Fighters who threw out all the tools to just leave the Hammer!!

Some fighter are lucky enough to be born with a lot of physical/mental attributes to go far in this business but as fame/fortune kicks in it ends up reduced them to nothing more than glorified KO artists. Of course some of these fighters still achieved a hell of a lot in there career, but at the same time left us all wondering how much further they could of gone if they had the requried discipline and focus to keep at the top in this sport. (ala Calzaghe/Hopkins)

Obviously Tyson springs to mind for many going from a wrecking ball who has sound boxing fundamentals to becoming nothing more than a head hunter later in his career. Again, many also say Hamed when down the same path where fame and fortune kicked in he started getting lazy in training.

So if you had given the like of Tyson/Hamed the sort of dedication found in the likes of Hopkins, could they have gone any further in the sport??

Also, can you think of any other fighters who have gone down the same path?

Max Baer would be one, in my opinion, kev.

Baer was never cut out to be a slick stylist, but his fundamentals were sound enough. He could get very sloppy, from time to time, throwing backhands and looping his punches, but he could also box in a more traditional manner. Blessed with a terrific chin and physique, hopes were so high for him when he first arrived on the scene that some hailed him as the new Dempsey.

Somewhere along the line, though, Baer began to neglect the fundamentals ( his irrepressible nature and failure to take himself seriously probably didn't help, ) and he seemed to become almost a parody of himself and more and more reliant on the right hand.

HumanWindmill wrote:Max Baer would be one, in my opinion, kev.

Baer was never cut out to be a slick stylist, but his fundamentals were sound enough. He could get very sloppy, from time to time, throwing backhands and looping his punches, but he could also box in a more traditional manner. Blessed with a terrific chin and physique, hopes were so high for him when he first arrived on the scene that some hailed him as the new Dempsey.

Somewhere along the line, though, Baer began to neglect the fundamentals ( his irrepressible nature and failure to take himself seriously probably didn't help, ) and he seemed to become almost a parody of himself and more and more reliant on the right hand.

Good call on Baer.

Interesting with Tyson/Hamed is I'm not too sure how much better they could have done. With Tyson I always thought Holy/Lewis would have beaten his best version. Equally with Hamed, could a fully motivated, focused version got the better of Barrera that night?

Hamed would have beaten Barrera for starters.

I think Hamed cleans up all of the Mexicans i.e. Barrera Morales Marquez of his time, and is a nailed on all time great. Alas, wasn't to be.

You might be able to make a case for Haye, although I think his evolution of style was down to the higher weight limit more than anything else. He did seem to progessively rely on big single shots as his career progressed though.

Bowe is maybe another. Not sure I would say he was reduced to purely a KO artist but he did seem to lose/abandon alot of his smooth boxing and his workrate also declined.

manos de piedra wrote:You might be able to make a case for Haye, although I think his evolution of style was down to the higher weight limit more than anything else. He did seem to progessively rely on big single shots as his career progressed though.

Bowe is maybe another. Not sure I would say he was reduced to purely a KO artist but he did seem to lose/abandon alot of his smooth boxing and his workrate also declined.

For me that was to do with gassing against Carl Thompson, he used to throw a fair few shots before then, but he gassed and ever since then he adopted his style in the cruisers to a more circling stalker type of fighter and grew even more so into that as he climbed the weights

Think Hamed would have beaten Morales, Barrera, Marquez and Pacquiao before bumping into and losing to Mayweather.

I'd love to have seen Pacquiao Hamed, what a barnstormer.

Think he would have caused that version of Mayweather problems, but find it hard to go against a Mayweather win.

You could argue that David Tua is another example.
While never good enough to become a dominant champion, he was surely good enough to win a world title.

He showed a great deal of promise early in his career but as time went on, his weight began to increase and he became over reliant on his left hook.

Julian Jackson. Real hard hitter and he knew it. Relied too much on his ko power and was exposed by fighters who used skill. He was in many fights where he was well behind on the scorecards and was lucky to land the bingo punch. Norris and Graham come to mind. Great ko artist tho.

Great article.

