Hamed, Bowe, Mancini Elected To HOF

First topic message reminder :

Hamed finally made it then. Does he belong? What about Bowe and Mancini?

That's where you are wrong Strongy, his fights with Johnson, Hardy and Badillo were all on sky sports box office, got to say it's classic quoting yourself as some kind of proof despite being pitifully wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etZQ1_lQHQQ

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That's where you are wrong Strongy, his fights with Johnson, Hardy and Badillo were all on sky sports box office, got to say it's classic quoting yourself as some kind of proof despite being pitifully wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etZQ1_lQHQQ

We were talking about you stating I had said the Kelley fight was on ITV which was a false statement from you but you have decided to go off on a tangent. Complete strawman from you and not for the first time.

You said he was fighting on ITV prior to Kelley which was false and you also said it was his first UK PPV fight which was false, for an apparent genius you're a bit slow.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Conn was maybe an alltimer but he was 170..and he outboxed him..

The other two..

Do me a favor...

Barkley beat Hearns lets stick him in there..

Louis can boast the greatest championship run of all time. Criticise his opposition all you want but don't then fluff up Floyd when he's hand picked his opposition for years. If Mayweather is the greatest in your view for fighting overmatched opposition a couple of times a year then don't criticise Louis if you believe he did the same.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Hamed lost to somebody better than all the names you mentioned there Strongy and to be honest Walcott and Schmelings apparent greatness baffles me while Conn was a light Heavyweight. We don't exactly proclaim the virtues of Ali and Frazier based on beating Bob Foster do we.

Hamed whether you like him or not was a great featherweight and for a prolonged period of time was the undisputed champion in the division, he beat each and every one of the champions.

Hamed a great featherweight over a prolonged period? I don't think that's accurate. He peaked in his first fight at the weight ( against Robinson) and unravelled from there.

Barrera put Hamed into perspective.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Which historian in their right mind would rank Pedroza higher than Barrera, I really would like to know, Kieran Mulvaney for instance has Barrera at 43 in his top 50 but no place for Pedroza.

As a featherweight? I would. Most experts would.

He unravelled so badly he won his next 15 fights beating the best the division had to offer at the time, Barrera puts into perspective how poor his mindset to the sport had become.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Which historian in their right mind would rank Pedroza higher than Barrera, I really would like to know, Kieran Mulvaney for instance has Barrera at 43 in his top 50 but no place for Pedroza.

As a featherweight? I would. Most experts would.

Frankly Haz who gives a toss where Morales and Barrera rank as Featherweights, every man and his dog know the pair are better than Pedroza. Pacquiao aren't exactly going to be that high at 140lbs but we all know they're better than Cervantes, Locche, Hatton, Cotto, Tzuyu and anyone else you care to mention outside of Chavez, Pryor, Ross and Canzoneri.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:He unravelled so badly he won his next 15 fights beating the best the division had to offer at the time, Barrera puts into perspective how poor his mindset to the sport had become.

If you'd watched the fights, rather than merely looking them up on BoxRec, you'd agree he diminished as a fighter from the Robinson win on. Was that arrogance and an unwillingness to adhere to Ingle or more a case of struggling with such a poor defence against decent men?

Hamed was poor against Kelley, almost got himself kayoed against Medina, stank the joint out against the likes of McCullough and Soto and very nearly came a cropper against Ingle and Sanchez.

He was never a great fighter. He's around 10th in the list of best ever Brits and failed to live up to his ridiculous potential.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Which historian in their right mind would rank Pedroza higher than Barrera, I really would like to know, Kieran Mulvaney for instance has Barrera at 43 in his top 50 but no place for Pedroza.

As a featherweight? I would. Most experts would.

Frankly Haz who gives a toss where Morales and Barrera rank as Featherweights, every man and his dog know the pair are better than Pedroza. Pacquiao aren't exactly going to be that high at 140lbs but we all know they're better than Cervantes, Locche, Hatton, Cotto, Tzuyu and anyone else you care to mention outside of Chavez, Pryor, Ross and Canzoneri.

I'd give Pedroza every chance against Barrera and Morales at featherweight. A comfortable all-time top ten man at the weight - it was a hell of a scalp for McGuigan to claim.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You said he was fighting on ITV prior to Kelley which was false and you also said it was his first UK PPV fight which was false, for an apparent genius you're a bit slow.

That had nothing to do the discussion. As I said a classic straw man.

I never said he only fought on ITV but it is a fact that he fought on ITV. I will never forget the dislike Reg Gutteridge had for him.

I am also using my memory of the time whereas you are googling your little heart out. You're the type of guy who ruins pub banter by pulling out his smart phone any time a fact is being debated.

I've watched every single one of his fights Haz so better luck next time and that retort is getting quite pathetic.

He was hurting Sanchez every single time he hurt him but with his rather wild style he was susceptible to flash knockdowns but at no point was he truly hurt in that fight. The Soto fight was truly horrific i'll agree there, foul filled from start to finish but overall your summation is pretty poor and one sided. I think you may be confusing the Alicea fight with the Medina one.

