felix) Trinidad fight, but it never should have been that close. Same thing with the second ("Sugar" Shane) Mosley fight. Should not have been that close. Once he established himself and once he was a big box-office draw, he was unable or unwilling to push himself to the next step to achieve true greatness.

"Look at the difference in the work ethic of a Manny Pacquiao and an Oscar. There is not even a comparison."
Click to expand...
 
Thought Hamed was class, always enjoyed watching him fight
 
Naseem makes Mayweather looks like Paul Scholes in terms of cockyness. I missed the best part of his career but I have watched old fights and he was an entertainer, you gotta give him that. I enjoyed his fight with Kevin Kelly.
 
Prince Naseem was quality - he started believing his own hype and couldnt handle it mentally when someone finally beat him - a proper entertainer and a lot of wasted talent

i even have a copy of this single somewhere:nervous:
 
TheReligion said:
Nice to hear from you Roodboy

Pleasure as always
Click to expand...

Funny you started this thread as I was just talking to a mate today about how we never used to miss a fight in the glory days of Eubank, Benn and then Naseem - nowadays I cant be arsed with all the payperview bollocks!
 
TheReligion said:
I would agree - even Barrera's win was somewhat controversial.

I posted the question mark Drifter, as I was interested to see why you have this opinion...
Click to expand...

How was Barrera's win controversial? Hamed was very good, just not as good as he thought. His power was top class and he had good reflexes, but when he got to the world class level he got hit consistently and he didn't have the humility or versatility to adapt his style and work on the fundamentals. Barrera beat him, Marquez would have outboxed him even more comprehensively, and Morales would have mauled him.
 
I thought I just saw something about him and that he got in trouble with the law or something like that. Did that have any effect on his career or was he already done by then?
 
He got sent down for dangerous driving I think - he was driving well over the speed limit on the wrong side of the road and plowed into another car, injuring some bloke. He was allegedly trying to impress his rich businessman passenger. And to top it all off, he then fleed the scene!

Here's a picture of him from around the time of his trial:
news-graphics-2007-_646134a.jpg

Shocking to see how much he let himself go after he quit boxing.

Extremely talented, but what a complete scumbag of a bloke.
 
TheReligion said:
I would disagree with much of that article

Sorry
Click to expand...

whats to disagree with most of it is factual, he lost more big fights than he won
Mosley twice Hopkins Mayweather Pacquiao Trinidad

Alot of these came after he formed Golden Boy promotions ie when he became an established name

so whats to disagree with :lol:
 
CLK_FPC said:
whats to disagree with most of it is factual, he lost more big fights than he won
Mosley twice Hopkins Mayweather Pacquiao Trinidad

Alot of these came after he formed Golden Boy promotions ie when he became an established name

so whats to disagree with :lol:
Click to expand...

I'd disagree with the tone. What might have been? Please.

Oscar will always be remembered as a great. He didn't duck any fights (that I know of) and, in an era when the sport was about to experience a serious decline, Oscar always entertained and viewers knew that, which is why his name guaranteed big paydays, some of the biggest in fact. He may have focused on the money but good on him for being smart. He's now a big promoter while other former champions are fighting into their 40s to avoid bankruptcy or have simply faded away. Very few boxers have managed their careers in the sport so successfully. I'd venture to say that no-one has.
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
I'd disagree with the tone. What might have been? Please.

Oscar will always be remembered as a great. He didn't duck any fights (that I know of) and, in an era when the sport was about to experience a serious decline, Oscar always entertained and viewers knew that, which is why his name guaranteed big paydays, some of the biggest in fact. He may have focused on the money but good on him for being smart. He's now a big promoter while other former champions are fighting into their 40s to avoid bankruptcy or have simply faded away. Very few boxers have managed their careers in the sport so successfully. I'd venture to say that no-one has.
Click to expand...