This is slightly tangential - but has anyone noticed to be an ATG - really, you have to have power.

In a list of transcendent p4p talents - Robinson, Leonard, Gans, Langford, Wilde, Duran, Fitzsimmons, RJJ, Charles, Ketchel, Moore, Greb.

There are a couple of exceptions - Willie Pep and Benny Leonard didn't have punches for the ages - but they did have blistering speed.

Good boxers who couldn't punch their way out of a wet paper bag seem to always do worse (Locche (#98 on 1 p4plist).

Perhaps, therefore - the hammer is a pre-requisite for ATG greatness. Certainly - it is the hammer that the punters want to see - and it is the absence of a hammer that probably cost Whittaker his fight against JCCjr.
--------------------
In answer to the question, Briggs and Lacy both forgot about any tools that they may have had and went searching for that 1 huge punch. Pascal didn't look as fluid a boxer against Hopkins as previously BUT that might be just because Hopkins has better footwork than all his previous opponents put together.
--------------------
And lest we forget - sometimes going in armed with just a hammer can be helpful. Think RJJ-Griffin II. Griffin couldn't get out of the way that night.
--------------------
Another internet fighter has been born - in addition to Tokyo Douglas and Toledo Dempsey and Montreal Duran - we've got Ingle Hamed.

Fists of Fury wrote:I'd love to have seen Pacquiao Hamed, what a barnstormer.

Think he would have caused that version of Mayweather problems, but find it hard to go against a Mayweather win.

Do you know what the Pac Hamed fight is very interesting to me... The styles would clash and Hameds somewhat awkwardness and incredible power might just see off Pac.

Anyone who comes forward and opens up will struggle with Pacquiao - however - Hamed's power + chin would at least make Pacquiao think.

However - its a Marquez-style counterpuncher that's needed to give Manny a beating.

I think Ingle Hamed is being given a pretty generous benefit of the doubt. To see off Pacquiao, Marquez, Barrera and Morales would essentially make him one of the greatest fighters of all time. Even if you want to ignore the loss to Barrera completely or pretend it didnt happen, Im not sure theres enough in his record to warrant such a lofty viewpoint. Those four guys are a significant step up from his own list of victims, however impresive his featherweight tenure was. To say he goes unbeaten through that group requires too big a leap of faith for me anyway. At most I would say he belongs in the mix, but nothing more than that.

I don't see, at the time when they would have fought, that Hamed would have had a problem dispatching Manny, and although he was beaten by Barrera, due to the his tactics and as the OP says, reliance on one shot, it was not a shut out as many will have you believe (8-4-0) I think, and had he applied himself correctly, he could have won!

To be honest Manos I saw enough in his defeat to Barrera to make him a heavy favourite a mere year or two before, it was a comfortable win for Barrera but Hamed applied himself reasonably well and still picked up a few rounds. Pacquiao and Marquez weren't the fighters back then that they are now, his awkward style and power would be too much for a pair of fighters who have never been the hardest to hit. Morales would be much like Barrera but his standing would be no higher than that or either Mexican is now as the wins back then wouldn't look as impressive as we think they would.

Sorry Ghosty - I'm with Manos here.

If Barrera by counter-punching and technical boxing could strafe Hamed at will - what would the Morales who beat Pacquiao do? Or the JMM who has given Manny fits 3 times?

Ingle Hamed gives too much benefit of the doubt to Hamed for me.

oxring wrote:Anyone who comes forward and opens up will struggle with Pacquiao - however - Hamed's power + chin would at least make Pacquiao think.

However - its a Marquez-style counterpuncher that's needed to give Manny a beating.

In truth it's that type of style that beats them both really, though on form I think Hamed has a tad more adaptability to do something about it, whereas with Pac he would do more on workrate, not sure.

Morales the boxer beats the best hamed by Sd/tight UD. Morales - the brawler get KTFO - and thats the Morales who would turn up to the fight simply because he can't hold his temper and very few people are as irritating as Naz. Pacmans power has increased through the extra weight behind his punches but back then he didn't hit significantly harder than any of Naz's better opponents - although his workrate is superior. Still gets decked though. Either one of those are FOTY simply for the power punches thrown.