I'm going to say it but if Pedroza is a great fighter despite not facing the best of his era then Hamed is too, one cleared out his division the other didn't.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I've watched every single one of his fights Haz so better luck next time and that retort is getting quite pathetic.

He was hurting Sanchez every single time he hurt him but with his rather wild style he was susceptible to flash knockdowns but at no point was he truly hurt in that fight. The Soto fight was truly horrific i'll agree there, foul filled from start to finish but overall your summation is pretty poor and one sided. I think you may be confusing the Alicea fight with the Medina one.

I'm going to say it but if Pedroza is a great fighter despite not facing the best of his era then Hamed is too, one cleared out his division the other didn't.

I'm not confusing anything: Medina - a powder puff puncher - almost put his lights out late on. Every time he fought in the US, they were left thinking 'is that it?'

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You said he was fighting on ITV prior to Kelley which was false and you also said it was his first UK PPV fight which was false, for an apparent genius you're a bit slow.

That had nothing to do the discussion. As I said a classic straw man.

I never said he only fought on ITV but it is a fact that he fought on ITV.  I will never forget the dislike Reg Gutteridge had for him.

I am also using my memory of the time whereas you are googling your little heart out.  You're the type of guy who ruins pub banter by pulling out his smart phone any time a fact is being debated.

You've been proven wrong so you're resorting to petty insults, no googling I just remember the fights involving the guy who got me into the sport, you on the other hand are trying to discredit him any way you can. Besides which isn't the point of the internet as this is an online forum to check what you're talking about and to prove you wrong again he was on Sky Sports for each and every on of his world title fights. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I've watched every single one of his fights Haz so better luck next time and that retort is getting quite pathetic.

He was hurting Sanchez every single time he hurt him but with his rather wild style he was susceptible to flash knockdowns but at no point was he truly hurt in that fight. The Soto fight was truly horrific i'll agree there, foul filled from start to finish but overall your summation is pretty poor and one sided. I think you may be confusing the Alicea fight with the Medina one.

I'm going to say it but if Pedroza is a great fighter despite not facing the best of his era then Hamed is too, one cleared out his division the other didn't.

I'm not confusing anything: Medina - a powder puff puncher - almost put his lights out late on. Every time he fought in the US, they were left thinking 'is that it?'

You do need to enlighten me when in that fight Medina almost knocked him out unless taking a clean shot constitutes almost getting your lights put out but either way you're talking crap.

https://youtu.be/XWo5CaVViso

30 mins in. Bloody lucky the ref stepped in and then the bell rang.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Which historian in their right mind would rank Pedroza higher than Barrera, I really would like to know, Kieran Mulvaney for instance has Barrera at 43 in his top 50 but no place for Pedroza.

As a featherweight? I would. Most experts would.

Frankly Haz who gives a toss where Morales and Barrera rank as Featherweights, every man and his dog know the pair are better than Pedroza. Pacquiao aren't exactly going to be that high at 140lbs but we all know they're better than Cervantes, Locche, Hatton, Cotto, Tzuyu and anyone else you care to mention outside of Chavez, Pryor, Ross and Canzoneri.

I'd give Pedroza every chance against Barrera and Morales at featherweight. A comfortable all-time top ten man at the weight - it was a hell of a scalp for McGuigan to claim.

Myself I wouldn't give him much of a chance, a huge over rated fighter purely because of the number of defences he made against a lot of crap apart from Lockridge. He didn't face Sanchez, he didn't face Gomez and he didn't face Nelson, that is a big huge gaping hole in his record.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You said he was fighting on ITV prior to Kelley which was false and you also said it was his first UK PPV fight which was false, for an apparent genius you're a bit slow.

That had nothing to do the discussion. As I said a classic straw man.

I never said he only fought on ITV but it is a fact that he fought on ITV.  I will never forget the dislike Reg Gutteridge had for him.

I am also using my memory of the time whereas you are googling your little heart out.  You're the type of guy who ruins pub banter by pulling out his smart phone any time a fact is being debated.

You've been proven wrong so you're resorting to petty insults, no googling I just remember the fights involving the guy who got me into the sport, you on the other hand are trying to discredit him any way you can. Besides which isn't the point of the internet as this is an online forum to check what you're talking about and to prove you wrong again he was on Sky Sports for each and every on of his world title fights. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

He moved to Sky. He fought Belcastro on ITV for the European title. It is the fight I made my mind up that Hamed was a horrible little cretin that needed teaching a lesson. The manner in which Barrera completely humiliated him by lifting him up and bouncing off a turnbuckle was complete catharsis.

The point I made is that Hamed made his big money in the States where he received HBO and Sky PPV. You countered that by pulling out a Forbes article from 1997. Did you remember reading that magazine article 17 years ago????..........

................................Of course you didn't, you did what you always do and started googling to inform yourself. I don't need to google to know what Hamed did. I was there watching it, I'm older than Naz.

You don't help yourself as it's clear you know very little and any information you offer is based what you have just googled in the last 2 mins.

I don't need to insult you..........I pity you.

hazharrison wrote:https://youtu.be/XWo5CaVViso

30 mins in. Bloody lucky the ref stepped in and then the bell rang.

