Was Naz harshly judged for one defeat?

Having recently watched footage of, Ian Darke, Barry McGuigan and the deplorable Glen McSnorey discussing Naz's ability to come back from the Barerra defeat(around about 2 months after the fight),if he could change styles etc.

It got me thinking about whether Naz is harshly judged for not boxing on? (Manuel Calvo aside)

In the cold light of day, i believe you can only judge someones career by what they have achieved, not the ifs and buts, and peoples own personal disappointment at the entertainment Naz brought drying up.

Did Ricky Hatton really achieve anything after the mayweather loss, laboured to a defeat over Lazcano, a reasonable performance against the Magic Man, who in reality was made for him, and probably in hindsight not the greatest harbinger of whether he still had decent punch resistance before Pacquiao, the Pacman fight was a disaster, and Senchenko well enough said.

Eubank seems to get hailed by some, for his fighting heart against Thompson/Calzaghe, did he show anything we didn't already know, extremely brave tough, cussed. (broke?) Do these losses add to his legacy?

Fighters legacy should ultimately be judged on the performance they showed between the ropes, not on existential matters.

In my opinion too many pundits/ Journalists and armchair critics judge Naz based on one defeat..

Welcome

Thanks Mr King, i look forward to lending my moderate knowledge to the forum.

As a big Naz fan I think it is a reasonable question. There was an interview with Naz on Sky some time ago with Gary Newbon and whilst, perhaps inevitably Naz did not admit he had taken his foot off the gas, he certainly alluded to the fact that this was the case. He had been boxing since around the age of 8, that is 20 years. He pretty much said the training and the grind of making weight and the sacrifices the sport inevitably entails had started to lose their appeal.

There will always be question marks when someone goes out with a whimper rather than a bang, particularly someone with seemingly as much ability as Naz possessed, but personally think if he knows deep down the love for the game is not there anymore he is making the right decision, because as we all know boxing is not really a sport you can play at.

Also think irrespective of the Barrera loss Naz has enough on his ledger to belong in the upper echelons from this country and whilst he may have fell short of what he could have potentially achieved, his achievements offer him plenty to be proud of.

Welcome aboard by the way Frank.

I think the point you make Rowley regarding the period of time he had been boxing for, 20 years is a good one for multiple reasons, one as you allude to he almost certainly fell out of love with the training side of the sport, and secondly it seems when people discuss this there is a common trail of opinion that he was probably past his best by the Barrera fight.

While this may be a little bit of Historical revisionism, there was a murmuring at the time amongst all be it a minority that he had slacked of training for a while, later on reinforced by the documentary "Little Prince big heart".

This school of thought is now probably much wider, and i believe there would be a number of people who believe that he was past his best, and also in contradictory manner would criticise him for retiring.

If you are a person who believes he was past his best, you should accept he made the right decision to retire.

Imagine him as a plucky gallant underdog..

No.

The little git should have been thrown out the window of a multi story building long before he inflicted some of the most despicable behavior ever seen in the ring on the general public.

Naz was a great fighter but a bully....Didn't like it up him...A confidence fighter and Barrera took it.

I agree judge a fighter on his record...A Brit great and near ATG..

Im not sure relevance are Hatton and Eubank really? They should have just retired after they lost? Or because they didnt achieve huge success by boxing on it justifies Hameds decision to retire early? What about all the fighters that came back from defeats and did enhance their standing? Leonard said he was close to quitting boxing after he lost to Duran. He went on to beat Duran, Hearns and Hagler.

Welcome to the forum soy_frank_cappuccino. First of all let me just say...if anyone gives you any problems on here let me know and il sort them out for you   

In regards to Naz...I think his inability to come back after the Barerra defeat showed possibly the lack of character that we like to see in fighters. He still had plenty left in the tank and a few more scalps plus possibly a Barerra rematch would have given him a great legacy. The guy was an exceptional fighter who retired before his time. What given his bad name outside of boxing as well I think he has missed the chance to go down as a legend from the Isles. So I dont think he is that harshly judged

Regards

P.S....Strongy...not a Naz fan I take it???

Firstly thanks Steffan for your aggressive offer of protection,

I dont really understand the character references, as i suggested in the original post, i believe boxers should be judged on there record, Hamed showed plenty of courage and determination in the ring, in an ideal world he would perhaps in some peoples eyes would have shown more "character" in continuing to box, but what made him so special might well have been the character imbalances, the over inflated sense of self, massive ego, confidence risk driven style.
Maybe he did have character flaws, and perhaps thats what made him a great fighter.

