If Naz had retired earlier

Following on from another thread.

If Naz had retired before Barrera on the basis that he had cleaned our the division and had nothing left to prove would he have gone done as one of the best ever?

He would have retired unbeaten at 27 years old with a record of 35 wins with 31 KO's.

There wouldn't have been any questions about who he had ducked as he had beaten everyone.

On paper he would have been challenging Jimmy Wilde as the best of British and possibly up there as a top 20-30 ATG.

What are your thoughts on this?

One of the best ever in history or one of the best ever in Britain?

The opposition on is record isnt strong enough to claim one of the best of all time by a fair amount I would say but hes obviously a British great with or without the loss to Barrera.

I still think it would have been seen as a massive waste of potential had he retired. There were always going to be good fighters comng up or he could have stepped up a weight to challenge.

Its rare that a fighter has nothing left to prove as one of the best of all time by the age of 26/27.

I think if had retired though he would be rated as higher overall as I think not many would have suspected him of losing to Barrera which kind of burst his bubble in a big way.

On paper he would have been challenging Jimmy Wilde as the best of British and possibly up there as a top 20-30 ATG.

Desperately trying to bite my tongue, but Wilde is by far and an absolute mile the best fighter to ever come from these shores.

If you compare Naz's record to Wilde's, even with his "0" intact you'd be laughed off most boxing forums to be honest.

Fact is Naz cleared out a division of some good but most certainly not great fighters - that doesn't qualify someone for greatness. He's missing names on his resume, if he'd gone through MAB & Morales with his "0" intact you could probably have him in the top 5 British fighters. His record prior to MAB isn't worthy of a top 10 place IMO (only just though), thus removing him far from being anywhere near the great Jimmy Wilde.

coxy0001 wrote:

On paper he would have been challenging Jimmy Wilde as the best of British and possibly up there as a top 20-30 ATG.

Desperately trying to bite my tongue, but Wilde is by far and an absolute mile the best fighter to ever come from these shores.

If you compare Naz's record to Wilde's, even with his "0" intact you'd be laughed off most boxing forums to be honest.

What are Wilde's best wins?

Not sure I'd agree. I can't think of a single fighter who retired in their mid to late twenties without featuring in a worldwide 'mega fight' - regardless of the reason - who threatens anyone's top twenty or thirty bracket of all time. At a stretch, perhaps Salvador Sanchez, but that would be pushing it.

The likes of Canzoneri and Tunney were more or less out of the game by the time they turned thirty, however the difference is that, by then, they'd either a) found their limit having tested themselves as far as they possibly could, whichever way you look at it, or b) had nowhere else to go. Neither of these applied to Hamed around 2000 / 2001, and so had he decided to get out of the game before facing Barrera we'd still be left with a lot of questions, particularly since Barrera, Morales and Marquez - who naturally would / should have been amongst Hamed's opponents had he continued - have all done great things since.

I don't think the Barrera loss hurts Hamed's legacy all that drastically. Had he retired before it, people may have been a little more generous in bumping him up another couple of places in a British all-time list, but I don't think it would have compelled anyone to place him along with the Jimmy Wilde figures of this world.

coxy0001 wrote:

On paper he would have been challenging Jimmy Wilde as the best of British and possibly up there as a top 20-30 ATG.

Desperately trying to bite my tongue, but Wilde is by far and an absolute mile the best fighter to ever come from these shores.

If you compare Naz's record to Wilde's, even with his "0" intact you'd be laughed off most boxing forums to be honest.

Fact is Naz cleared out a division of some good but most certainly not great fighters - that doesn't qualify someone for greatness. He's missing names on his resume, if he'd gone through MAB & Morales with his "0" intact you could probably have him in the top 5 British fighters. His record prior to MAB isn't worthy of a top 10 place IMO (only just though), thus removing him far from being anywhere near the great Jimmy Wilde.

Indeed he is and I'm a big fan.

However with an unbeaten record and such a high KO rate I feel Naz would have been seen as invincible and legend would have probably made him so over time.

Think the thing that would be a problem for Naz is although he was small framed even for a featherweight his power, which was freaky would have always had people expecting him to move up and challenge himself at higher weights. Whilst I have long argued the featherweight division he cleared out was far from the graveyard some would have you believe would be naughty to suggest it was a golden age and like others have said am not sure clearing out a decent division is enough for immortality, no matter how good you look doing it.

manos de piedra wrote:One of the best ever in history or one of the best ever in Britain?

The opposition on is record isnt strong enough to claim one of the best of all time by a fair amount I would say but hes obviously a British great with or without the loss to Barrera.

I still think it would have been seen as a massive waste of potential had he retired. There were always going to be good fighters comng up or he could have stepped up a weight to challenge.

Its rare that a fighter has nothing left to prove as one of the best of all time by the age of 26/27.