Marquez - awkward Ud for Naz, easy to hit and not packing enough to deter Naz from coming at him.

Barrera fight - Everytime he threw combos Barrera didnt have an answer - Naz dancing and moving and throwing so much leather in bunches that Alex cancels his subscription to S&M weekly = Naz UD although its the toughest fight out of the 3.

Mayweather beats Naz in the ugliest spectacle and intriguing fight you've ever seen. Naz has a chance but he has to land enough to KO mayweather - which I just don't see happening. Plus Floyd was rather more intelligent in the ring.

Conteh, I think would be spectacular and talent wise the best but maybe lacking the opponents to get too the top - Although i'm not sure if he fits the criteria of this thread.

Interesting out of Morales, Barrera and Marquez you think Marquez may be the easiest fight, I would perhaps think the back foot boxing with countering combinations would have given him a tougher fight than Barrera personally.

Na - Barrera knew how to use that massive reach of his to stifle Hamed to avoid being hit too much - it won him the fight. Marquez leaves himself open when he responds - never pulls back fast enough - Its why Pac decked him 3 times in the first round. Against an opponent who can knock you down/out with either hand while he is off balance and only on the toes of one foot - from any angle = absolute nightmare. Barrera sticks to the fundamentals enough that after his punches have landed he either follows up or circles. To beat Barrera you need to have workrate and land your combos.

Got to agree with Manos point earlier with Hamed. The Ingle Hamed does seem to sometimes get abit overly exaggerated in regards to his ability. Now i dont think there is anybody on here who was a bigger Hamed fan than me, I was a huge fan and i was involved in numerous debates on the old 606 fighting his corner but i do like to look at things from an unbiased view point and i certainly dont think any version of Hamed cleans out Morales, Barrera, Marquez, Mayweather without picking up a defeat or two.

Hamed at his best was lightning quick, threw exceptional combinations (something he forgot all about in his last few fights), He threw punches from angles many fighters could only dream of and he had kayo power in both hands. He was always dangerous and would be a match for anybody there is no doubt about that. His problem would be, he was never the busiest of fighters he tended to fight in flurries and he would get wild and frustrated if things wernt all going his way.

I agree with Shah regarding Morales. This fight could go either way it depends on how Morales played it. I would pick Hamed though purely on the fact that Morales loved to go to war at some point in a fight and i don think anybody could stand and trade with a prime Hamed and compete with his speed and power without getting ko or stopped as he was just so powerful.

Barrera is another tough one i think he boxed the perfect fight against Hamed first time round. I think if he boxed like that against a prime Hamed although it would be closer as Hamed really wasnt at his best first time around he would still possibly nick it on work rate aslong as he stayed focused and boxed clever and didnt have a trade off with Hamed as if he did that too often it would swing the fight into Hameds hands.

I actually think Marquez beats him by decision. I think Marquez has the style to really frustrate Hamed, make him miss and pinch rounds on workrate and the accuracy of his counters. Hamed would never fight for 3 minutes a round and he would get very frustrated if things werent going all his way and he could then get abit wild and i think JMM could use that frustration to his advantage by pick pocketting Hamed to a MD.

Its just a great shame we didnt get to see Hamed in with these guys at his very best as they all would have been epic in there own right.

Hamed for me retired far to early still only a young bloke and hadn't been given any beatings. Should have brushed himself down got back in the gym and try to become the legend he alway's said he would be.

Hamed had great power no question but could be caught himself,JMM was and is alway's capable of going into the trenches and has a great chin.
Morales would need to box, suicide to stand and trade with Hamed.
Barrera I believe has the ability to outbox Hamed,Barrera well capable of changing tactics, all down to opinion.
I still believe and have said before Hamed must look back and deep down regret retiring so soon despite all his earnings.