I would rather judge someones character as a boxer in the ring, rather than something that didnt happen.

Trussman, out of interest would you ever use the phrase American great?

soy_frank_cappuccino wrote:Thanks Mr King, i look forward to lending my moderate knowledge to the forum.

Welcome frank. Moderate knowledge will improve the average. I could leave and raise it further still.

I have always been of the view that naz was on the slide. Don't think it was physical, just believed his hype and didn't think he needed to train properly or take advice. Opinion is always split on this one, but I believe the naz of two years earlier probably beats Barrera. Always a chance that MAB just had his number but I never bought into the 'flat track bully who got found out when he stepped up in class' argument.

As fans we hoped it would be the kick up the behind he needed, but for whatever reason... Confidence, motivation, love of pies, it wasn't.

I agree Milky i think he was a on the slide.

It seems to be a strange fact to expect but his peak was incredibly early, his balance was always one of his greatest attributes, it enabled him to punch with such authority, and be evasive, by the barrera fight he was moving more like a belly dancer. (a sight i wouldn't currently want to be witness to)

Early peakers... Benitez, Tyson, not without precedent frank but certainly the exception not the rule. Though I guess the earlier you achieve your ambitions, the earlier the distractions kick in and the hunger fades.

I believe he's unfairly judged as the US critics (who carry a lot of weight) only really saw him from the Kelley fight onwards.

Naz peaked against Robinson and it was all downhill from there.

I'm not sure he'll even make the HOF. Great talent, box-office and one of the hardest punching featherweights of all time but he wasn't a great fighter. He fell just short.

I'm a fairly big fan of Naz and think he was incredibly talented, had the ability to make some very good fighters look distinctly average and would have beaten Barrera in his absolute pomp.

He does to an extent showcase the problems with being a knockout specialist, you become reliant on landing that single punch and neglect everything else, the things you'd previously done to set up the opportunities.

As Haz alludes to the Americans only saw a small snippet of the tailend of his career, the yoyo battle with Kelley, his odd fight with Sanchez, the foul filled brawl against Soto and the loss to Barrera. Against both Kelley and Sanchez the brutal knockouts covered up the fact he was no longer fighting the way he had, leaving himself far too open to punches and just waiting to land the money shot which he did. 

It's a simplistic view to hold but his best performances did all come in England, the way he dismantled some very good fighters in Bungu, Vasquez, Johnson, Medina, Robinson and Hardy are all a better indicator of his talent.

A great featherweight, a great british boxer and a should have been all time great.

I was a big fan back in the day, alongside Roy Jones probably the first (what I considered to be) superstar I ever saw box.

The US fights were somewhat atypical to his other fights. Maybe it was over reliance on his power, maybe it was the need to entertain the new audience but the KK fight in particular he seemed to just dive in looking to blow his head off while leaning back with his chin out after he threw.

Not really sure how he's seen over the pond but for me he was a star at the time. Freakish power, presence and a total one off. I think he used his arrogance as an intimidation tactic also. Worked too

Naz was an exceptional talent, that much is certain. However, he was sucked into believing his own hype once he'd ditched Ingle and turned into an arrogant self important merchant banker.

He divided opinions much like Eubank before him, and it seemed that at least half of the British public wanted him to lose and tuned in to see just that. I followed him closely from his early Bantam days and it was astonishing to watch his reflexes as he evaded punch after punch whilst simultaneously pulverising his opponents. Most were half decent by then too. I think he actually started to decline after the McCullough fight as he became too reliant on his power.

He loved the fact that the casual fan wanted the big KO and he could usually provide this - he genuinely believed he was head and shoulders above every other fighter at the weight. He surrounded himself with yes men rather than staying with Ingle, and thought he could do it all on his own. If he had brought his "A" game, I also don't think Barrera would have made the final bell; however, he didn't have a plan B on the night, and once the "0" bubble had been burst, so had his air of invincibility and with it, his marketability. By the Barrera fight he'd got a bit sloppy with his preparation and had underestimated the Baby-Faced Assassin.

I don't think people judge him harshly because he lost. I think they judge him harshly because he certainly had the ability to beat Barrera - he just wasn't able to on the night because he cut corners.

If Naz was American Brit's would still be laughing at him.

He picked the wrong man to jeer at in Barrera. Every time Naz tried to belittle Barrera he received a face full of leather. The most enjoyable nights boxing I have ever watched.

