Prime Naz v Prime Salvador Sanchez

I have said it for years Nazeem Hamed is the most dangerous feather to lace em up. Able to ko any featherweight champ in history including the professer or Zoom Zoom whatever you want to call him. Naz was a freak of a fighter but how would he fair against Sanchez?

Sanchez could basically do it all but I see Naz finding him mid fight and taking him out.

You're crazy..........

I assure you I am not

Gomez is one of the biggest hitters of alltime............He couldn't dent him....

Barrera v Naz style fight................But easier......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Gomez is one of the biggest hitters of alltime............He couldn't dent him....

Barrera v Naz style fight................But easier......

Gomez had to go the distance with Pintor before finishing the fight. Landing at will yet Pintor stood up to his shots. Naz hit harder then Gomez. The Naz that faced Barrera was not prime Naz. Prime Naz ko's Sanchez mid to late rounds after wobbling him early in the fight.

Don't think Sanchez was ever dropped in his career. Admittedly he battered Gomez from the off, so maybe he never felt the full bazooka, but hard though naz hit, its a brave man who'd pick him to stop Sanchez.

At his best, naz was a real handful so I wouldn't write him off completely against many feathers, but he'd be an outsider against a teak tough top quality boxer who could bang himself like Sanchez.

Sanchez beats Naz. Not even a contest.

Nazeem would lose

Hamed was good - but not that good.

Sanchez tended to struggle more with awkward, rangy guys who stayed away from his counter punching. Hamed could be very elusive when he was younger, but he was never really an outside fighter. His athleticism and power meant that most guys couldn't take advantage of his unorthodoxy and all the 'technical' mistakes he made but I don't think he'd get away with them against Sanchez. Sal was an unbelievably smooth counter-puncher and jabber at mid range and while I'd normally give Naz a puncher's chance against just about anyone in history in or around his weight class, Sanchez might just have been the one nut even he couldn't crack. Sal stood in front of murderous hitters like Lopez and Gomez, and on the rare occasions they did manage to lay a real glove in anger on him, he stood up to it without so much as blinking.

I think Hamed would have run out of ideas pretty quickly here, to be honest. The more and more gung-ho and frustrated he gets as he goes looking for the dramatic knockout, the more Sanchez just picks him off. Sanchez wide decision or late stoppage.

Hamed is a bit of a legend on these shores and most of us Brits appreciate he was a real talent... but on the world scene I think you'd find the idea of him beating Sanchez would receive a perplexed response. By our standards Hamed was brilliant but on the world stage there are many that would be tipped to beat him, Sanchez being one.

The Americans rated Hamed incredibly highly and it's important not to base his whole career and reputation on the Barrera fight which did not showcase him at his best.

That said Sanchez is the one featherweight I wouldn't give him a prayer against. Hamed is probably vying with Saddler as the hardest hitter in the division but Sanchez was made of absolute iron and granite so can't see him being budged too easily. Hamed was however a deceptively strong featherweight, he had the legs of a big lightweight which was the source of his devastating power.

Put Hamed in with Pep, Pacquiao, Marquez, Pedroza, Nelson or anybody else and I can envisage a way he hits his way to victory and was a dirty bugger when he needed to be as the Soto fight showed.

Agreed they rated him highly, just not that highly and probably not as highly as us.

He was seen as a phenomenon in the states, they might have thought he was a pillock as everybody did but the way they spoke about him in commentary was more revered than over here.

Don't fancy his chances much against zoomy either. Other than the Sanchez fight where he was stopped as much through exhaustion as anything, I don't remember seeing him wobbled, and it's not like Gomez didn't hit him. It would be probably pretty even at half way, but nelson would keep on coming.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The Americans rated Hamed incredibly highly and it's important not to base his whole career and reputation on the Barrera fight which did not showcase him at his best.

That said Sanchez is the one featherweight I wouldn't give him a prayer against. Hamed is probably vying with Saddler as the hardest hitter in the division but Sanchez was made of absolute iron and granite so can't see him being budged too easily. Hamed was however a deceptively strong featherweight, he had the legs of a big lightweight which was the source of his devastating power.

Put Hamed in with Pep, Pacquiao, Marquez, Pedroza, Nelson or anybody else and I can envisage a way he hits his way to victory and was a dirty bugger when he needed to be as the Soto fight showed.

America didn't rate Hamed highly at all - certainly not as highly as the Brits.

Hamed wouldn't beat any of that lot either. Pep? Dear God.

Respect points: -100

Hamed was never the same fighter after Robinson. Manuel Medina - a herky-jerky volume puncher - came close to stopping him. Sanchez would be just as active but with more power. I think he'd stop Hamed (certainly the version that ventured Stateside).

Everything is too cut and dried with you, there's no inbetween, Hamed at his absolute best could give anybody problems especially those of Marquez and Pedroza's level.

Can you drop the pettiness it's getting really tiresome, either debate the points at hand or don't bother at all, nobody needs you constantly banging on about the same thing.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Everything is too cut and dried with you, there's no inbetween, Hamed at his absolute best could give anybody problems especially those of Marquez and Pedroza's level.