ShahenshahG wrote:Na - Barrera knew how to use that massive reach of his to stifle Hamed to avoid being hit too much - it won him the fight. Marquez leaves himself open when he responds - never pulls back fast enough - Its why Pac decked him 3 times in the first round. Against an opponent who can knock you down/out with either hand while he is off balance and only on the toes of one foot - from any angle = absolute nightmare. Barrera sticks to the fundamentals enough that after his punches have landed he either follows up or circles. To beat Barrera you need to have workrate and land your combos.

gotta disagree shah the reason marquez was down 3 times against pac was down to starting aggressive he was on the front foot in the first round and left himself open after trying to push pac back - possibly due to trying to gain respect.

theres a chance he does this against naz and i would fear it to be goodnight ms. tallahasse however if not and he decides to box off the back foot i think he would be extremely difficult for naz but would still favour naz for the angles he throws punches.

way too any excuses made for Hameds career. the first time he came up against a truly great boxer, he coincidentally doesnt train hard enough and doesnt fight to his best capabilities...if he was so great we wouldnt be talking about ifs and maybes

like tyson he had stopped training properly in a few fights prior to this and it caught up to him.

Lance wrote:way too any excuses made for Hameds career. the first time he came up against a truly great boxer, he coincidentally doesnt train hard enough and doesnt fight to his best capabilities...if he was so great we wouldnt be talking about ifs and maybes

Watch little prince, the big fight. Its all there for those that didnt follow Hameds career. Truth betold Hameds decline had started two years earlier than the Barrera fight but the lead up to that fight shows you all you need to about Hamed's "training" methods.

Its true he only has himself to blame but its not an excuse about his lack of training its a fact.

Evenin Haito - it's been a while...

Naz's style was certainly unorthodox, but then his ability to throw shots his opponent didn't see from insane angles (they therefore could not 'brace themselves' was a huge part of his package as a fighter. He clearly had real power, but then I wonder if his penchant for launching the unseen created an illusion of KO power that was (albeit slightly) greater than the reality.

Decent fighters who didn't stand and trade (McCullough springs to mind) were able to take the shots and hear the final bell. Add real world level boxing ability and Naz has got real problems of his own.

As you say, the decline started around the time of the Kelley fight, but then the level and nature of opposition papered over the cracks in many ways. That awful fight with Calvo showed just how far he'd gone, perhaps in part due to trainers other than Ingle attempting to 'shape and mould' Hamed into something he wasn't.

From that film, it was clear that he needed Brendan's discipline as well. I dunno how well Naz could have done, but the man who anihalated Steve Robinson back in '95 had a KO victory over an ATG in there somewhere, of that I'm pretty certain.

Howdi Cast

Yeah has been awhile buddy.

Yeah agreed. I think the Kelley fight itself was a very good indicator of where Hamed was going which was worrying. Gone were those lightning combo's which used to open up his victims to that famous corkscrew uppercut or that right hook and in came standing transparent pot shots and more and more wild lunges as he seeked one punch finishes. I think the fact that the Kelley fight was so entertaining and enthralling certainly helped Hamed cover up what was a very eratic and wild performance.

Its been over 10 years now since that MAB loss and still we all talk of what might have been with Hamed despite him been a world champion at the age of 21. Just shows that like him or hate him Naz was a special talent.

Hamed was only 26-27 at the time of the MAB defeat, there was still so much i believe he could have achieved had he not let yes men and his ego completely take control of his career. His return fight against Calvo was the worst performance Hamed had put in and obviously the boos of the crowd and the panning he recieved from the pundits dented his ego even further so much so that infact he as good as retired after it.

Its just a shame he couldnt use the defeat to Marco and the Calvo reaction as a springboard to knuckledown and learn from his mistakes so he could be king again like so many other greats have done before him.

Glad to see common sense has been restored.Hamed beating all the Mexicans etc is just a step to far
His basics were poor.Dropped his hands and no plan b.
Huge ego but not the heart to come back from defeat or the brains to realise his short comings.Not a patch on those truly great Mexicans

skidd1 wrote:Glad to see common sense has been restored.Hamed beating all the Mexicans etc is just a step to far
His basics were poor.Dropped his hands and no plan b.
Huge ego but not the heart to come back from defeat or the brains to realise his short comings.Not a patch on those truly great Mexicans

Not in the league of MAB et al, but at his peak would be competitive and perhaps score an upset victory somewhere....