Spot on analysis Bounce. I particularly agree with him being a huge draw because a lot of people wanted to see him get his comeuppance but once he lost a lot of the marketability went with it

Strongback, the problem for me is when the guy you love to hate actually loses it can feel hollow. A case of you don't know what you had til it's gone. Naz was brilliant value with his attitude and penchant for the absurd (in fighting style and entrances), I'm sure most of the people who wanted to see him lose were secretly glad every time he prolonged his streak.

I found him totally genuine also, despite being a total pillock he was genuinely convinced he was the biggest deal in the sport. In comparison I find someone like Adrien Broner totally false and whenever he opens his mouth to tell you about himself it's just white noise. Naz talked it and walked it

Yes, I think he is judged harshly. But perhaps he was only judged based on the standards that he set, with his claims and antics. I listened to a radio interview of his (forget where and when) where he claimed that his hands were falling apart due to the extreme force of his punching, and that he had to have painkilling injections before each fight.
I would also question his marketability in America post-9/11, particularly after all the Islamic nonsense he pulled when ranting into the microphone just before the opening bell of the Barrera fight...

Yes, very harshly.

When you compare him with a Tyson who has legendary 'peak' status attached to his victories and is given excuses for every defeat. Would be interesting to see a comparison on their careers up until their first defeats. Would do it myself but feel it would make interesting reading from someone who knows enough about the opponents abilities.


There is a little bit on Naz in Dark Trade (great boxing book) from the authors meetings with him. In this book it says how Naz wasn't as confident as he made out and just wanted to be loved. From this and several other books / documentaries I get the impression that Naz was a young lad who grew up in and loved boxing. He wanted to please the crowd with his KO's but had such a great natural ability it was a joy to watch.

Once his love for the game had started to tire he had the natural ability to beat most without any problems but it seems his training had started to turn into a bit of a circus.

Now this was fine when he was fighting world class fighters but against an ATG in Barrera he needed to be at 100% - he wasn't.

I feel one of the reasons he is judged so harshly is because people feel cheated that they missed out on more great fights.

He was a bright star who burned out too quickly for the public to enjoy as much as they felt they should be able to.

One area that I don't feel he gets enough credit is the amount of people he inspired to take up boxing, a British ATG and should be a global ATG but is judged harsh.

Im don't think Sugar Ray, that his his Allah ranting which was becoming ever more of a regular occurrence would have particularly turned off the American public.

I think an exciting fighter style trumps a narrow minded personal opinion(even if its just to see them lose), On a slightly separate subject that perhaps contradicts what i just said, i'm not really sure where the misnomer that Americans in particular love exciting fighters, i think its a numbers game, there is 300 million of them, hence a huge potential market.
Bhop, Floyd, Ward.

Back to Naz, i'm glad to see there are others who share my opinion that he has been harshly judged, you just have to leave the inner fan behind, easier said than done.

Not such a difficult proposition for you Strongback, i'm not quite sure why the nefarious attitude towards Hamed, i'm not too bothered about him being a role model, you only had to watch him for 1hr every couple of months, most of that was the walk in.

soy_frank_cappuccino wrote:Im don't think Sugar Ray, that his his Allah ranting which was becoming ever more of a regular occurrence would have particularly turned off the American public.

I think an exciting fighter style trumps a narrow minded personal opinion(even if its just to see them lose), On a slightly separate subject that perhaps contradicts what i just said, i'm not really sure where the misnomer that Americans in particular love exciting fighters, i think its a numbers game, there is 300 million of them, hence a huge potential market.
Bhop, Floyd, Ward.

Back to Naz, i'm glad to see there are others who share my opinion that he has been harshly judged, you just have to leave the inner fan behind, easier said than done.

Not such a difficult proposition for you Strongback, i'm not quite sure why the nefarious attitude towards Hamed, i'm not too bothered about him being a role model, you only had to watch him for 1hr every couple of months, most of that was the walk in.

I just couldn't stand him. He jeered, taunted and belittled fighters who he clearly knew were levels below him but yet his fanboys wet their knickers when they watched him. When he did take on an ATG he continued to taunt and jeer only this time he was the one who got humiliated on at least two fronts. Easily the fighter I have disliked the most over the years and I have disliked a few.

When you dislike you really dislike.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:When you dislike you really dislike.

You have to be passionate about your beliefs or else you turn into a middle Englander.

Larry Merchant once said to floyd "Naseem will not want any part of you" right after corrales fight. floyd would have spanked Naseem. The prince was good at taunting smaller less talented boxers. Would have loved him to try and take on the much larger, more talented fighter Mayweather. Floyd back then could punch too.