Can you drop the pettiness it's getting really tiresome, either debate the points at hand or don't bother at all, nobody needs you constantly banging on about the same thing.

Hamed lost his way after moving to featherweight and slowly unraveled. There's nothing to suggest he'd have posed the best feathers in history problems.

He'd always have a puncher's chance - he was one of the best punchers in the division's history - but he wouldn't contend with that lot at their best.

HBO (Seth Abraham) were desperate for Hamed to be a star (maybe that's where you've picked up the notion he was a revered figure - from watching YouTube commentary) but those of us who followed his career from scratch know that isn't the case. The US was distinctly underwhelmed from the Kelley fight on.

I watched his career from scratch too Haz, he was the sole reason I got into boxing and revise it all you want he was seen on both sides of the ponds as a potential superstar.

You talk about the best featherweights in history but Hamed was one of them, no doubt the 17 defences of Pedroza will get special Doug Fischer points but his opposition was decidedly average. Pedroza also gets away scot-free for losing to Mcguigan (somebody not in Hameds class) yet Barrera (better than Pedroza) is a constant to stick to beat him with.

Pacquiao was still a wild fighter in his featherweights day while Marquez was a bit hit and miss, he'd certainly visit the canvas at least once or twice. Saddler I don't see excelling in the modern era with stricter refs while Pep post plane crash had lost a step.

Power is a great equaliser when you combine it with an awkward unpredictable style so you really can't write him off against anyone bar Sanchez.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:He was seen as a phenomenon in the states, they might have thought he was a pillock as everybody did but the way they spoke about him in commentary was more revered than over here.

The key for me is where you said "he was seen...". Now the dust has settled is he viewed alongside the very elite of the division or a smidge below? For me the Barrera defeat must count against him as despite some great, excellent and exciting performances prior, particularly the Kelley fight, you can't ignore the way he handled that sole defeat. It damaged the way he was perceived more than the way he fought in the fight imo. In fact, it added to the myth that he was completely dominated in 12 rounds shut out which was an injustice. A true champion and all that.

I think his style and the way he fought suggests he could have proven so much more but the fact is he didn't. His record can't justify a place at the top table for me though as he needed to go on past Barrera to justify being talked of as a true, all-time great on the world stage.

Hamed arrived in the U.S to great fanare but the Kelley fight made him look decidedly beatable when he was being billed as an unbeatable Brit invader. It was an exciting debut, but not one which sold him on many experienced U.S journalists. Some I would say even underrated him after the Kelley fight. The Barrera fight a few years then damaged his reputation beyond repair.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I watched his career from scratch too Haz, he was the sole reason I got into boxing and revise it all you want he was seen on both sides of the ponds as a potential superstar.

You talk about the best featherweights in history but Hamed was one of them, no doubt the 17 defences of Pedroza will get special Doug Fischer points but his opposition was decidedly average. Pedroza also gets away scot-free for losing to Mcguigan (somebody not in Hameds class) yet Barrera (better than Pedroza) is a constant to stick to beat him with.

Pacquiao was still a wild fighter in his featherweights day while Marquez was a bit hit and miss, he'd certainly visit the canvas at least once or twice. Saddler I don't see excelling in the modern era with stricter refs while Pep post plane crash had lost a step.

Power is a great equaliser when you combine it with an awkward unpredictable style so you really can't write him off against anyone bar Sanchez.

He was indeed seen as a potential superstar - that's what I said. HBO were hoping they had a new Jones. You said he was more revered in the US than he was here - which is incorrect.

Pedroza was a fine champion - far more accomplished than anyone Hamed faced bar Kelley (who was faded) and Barrera (who outclassed Hamed).

Why would you look to match Hamed with a poorer version of Pep (than he was at his best)?

Marquez was Hamed's mandatory for a good while (Hamed didn't show any inclination to face him) and his text book style would have been perfect against Naz.

For me, he was better as a super bantam and it's a great shame he didn't get Barrera there, Junior Jones or Hector Acero Sanchez.

Pacquiao and Saddler would have hit too hard. Saddler would have run him out of the ring.

catchweight wrote:Hamed arrived in the U.S to great fanare but the Kelley fight made him look decidedly beatable when he was being billed as an unbeatable Brit invader. It was an exciting debut, but not one which sold him on many experienced U.S journalists. Some I would say even underrated him after the Kelley fight. The Barrera fight a few years then damaged his reputation beyond repair.

But what a fight the Kelly fight was and wouldn't that make you watch him again?

The Kelley fight was awesome

Saddler with a 50's ref might have done but in the modern era he'd have lost many strings to his bow and I can't see him surviving nowadays, he relied too heavily on the dark arts.

A Marquez fight could have gone either way, it would be a yoyo fight with both fighters hit the canvas numerous times without being really hurt, if Chris John can get a deserved decision over him it's foolish to write Hamed's chances off.

Pacquiao is an odd one, he like Marquez was massive at the weight something Morales, Barrera and Hamed were not but he was there to be hit and his in and out buzzsaw style might not be effective against somebody hitting him that hard on the way in. By 2000 Hamed had his eyes set on two men and two men only; Barrera and Morales, wasn't as if he ended up taking on an easy fight was it.