Oscar is ranked nowhere near ANYBODIES top 10 or even top 20. You can be a great but there is a difference between being great and recognised as so. The Ring magazine (which he owns doesnt have him in their top 20).
When Oscar came up he was brought up in refernece to dedication to the sport rather than its fanancial side which he has mastered
 
CLK_FPC said:
Oscar is ranked nowhere near ANYBODIES top 10 or even top 20. You can be a great but there is a difference between being great and recognised as so. The Ring magazine (which he owns doesnt have him in their top 20).
When Oscar came up he was brought up in refernece to dedication to the sport rather than its fanancial side which he has mastered
Click to expand...

Lists are objective. Oscar's fights were never boring and everyone wanted to see them. There are plenty of better fighters but what is that really? That's for the gym and the die-hard fans of the sport. Oscar entertained and made people interested in boxing.

There are only a few fighters who have consistently generated that kind of interest in the last few decades. You can probably count them on one hand: Ali, Sugar Ray Leonard, Mike Tyson, Oscar de la Hoya. As much as I like Marvin Hagler, he wouldn't make such a list. George Foreman is now more famous for his low fat grilling machine than anything he ever did in the ring. Fighters who generate continued interest from the general public are more crucial to the sport than true greats, imo.

The fights that he took and the fact that he continued on after losing big fights shows a lot of dedication to the sport, just perhaps not dedication to being a champion of the sport.
 
Good Fighter. Very Fast Feet. Terrific balance. Very Entertaining. Utter Cock. Not as good as he thought. It's a sad condemnation on a persons character if when he's knocked out his own countrymen are pleased about it, which is what happened. Fun to watch at his peak though. More so than a great deal number of better boxers,
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
Lists are objective. Oscar's fights were never boring and everyone wanted to see them. There are plenty of better fighters but what is that really? That's for the gym and the die-hard fans of the sport. Oscar entertained and made people interested in boxing.

There are only a few fighters who have consistently generated that kind of interest in the last few decades. You can probably count them on one hand: Ali, Sugar Ray Leonard, Mike Tyson, Oscar de la Hoya. As much as I like Marvin Hagler, he wouldn't make such a list. George Foreman is now more famous for his low fat grilling machine than anything he ever did in the ring. Fighters who generate continued interest from the general public are more crucial to the sport than true greats, imo.

The fights that he took and the fact that he continued on after losing big fights shows a lot of dedication to the sport, just perhaps not dedication to being a champion of the sport.
Click to expand...

showed a dedication to the dollar

Lists may be objective but when the people that compile the p4p list and are known as the bible of boxing make such statements you usually take their word for it
Also bear in mind alot his popularity was not because of his boxing ability rather it was because of his marketability ie looks
 
CLK_FPC said:
showed a dedication to the dollar

Lists may be objective but when the people that compile the p4p list and are known as the bible of boxing make such statements you usually take their word for it
Also bear in mind alot his popularity was not because of his boxing ability rather it was because of his marketability ie looks
Click to expand...

What do you think about David Beckham? :angel:
 
CLK knows his onions, to be fair.

How about your top ten boxers list? Not best, but favs.
 
I will put a little info beside people who may not be known
Top 10 to me would go

1.Sugar Ray Robinson (the reason p4p was created moved up and down weight failing only to capture a light heavy title)
2.Homicice Henry Armstrong (The early Manny Pacquiao seen as the greatest Welterweight ever)
3.Ali
4.Roberto Duran
5.Harry Greb(very offensive fought light as well as heavyweights considered one of the greatest lhw despite being a natural middleweight)
6.Sugar Ray Leonard
7.Joe Louis
8. Willie Pep (defensive genius once won a round without throwing a punch (or so they say lol) had a great comeback after being severly injured in a plane crash)
9.Hopkins (Goes in due to his exploits at Middleweight then moving up to fight at 175 winning the lineal title there, where as Hagler stayed at 160 and Monzon the same)


This was bloody hard and some places might be swapped but I dont want to throw in fighters that I havent seen thus I would be going off other people's lists so for that reason I have no number 10

Edit: Ah crap I thought you said best not favourites.
 
My favourites is a lot easier

1. Hagler
2. Hopkins
3. Ali
4. Duran
5. Cotto
6. Gerald McClellan
7. Juan Manuel Marquez
8. Chris Eubank
9. Tommy Hearns
10. Sonny Liston/ Kelly Pavlik
 
You must log in or register to reply here.