Boom Boom and Kelley were good fighters

I find naz an obnoxious little jerk... well not so little these days. But when it comes to assessing the personalities of boxers, its generally a good idea to overlook them and just consider whether you enjoy watching them fight. Otherwide, you're left with a fairly small universe to pick your favourites from.

I liked Lloyd honeyghan, but not many have a good word to say about him. I supported naz, though i cringed when he opened his mouth. I was a fan of carlos monzon, when i was a kid. There's probably some good guys i've supported too, but its by accident not design!

You like jerks milky !!!

Strongy's lucky day.

I never liked Tyson, I could never get past his plain ugliness as a person. I still don't really like him but I have mellowed a touch.

One of my favourites was Wayne Mcullough, I had met him when we were both kids and have followed him ever since. Of the current guys Kessler is a class act in all departments. Sergio Martinez was/is a dude no other way to put it. Cotto is a guy I always liked even if he never reached his potential. Barrera is another but maybe because of the way he dealt with Naz, MAB wasn't too pleasant but then again he did train to be a lawyer.

Louis, Benny Leonard and especially Dempsey were guys that I could like.

The fight with Barrera was arguably the biggest fight of his career and he failed but the main critiscism is that he quit instead of licking his wounds and coming back or even trying to avenge his only defeat.
Naz was exciting to watch, great power, fast unorthodox,but we'll never know how he would have got on against Morales,Marquez or rematching Barrera,quit to early for me.

He did come back after the Barrera defeat (Steffan), a laboured points victory if I remember rightly.He was definitely on the slide.
what must be remembered is that Naz was a heavily religious fighter,always bringing allah into post-fight conversation,in the post 9/11 world I think he knew that the game was up for his antics.

Personally, I think most of the criticism over Hamed with regards to how his career ended are valid strictly from a boxing fan's perspective. The other side of the coin is that, if he'd genuinely lost his motivation to train and felt that he'd be happier without boxing in his life, then good on him and he went at the right time, with plenty of money in the bank, his faculties intact and without the ignominy of becoming just another once-great fighter getting banged around, past his prime, by guys who couldn't have troubled him a few years before.

But as I said, if all you care about is what goes on inside the ring, and if you watched the young Naz trouncing everyone in his path and thought he was set for ultimate greatness, you'd find it hard to forgive someone with so much talent jacking it in at 28 after losing what was the biggest fight of his career regardless of the circumstances. Gifts like Hamed had don't come to that many people all that often, after all. A big waste.

Ultimately I think the air of invincibility and fame did go to Hamed's head and resulted in him making some pretty poor decisions (such as his brother Riath taking the reins as his manager when his previous work had been as an outreach officer for the Yemeni community in Sheffield for the local Council!) and also negating his all-round athleticism which was a big part of what his style so special in the first place, and I think the buck has to stop with him on that one.

I don't think it's as much of a given that the Naz of about three years earlier beats Barrera as some others seem to believe, but there's no way that a 1998 Hamed gets made to look as predictable, pedestrian and one-dimensional as he was made to look in that 2001 fight against Marco either.

In the sky interview with Gary Newbon Naz pretty much admits he was wrong to dump Warren Chris, admits it made a lot of sense financially and he earned a good deal more, but whilst he fell short of criticising his family he kind of admits some of the decisions made were not smart. He apparently injured his hand in the Sanchez fight and so the gap between that and Barrera was 8 months, which is a long time to be out. He alluded that with Warren still at the helm they would have probably knocked that fight back. Not sure it would have changed how things panned out, bowling over someone overmatched would have only increased his feelings of invincibility and his less than stellar approach to training, would have done nothing but delay the inevitable IMO

Yeah, Hamed does seem to have mellowed towards both Warren and Ingle after all the acrimony, more so to Ingle of course.

Did you read the Boxing News special on Naz a couple of months back, Rowley? Some good insight from both of the aforementioned there on his decline (although I did have to laugh a little bit at Warren's claim of, "Naz didn't ditch me - it was me who ditched him, let's get it right!").

I did read it Chris, the stuff about his ongoing HOF exclusion was interesting.

A couple of years ago the late Manny Steward was interviewed, and mentioned that he had sent him a video of Barrera previous fight with Jesus Salud, and Naz pretty much refused to look at it, while his team and a half of yes men showed him footage of the Junior Jones knocking him out.

Going into your toughest test of your career i think you need to be the best version of yourself you can be, i dont think he had learnt anything new for a good few years, and the things he already knew where on the slide.