Haito wrote:Howdi Cast

Yeah has been awhile buddy.

Yeah agreed. I think the Kelley fight itself was a very good indicator of where Hamed was going which was worrying. Gone were those lightning combo's which used to open up his victims to that famous corkscrew uppercut or that right hook and in came standing transparent pot shots and more and more wild lunges as he seeked one punch finishes. I think the fact that the Kelley fight was so entertaining and enthralling certainly helped Hamed cover up what was a very eratic and wild performance.

Its been over 10 years now since that MAB loss and still we all talk of what might have been with Hamed despite him been a world champion at the age of 21. Just shows that like him or hate him Naz was a special talent.

Hamed was only 26-27 at the time of the MAB defeat, there was still so much i believe he could have achieved had he not let yes men and his ego completely take control of his career. His return fight against Calvo was the worst performance Hamed had put in and obviously the boos of the crowd and the panning he recieved from the pundits dented his ego even further so much so that infact he as good as retired after it.

Its just a shame he couldnt use the defeat to Marco and the Calvo reaction as a springboard to knuckledown and learn from his mistakes so he could be king again like so many other greats have done before him.

Problem is Naz was what he was and it appears only Ingle understood this - you take away his tendency to discard the textbook and you lose far more in surprise factor than you'd ever gain in boxing fundamentals.

Without the man who 'got' him, Naz was never the same...

Cast a Shadow wrote:Evenin Haito - it's been a while...

Naz's style was certainly unorthodox, but then his ability to throw shots his opponent didn't see from insane angles (they therefore could not 'brace themselves' was a huge part of his package as a fighter. He clearly had real power, but then I wonder if his penchant for launching the unseen created an illusion of KO power that was (albeit slightly) greater than the reality.

Decent fighters who didn't stand and trade (McCullough springs to mind) were able to take the shots and hear the final bell. Add real world level boxing ability and Naz has got real problems of his own.

As you say, the decline started around the time of the Kelley fight, but then the level and nature of opposition papered over the cracks in many ways. That awful fight with Calvo showed just how far he'd gone, perhaps in part due to trainers other than Ingle attempting to 'shape and mould' Hamed into something he wasn't.

From that film, it was clear that he needed Brendan's discipline as well. I dunno how well Naz could have done, but the man who anihalated Steve Robinson back in '95 had a KO victory over an ATG in there somewhere, of that I'm pretty certain.

Hi cast, good to see you about, mate.

I've highlighted your last sentence here, as I really believe that, too. That Naz was a truly remarkable fighter, and that is the version I think could have taken out all of the top Mexicans mentioned. Bold statement for sure, but I really believe that.

Hey Fists - good to be back and nice to see so many of the old crew here

I'm not sure about Naz 'cleaning up' on the likes of MAB, Marquez etc...but with his ability to launch devastating punches from unseen angles he would have sparked one of them - and have earned the right to be mentioned in the same company as a result...

Barrera beat him pretty easily....then he didn't face anyone..his choice .
Rest is What if's.. Morales Marquez well dream on .Hamed was already retired.His choice

think decisively is a better word to use than easily - when naz got the combos going barrera was utterly befuddled.

Lennox Lewis became very complacent in the build up to Hasim Rahman. Didn't he skip training to visit premiers of Oceans 11 and turn up in South Africa too late to climatise to the altitude and heat?

Also there were reports he was finding it difficult to train before the Klitscho fight or something?

I know they were one off's for Lennox, but given his status it shouldn't have happened.

Think people are basing a fight with Marquez on the fighter he became rather than the fighter he was around 2001/2002, not long off a defeat to Norwood and started to regroup with some wins over a bunch of relative no hopers, we're not talking about the fighter who would later give Pacquiao all the trouble he could handle.

Stand by my statement that Hamed should have been beating Marquez, Pacquiao, Barrera and Morales but alas it wasn't to be.

Pacquiao, Morales and Marquez were all far too eager to engage in a tear up and the Hamed we all fondly remember would excel in these conditions, a superb chin combined with startling power makes him a favourite against any featherweight except Saddler and Sanchez who could dish it out just as well as him.