I think if had retired though he would be rated as higher overall as I think not many would have suspected him of losing to Barrera which kind of burst his bubble in a big way.

Well, if he were rated anywhere near Wilde then he would have to be considered one of the best worldwide on the basis Wilde is usually top 30.

Scottrf wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

On paper he would have been challenging Jimmy Wilde as the best of British and possibly up there as a top 20-30 ATG.

Desperately trying to bite my tongue, but Wilde is by far and an absolute mile the best fighter to ever come from these shores.

If you compare Naz's record to Wilde's, even with his "0" intact you'd be laughed off most boxing forums to be honest.

What are Wilde's best wins?

Pete Harman
Young Zulu Kid
Joe Symonds

And lets not forget Joe Lynch

Oh and he went something silly like 130+ win and only 2 losses in a 150 odd fight career.

Herman. Pal Moore too.

Much stronger than Naz's wins in reality? Numbers are numbers, and it's a different era.

Wilde was kayoed by Herman.

Huw you're really on form today. Naz challenging Wilde's place at the top of the British all time list and of course fighting pitbulls and human boxers are on a level playing field. We should send you to the middle east. Such debating and reasoning skills would be so valuable out there.

Scottrf wrote:Herman, and Pal Moore.

Much stronger than Naz's wins in reality? Numbers are numbers.

Neglected to say he was giving up almost a stone against Herman before eventually going down. That'll teach me for typing names whilst rushing to get downstairs for a fag.

And in reality yes, because that's why he makes most peoples top 20/30 ATG lists and near enough most peoples #1 in the British ATG list. Naz, even with his "0" intact prior to MAB wouldn't make a top 75.

Could also factor in how he consistently gave away weight yet only lost and handful of fights going in against a level of opposition that was on occasions (you don't fight 150 times against world class level fighters - that is obvious enough) the cream of the crop.

Fighters who have fought an amount of fights rivalling his tally show that you can be exceptionally good and still lose what seems like alot of fights on paper.

Records aren't comparable.

Now stop trying to bait me.

The fact that people completely overlook Wilde's weight and height disadvantages makes it silly. He knocked out Joe Conn who was a Featherweight while Wilde weighed in at 108 while fully clothes, he beat Symonds who was a Bantam, Trancy Lee, Sid Smith, Joe Lynch And Pal Moore, who were all considerably bigger than him. These are a who's who of the era's best Bantamweights, and Wilde, a natural Strawweight, beat them all! Can you serious imagine Joyi or Calderon, not only beating, but knocking out the likes of Mares, Agbeko, Vic Darch etc?

Put simply, Boxing historians and Boxing journalists alike, all rate Jimmy Wilde as a top 3 Flyweight of all time (many, including myself, have him at number 1). Why? Because he was THAT good.

HumanWindmill wrote:Wilde was kayoed by Herman.

I know, i was rushing and forgot to make the point he supposedly gave away almost a stone in weight to a guy who's one of the top 10 bantamweights of all time and probably top 5.

I thought it sensible to type names and forget that, rushing. I'm just a man!

Haye was giving well over a stone to Klitchsko and didn't get knocked out. Don't see him getting much credit for his losing effort.

It's not baiting, I think the questions should be asked.

Super D Boon wrote:Huw you're really on form today. Naz challenging Wilde's place at the top of the British all time list and of course fighting pitbulls and human boxers are on a level playing field. We should send you to the middle east. Such debating and reasoning skills would be so valuable out there.

Nice to see some debate.

With Naz however if he hadn't lost I feel he would have had Tyson like worship with a lot of people claiming he was the best ever.

Just wanted to see peoples opinions on this, I'm not saying I would ever rate him as higher - Naz would have had to be Welsh to have been better

huw wrote: Naz would have had to be Welsh to have been better

Gavin Ress > Prince Naseem

I understand Jimmy Wilde was some sort of legend, but given that his last fight was nearly 90 YES NINETY years ago, how can anyone genuinely claim to know just how good he was.

It is like me saying Joe Luis was teh best heavyweight ever (so my uncle tells me) but I am not old enough to have seen him fight, so how can I back it up?

coxy0001 wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Wilde was kayoed by Herman.

I know, i was rushing and forgot to make the point he supposedly gave away almost a stone in weight to a guy who's one of the top 10 bantamweights of all time and probably top 5.

I thought it sensible to type names and forget that, rushing. I'm just a man!

For the record, coxy, I reckon Wilde to be Britain's best, also, with Ted Kid Lewis breathing right down his neck in second.

HumanWindmill wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Wilde was kayoed by Herman.

I know, i was rushing and forgot to make the point he supposedly gave away almost a stone in weight to a guy who's one of the top 10 bantamweights of all time and probably top 5.

I thought it sensible to type names and forget that, rushing. I'm just a man!