Oscar Suarez apparently used to go to the cinema with him.

I don't think its a given that prime naz beats Barrera Chris. But there are plenty who believe he was a flat track bully who lost the first time he fought a great fighter. Personally I think its clear his performances had slipped.

Given he was well beaten but not 'schooled' as some like to say by berrera, it's no great stretch to suggest that prime hamed could have overturned the deficit.

Ifs buts and maybes. The only thing that matters is on that night, berrera was clearly the better man

Either of you guys  know what naz did for Johnny nelson to hate him so much?

I've heard all sorts of stuff about the rift between Nelson and Naz, milky. Apparently it was partly down to Hamed, after he'd started making it big on the other side of the pond, telling Nelson he'd put in a good word for him with some American promoters and getting Nelson's hopes up about Di Bella apparently wanting to give him a big contract on HBO, which turned out to be a load of cobblers and which left Nelson feeling pretty embarrassed and peed off, apparently. This is what Warren said about it.

"Naseem Hamed was a gym mate of his and pestered me to sign up Johnny. I told Naz if Johnny was fighting in my back garden I'd close the curtains but I eventually did a deal with him and he had a couple of really good wins. Nelson's friendship with Hamed soured though - when Naz went off on his own, he told Johnny he'd sorted out a multi-fight, £1million deal with HBO.

I remember phoning Lou Di Bella, at that time head of HBO, from my office, with Johnny present.

"Who is Johnny Nelson?" asked Di Bella. He hadn't even heard of him, let alone offered him a deal!"

Also I think Nelson let himself down a little with his comments about Naz post 9/11. Think he said something along the lines of how Naz apparently owed it to the British public to declare whether he was on 'our' or 'their' side as it was the British public who had made him rich and given him the public platform to air his beliefs. Apparently he thought it was poor that Naz didn't make a statement about the tragedy.

Don't think that would have helped matters, but apparently Nelson's autobiography (which I haven't read, Rowley might have though) sheds a bit more light on it all.

I have read it Chris, but don't recall anything too much on the subject. Will have a look when I get chance over the next couple of days.

Cheers Chris, nelson always seems an affable chap, thought it might have been something worse than a bit of humiliation. After the de Leon fight I presumed Johnny would be immune to such things. Though I guess the dashed hopes of wealth probably didn't help! In his mind, maybe he'd already bought the Ferrari.

Johnny is also fiercely loyal to the Ingle's so suspect Naz leaving them and speaking pretty badly of Brendan did not sit too well with him.

Funnily enough I went to an evening with Frank Bruno the other night and Johnny Nelson was also on the bill. Have to say Nelson was absolutely brilliant, told loads of funny stories about when he was meant to be fighting Tyson, if he was half as entertaining in the ring he would have made millions.

After Warring-Nelson.....Deleon - Nelson........Nelson is lucky he managed to buy a skoda.

True enough, milky. Nelson's always seemed like a bloke I'd like to have a pint with as well. Suspect that whole HBO / DiBella thing was probably just one of a long line of things which eventually made Nelson snap and lose patience with Naz. I'm not sure if he was referring specifically to that incident, but I remember reading another interview with Nelson where he said that the relationship with Hamed couldn't be repaired because "he (Hamed) did something unforgivable. I know he was involved and he knows that I know."

Suspect the whole truth will always be under wraps.

I heard him say that on ringside Chris... Think it was the Eubank interview, where they discussed naz claiming Eubank copied his ring entrance... Then they showed a teenage naz in the crowd at a Eubank show with his mouth open in awe. Very funny.

That's why I thought there was something a bit meatier to it, but hey.

Have to say I've warmed to nelson. Thought he was out if his depth at sky to begin with (only helped by the clowns around him) but he's improved a lot as a presenter.

Shame of it is he was a talented boxer... If he 'd had more confidence and a but of the devil about him he'd have made more of a mark

I can forgive Naz for his sh**ty personality as like Khan he is a victim of his culture.......Have a neighbor who owns several shops who is forever showing off his new car or trying to impress me with stories of his wealth and what he owns......The class system is very prevalent back in Asia.....These guys are brought up to gloat, mock and brag......and fairplay It's a free Country..

It's a culture thing........

I find my neighbor odious and Khan and Naz too........If honest...

Khan and Naz though are quality fighters..I'll probably be able to tell you soon If my neighbor is in the same league..........

Its terrible being stuck with a braggart truss. How are you supposed to tell them about your own wealth, intelligence, good looks, wit, charm and sexual prowess... When you can't get a word in edgeways.