When the hypothetical fights between Hamed and the others take place is important. Hes certainly got to be a favourite over Pacquiao and Marquez around the 2000/1 mark but Im not sure Id have him favourite around the 2004 mark a few years later.

Assuming he doesnt retire and his career carries on then its far more likely fights with Pacquiao and Marquez plus potential other matches with Morales and Barrera occur post 2002/3 when Hamed initially retired.

If he doesnt retire, he probably gets added into a very competitive mix with the other four in which fights take place over a 4/5 year period potentially over a couple of weights. In this scenario I would find it difficult to believe he takes care of the other four over a long period. The others showed it was a well matched and very competitve bunch where losses were inneviteable over so many fights. I think Hamed would just be added to this group. He may win a few but he hes also bound to lose a few also as I just dont see him being significantly better than those guys and if he engages in multiple fights with them I think he loses his share.

If he has the luxury of fighting them all when hes at his peak and they are not then maybe, but its unlikely he faces them all in a small window of a couple of years. Pacquiao was a flyweight and Marquez was fairly obscure when Hamed was arguably at his best so those fight right there wouldnt have happened at all. The more likely scenario is he faces those guys much later on when they are similar weights and far more evenly matched.

hamed/sanchez would have been a very interesting fight im not sure if hamed would be able to get to grips with that fight.

Theres no real comparison between Sanchez and Hamed Im afraid. Even in his few short years I think Sanchez defeated a far stronger pool of talent than Hamed ever did. Gomez, Lopez, Nelson, La Porte, Castanon, Castillo amongst others were far better than the McCulloughs, Ingles, Kelleys, Bungus and Johnsons that Hamed encountered. I dont even see Hamed as possessing a really top drawer win. Hamed might have established himself as the top featherweight during his tenure but Sanchez established himself as an all time great fighter. I agree with those saying that Hamed seems to be being touted beyond his means based on a generous amount of slack for his loss to Barrera and a large amount of ifs, buts and maybes.

Come on guys.Taking Hamed to beat Morales, Marquez is a stretch but now in the same breath as Saddler and Sanchez!
He was beaten by Barrera easily/decisively call it either way then quite simply quit
No other great fighters on his record. To be mentioned against Sanchez.He would have a punchers chance and thats all
Nelson would knock him out based on Kelly etc.Technically flawed

Colonial Lion wrote:Theres no real comparison between Sanchez and Hamed Im afraid. Even in his few short years I think Sanchez defeated a far stronger pool of talent than Hamed ever did. Gomez, Lopez, Nelson, La Porte, Castanon, Castillo amongst others were far better than the McCulloughs, Ingles, Kelleys, Bungus and Johnsons that Hamed encountered. I dont even see Hamed as possessing a really top drawer win. Hamed might have established himself as the top featherweight during his tenure but Sanchez established himself as an all time great fighter. I agree with those saying that Hamed seems to be being touted beyond his means based on a generous amount of slack for his loss to Barrera and a large amount of ifs, buts and maybes.

In no way am I saying that Hameds record lives up to the great Salvador Sanchez! But am saying stylistically it is a very interesting fight, one that I would put Sanchez as favourite in however.

Also too much is made on record with these things on record Salvador Sanchez walks over like the likes of Pat Cowdell all day however he caused him a lot of problems within his style not saying he beats him, but he could certainly give him a good fight.

Sanchez struggled a bit with Cowdell because it was a great counter puncher against a very good counter puncher. Sanchez still won though.Cowdell was a very fine fighter
Look what Nelson did to Cowdell and that is what happens when Naz drops his guard
Not based on record but on what I have seen

are you saying naz is taken out in a round?

AlexHuckerby wrote:are you saying naz is taken out in a round?

No but when he drops his hands he gets knocked out by Nelson

when did nelson become part of this? we were discussing sanchez?

AlexHuckerby wrote:when did nelson become part of this? we were discussing sanchez?

You brought in Cowdell when discussing Sanchez and I used him as an example of what would happen to Naz