For the record, coxy, I reckon Wilde to be Britain's best, also, with Ted Kid Lewis breathing right down his neck in second.

Pah got the top three as Naseem, Clinton Woods and Bruce Woodcock personally (am feeling jingoistic today, note the appropriate use of the word kids)

It's always hard to judge pre WW2 fighters as well (even harder with ones who fought pre WW1 like Wilde) as due to boxing records being incorrect and people being called up for military service as well. Widle fought far many times than records show and a lot of his opponents were far better than their records show due to lack of information. He was the epitome of the saying 'Pound For Pound'.

rowley wrote:

huw wrote: Naz would have had to be Welsh to have been better

Gavin Ress > Prince Naseem

It's close on the basis Naz lost to Barrera.

Scottrf wrote:Haye was giving well over a stone to Klitchsko and didn't get knocked out. Don't see him getting much credit for his losing effort.

It's not baiting, I think the questions should be asked.

Ok

1) Is either Klitschko going to be remembered as a nailed on top 10 ATG heavyweight? Or arguably top 5 like Herman could be debated to be?

2) Did Haye put up much of a fight?

3) Did Haye cause him serious problems?

4) Was the Haye fight contentious like the Herman fight was? That Haye was having large chunks of the fight his own way like Wilde was against the great bantamweight?

Many thanks

1) Probably not, which is the more highly thought of division? Which has more people competing in it?
2) Yeah, not too wide on the cards.
3) Subjective, certainly didn't get hit often.
4) That's not contentious.

Many thanks

5) Did Haye get knocked out?

We aren't debating Haye vs Wilde anyway, just the attitude towards the fights with regard to weight.

Gavin Rees could of gone a lot further if he had sorted out his conditioning earlier. Evertime I watch him fight he blows the oppostion away for the first 6-7 rounds then starts gassing. Shame really. On saying that him and Naz both only have the one defeat on their record so the argument is there lol.

What losing 'effort' I didnt really see any effort at all?

Scottrf wrote:1) Probably not, which is the more highly thought of division? Which has more people competing in it?
2) Yeah, not too wide on the cards.
3) Subjective, certainly didn't get hit often.
4) That's not contentious.

Many thanks

I'm not going to bother replying to you on the subject. Stop saying black to my white. Just on a WUM and to be honest i'm a bit tired of it.

coxy0001 wrote:I'm not going to bother replying to you on the subject. Stop saying black to my white. Just on a WUM and to be honest i'm a bit tired of it.

If I was on a WUM I'd hope for you to be able to answer my questions more effectively. But feel free to not even question him being #1 and quoting the experts.

rowley wrote:

huw wrote: Naz would have had to be Welsh to have been better

Gavin Ress > Prince Naseem

FACT.

Super D Boon wrote:

rowley wrote:

huw wrote: Naz would have had to be Welsh to have been better

Gavin Ress > Prince Naseem

FACT.

You forgot to put END OF!!!!!!!!!!! on the end of it, would have been willing to accept it but for this oversight.

Scottrf wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:I'm not going to bother replying to you on the subject. Stop saying black to my white. Just on a WUM and to be honest i'm a bit tired of it.

If I was on a WUM I'd hope for you to be able to answer my questions more effectively. But feel free to not even question him being #1 and quoting the experts.

Questions that are a joke? Ok then. Here's my answers to your WUM questions

1) Probably not, which is the more highly thought of division? Which has more people competing in it?

Ignoranant statement. There's many, many quality fighters who feature in many peoples top 30 ATG lists from flyweight/bantamweight. And what relevance does it have to the arguement? Actually don't bother replying.

2) Yeah, not too wide on the cards.

Joke statement. Was never in the fight.

3) Subjective, certainly didn't get hit often.

Another joke question. He never came to fight. Wilde outboxed and outsmarted Herman for long periods of their fight before walking onto a shot. The stoppage was contentious to boot as well.

4) That's not contentious.

What's not contentious? Actually, again don't bother replying.

Many thanks

5) Did Haye get knocked out?

Was Haye giving his opponent hell? One that's rated top 10 for his division of all time who was and still is considered one of the greatest to have fought in his respective division?

Seriously, you're just making yourself look an idiot. Honetly - don't bother replying as i can't be bothered to waste my time with some pathetic wum.

Thought you weren't going to reply?

Super D Boon wrote:

rowley wrote:

huw wrote: Naz would have had to be Welsh to have been better

Gavin Ress > Prince Naseem

FACT.

I too have him higher.

Perhaps a more interesting question is where Hamed would be placed if he'd come back from his defeat to Barrera to duke out and perhaps edge a series of fights involving MAB, Morales, JMM and Manny?

superflyweight wrote:Perhaps a more interesting question is where Hamed would be placed if he'd come back from his defeat to Barrera to duke out and perhaps edge a series of fights involving MAB, Morales, JMM and Manny?