I'd actually forgotten about Saldivar too, a truly great featherweight who would be slightly handicapped by a 12 round fight same as Saddler really. Over 12 rounds he could get decisioned by a slither but over 15 he comes on far too strong but then again over 12 he might start his late assault three rounds sooner.

When Hamed stepped up he was found out. Kevin Kelley exposed him and Barrera treated him like his bitch. Naz fought a lot of decent level fighters but very few top class fighters in their prime.

One of the most hateful fighters ever to enter a ring. That's why Marco bouncing his head off the ring post was one of the most satisfying things I have ever seen.

Hamed was good but when you see the kind of intensity in the Morales/Barrera/Marquez/Pacquiao contests its difficult to view Hamed as anything but an underdog.

The promotion that came with him was huge and hadnt been seen in a long time for the small men. HBO invested big money in Hamed so they played the part of the cheerleader and played up the hype. More seasoned US opinion certainly were not as convinced and the Kelley fight pretty much backed up their misgivings. From there on Hamed was playing catch up.

Naz was a very good fighter and one of my favourites to watch, but Sanchez one of the greats, in my opinion only his untimely death at aged 23 robbed him of a place at the top table of ATGs as he was only going to get better. If they had fought Naz gets completely outclassed and stopped in about 8-9 rounds, for all his speed and reflexes the top men had no trouble hitting him and Sanchez was better than anyone Naz shared a ring with. He managed to be the only man ever to stop the iron willed and concrete chinned Azumah Nelson (who also wipes the floor with Naz) so i dont think the fighter i saw in with Kelly and Barrera has a hope in hell.

I don't think that anyone would argue that the Kelley fight made Naz look indestructible but from a fan perspective that performance did wonders promoting his name in the U.S.

See if he hadn't proclaimed himself so good, people would have been far less harsh on him for the Barrera loss.

It was actually not as one sided as some say, although Naz was clearly second best on the night. His head was tossed around a few times in the first few rounds which must have looked a lot worse than it was from the back of the hall. But I don't think Naz was ever really hurt.

Was Naz a little off sorts that night, or was it indeed the difference between elite and lower world class?


Certainly Naz' reign comprised chiefly of lower world class fighters, Barrera was you have to say the first stellar opposition Naz had faced.

Did Naz retire because he knew to continue he had to face more of the top New World fighters, your Marquez' s etc? Too good for lower world class, way too good, but just short of elite,  was that ultimately where Naz  found himself? Let's' give him a little love though shall we, far from the villain he's sometimes portrayed and by and large not beat, destroyed anyone he ever faced.

Pretty well balanced and accurate post there Herman. I predict it goes down like a fart at a funeral!

Cheers Dipper, certainly with what was it £30m in the bank, couldn't have been easy to get motivated. Still I'd love like we all would, to have seen him in with just one more elite New World fighter. Marquez was his mandatory for a while wasn't he?

Once his relationship with ingle started to break down he was never the same fighter it coincided with him believing his own hype, partying hard and training less.

Was Barrera the best fighter he'd faced, yep, was it the best naz, nope.

Its a fallacy that he didn't beat any quality fighters, his cv isn't littered with quality but although Johnson was knocking on a bit he was unbeaten in years and on a good run as champion, Kelly was a bit past his best but still a decent opponent.

Is/was naz a tool. Well each to their own on that front, but by most definitions, yep.

Yep, good points Herman. I don’t think Naz did himself justice on the night against Barrera, but that’s a different thing from saying he would have beaten him had he been in a better place or had the fight taken place a few years before. Certainly, he’d have ran him a lot closer, but it’d take a big leap of faith to assume that a fight in which he only won 3 rounds on most people’s cards could have panned out so massively differently with a few circumstances altered.

If Naz had beaten a fighter comparable to Barrera between, say, 1995 and 1998, then it would make the picture a lot clearer. But excellent fighters though they were, the likes of Kelley, Vasquez, Johnson, Bundu and McCullough weren’t quite in Marco’s class. It’s going way too far to suggest, as some do, that Barrera completely exposed Hamed as some kind of fraudster, but at the same time you can see why those who don’t really care for ‘what if?’ scenarios, or ‘if, but’ lines, might say that Barrera put Hamed in to context to some degree.

milkyboy wrote:Is/was naz a tool.

Hell yeah!! A talented one but a tool nonetheless.

Naz certainly belonged at Barrera's level but put in a very poor performance. As soon as he made his name in America he seemed to be in awe of his own power, instead of being an unorthodox boxer with huge KO power he became a one dimensional fighter who tried to score a KO with every shot.

I loved him when I was young, along with Roy Jones he was the first proper star I saw. A total caricature personality with cartoon power, what's not to love when you're a youngun? All the religious stuff went over my head at that age but looking back at it, Michael Buffer translating his preaching into English pre-fight is one of the most cringeworthy moments in boxing history .

A boxer some loved, many loved to hate but as I always say, it leaves a void when they're gone. Wait til Mayweather gets that comeuppance everyone has been craving, there'll be a lot feeling empty afterwards. Don't know what you've got til it's gone.