Well, I reckon there'd have been very few plaudits too high for him if he'd have done all that, Superfly! Would certainly have been enough to make him Britain's greatest in my eyes (and by a fair old distance, too) given what that quartet have collectively done since 2001. No doubt he'd have commanded many top thirty spots in a pound for pound sense, too.

The amazing thing is, I'd have fancied Hamed to absolutely steamroll the 2001 / 2002 version of Pacquiao.

If Naz had retired before fighting Barrera he would have denied me what is possibly the most satisfying nights boxing I have ever had the pleasure to watch.

The only thing that would come close would be Vitali beating Haye so bad the Queen would feel obliged to give Big K an honorary knighthood for services to the Crown.

You don't have a dislike for Haye, do you, Strongy? You've never really mentioned it before.

superflyweight wrote:You don't have a dislike for Haye, do you, Strongy? You've never really mentioned it before.

Trust me his views on Naz make him look like chairman of the Haye fan club.

What is one of the best ever, out of curiosity? Top 10? 20? 30? I cant see Hamed breaking this if he retired. For example I would say Joe Calzaghe probably rates above Hamed, he retired unbeaten after a long career and (eventually) cleared out his division and even managed to step up and nick a win at light heavy over an all time great. Is he top 30 worthy? I would very much doubt it.

On the subject of Wilde, I think it is incredibly difficult to measure. Trying to draw a direct comparison to Hamed would be immensely difficult as so much has changed. I do think many of the "givens" in boxing and its history should be questioned though. Times change and opinions with it. You only have to go back to various eras and to see how perceptions changed with the passing of time. And new history is constantly being added. I would say very little should be viewed as being set in stone. Robinson as the clear and unparalleled best ever fighter for instance shold not be taken as a given and exploring it further is interesting if nothing else. Wilde might have been a given as one of the best of all time when he was around but there has been almost 100 years of boxing since then so its not unreasonable to revisit and see if his claim holds up after all those years.

I think the problem with Naz is he retired too early, definitely lost for me against Barrera ,but hadn't taken a 12 round beating,big fights where out there for him Marquez,Morales rematch with MAB, I wonder if Naz has regrets quitting so early I think he will. Naz's favourite statement was alway's I'm going to be a legend, his power could certainly have troubled anyone.
Jimmy Wilde what a record this man had,obviously never seen him but my grandad and dad would alway's say The ghost with the hammer in his hand was the best British fighter ever.

I don't think he would have Mate.....Is Kelley, Johnson and a few other half decent fighters really enough to be one of the greatest??

However a la Sanchez he might well have been knocking on the door as he was never found out...

Unlike Sanchez though he tasted canvas on quite a few occasions and his performance against Kelley was awful..

He was never truly shaken up though, Truss, and possessed a solid chin.

Most of the knockdowns he suffered were purely due to his unorthodox style leaving him off balance.

Exciting fight against Kelley though, wasn't it? The whole occasion too, the cocky Brit going over to the USA to take on their man and the pair of them provided us with a real tear-up. Plenty of bad blood in that one. I watched it just the other night, vintage Hamed in terms of the whole show, at least.

Went down a bit easy though was it three times....It was a poor performance...

Look I liked him.....he did everything wrong...balance, punching from the wrong foot, chin high etc... but for a little guy he had pizzazz, pinnache in the ring, power and ring presence....

Think his confidence was shaken though and I think he was a.........confidence fighter!!

Absolutely, confidence was a huge part of his whole aura.

Such an exciting fighter to watch, though, and I for one wish we had a Naz around now.

If he had retired prior to MAB I would have seen him as a hard punching unorthodox fighter with a suspect defence and chin
Post MAB... A hard punching unorthodox fighter that simply wasnt good enough against truly world class and who couldn't take defeat and believed his own ridiculous hype
I didn't like him
Absolutely no comparison with Sanchez

Does no one believe Naz might have had a bad night against Marco????

Think he basically underestimated him.....

Sometimes on here people can be damning to some fighters....

Wouldn't say Hamed losing to Barrera in a return is a given...

Naz would have beaten Barrera in a rematch imo but we have to be fair and say it didnt happen so how can we know for sure? Would Naz have been one of the greatest if he retired before Barrera? Its hard to know he was absolute quality as we all know but imo he retired too young look at the fights we missed that could have happened like against Morales or Pacquiao it was a big disappointment he retired.

I'd have favored Barrera but the fact of the matter is...116-112 isn't a shutout!!!

However his heart didn't seem to be in it and like Curry he was gunshy when he came back..

Had Naz fought Barrera in a rematch we'll obviously never know who wins,but a lot of Naz fans assume Barrera employs the same tactics,I'm sure a 3 weight world champion is more than capable of changing tactics before or during the fight.Barrera may have seen weaknesses in Naz he feels he could exploit in a rematch.