I'm not seeing where he almost had his lights put out Haz, he gets hit with a good shot, his legs buckle slightly and he's then moving around with no ill effects, interesting that you'll use that against Hamed but not Galento against your favourite.

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You said he was fighting on ITV prior to Kelley which was false and you also said it was his first UK PPV fight which was false, for an apparent genius you're a bit slow.

That had nothing to do the discussion. As I said a classic straw man.

I never said he only fought on ITV but it is a fact that he fought on ITV.  I will never forget the dislike Reg Gutteridge had for him.

I am also using my memory of the time whereas you are googling your little heart out.  You're the type of guy who ruins pub banter by pulling out his smart phone any time a fact is being debated.

You've been proven wrong so you're resorting to petty insults, no googling I just remember the fights involving the guy who got me into the sport, you on the other hand are trying to discredit him any way you can. Besides which isn't the point of the internet as this is an online forum to check what you're talking about and to prove you wrong again he was on Sky Sports for each and every on of his world title fights. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

He moved to Sky. He fought Belcastro on ITV for the European title. It is the fight I made my mind up that Hamed was a horrible little cretin that needed teaching a lesson.  The manner in which Barrera completely humiliated him by lifting him up and bouncing off a turnbuckle was complete catharsis.

The point I made is that Hamed made his big money in the States where he received HBO and Sky PPV.  You countered that by pulling out a Forbes article from 1997.  Did you remember reading that magazine article 17 years ago????..........

................................Of course you didn't, you did what you always do and started googling to inform yourself. I don't need to google to know what Hamed did. I was there watching it, I'm older than Naz.

You don't help yourself as it's clear you know very little and any information you offer is based what you have just googled in the last 2 mins.  

I don't need to insult you..........I pity you.

What you're saying is it's better to make up a load of crap than double check yourself?

It's not as if Hamed was hidden away from public view, i'd assume almost everyone on here is old enough to have seen his fights live so you're not exactly providing insight that nobody knows, you're just spouting a load of BS.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Which historian in their right mind would rank Pedroza higher than Barrera, I really would like to know, Kieran Mulvaney for instance has Barrera at 43 in his top 50 but no place for Pedroza.

As a featherweight? I would. Most experts would.

Frankly Haz who gives a toss where Morales and Barrera rank as Featherweights, every man and his dog know the pair are better than Pedroza. Pacquiao aren't exactly going to be that high at 140lbs but we all know they're better than Cervantes, Locche, Hatton, Cotto, Tzuyu and anyone else you care to mention outside of Chavez, Pryor, Ross and Canzoneri.

I'd give Pedroza every chance against Barrera and Morales at featherweight. A comfortable all-time top ten man at the weight - it was a hell of a scalp for McGuigan to claim.

Myself I wouldn't give him much of a chance, a huge over rated fighter purely because of the number of defences he made against a lot of crap apart from Lockridge. He didn't face Sanchez, he didn't face Gomez and he didn't face Nelson, that is a big huge gaping hole in his record.

LaPorte? Olivares? Pedroza's opposition was solid in the main. Barrera and Morales were better super bantams and I don't imagine Barrera's change in style (to classic boxer) matches up well with Pedroza.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:https://youtu.be/XWo5CaVViso

30 mins in. Bloody lucky the ref stepped in and then the bell rang.

I'm not seeing where he almost had his lights put out Haz, he gets hit with a good shot, his legs buckle slightly and he's then moving around with no ill effects, interesting that you'll use that against Hamed but not Galento against your favourite.

That you don't see the obvious doesn't surprise me. Hamed was badly hurt by a non- puncher due to his awful defence that left him wanting once he moved into world class.

While his power allowed him to overcome faded men such as Kelley (just), Vasquez and Johnson - he looked garbage against any top class fighter who still had something left. McCullough - a bantamweight - had him on the run late in their fight while Barrera outclassed him.

He was a good fighter with exceptional power. Wonderfully exciting and a champion for a number of years. A great fighter, though? I don't think he was.

It's safe to say Olivares was finished by the time he fought Pedroza but no doubt he was still a world class all conquering marvel that had no equal. Laporte was a solid fighter but no more than that, any top level boxer would expect to beat him, he was a tough SOB but he was no different to Medina really, just happened to lose to a better class of boxer.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:https://youtu.be/XWo5CaVViso

30 mins in. Bloody lucky the ref stepped in and then the bell rang.

I'm not seeing where he almost had his lights put out Haz, he gets hit with a good shot, his legs buckle slightly and he's then moving around with no ill effects, interesting that you'll use that against Hamed but not Galento against your favourite.

That you don't see the obvious doesn't surprise me. Hamed was badly hurt by a non- puncher due to his awful defence that left him wanting once he moved into world class.

While his power allowed him to overcome faded men such as Kelley (just), Vasquez and Johnson - he looked garbage against any top class fighter who still had something left. McCullough - a bantamweight - had him on the run late in their fight while Barrera outclassed him.

He was a good fighter with exceptional power. Wonderfully exciting and a champion for a number of years. A great fighter, though? I don't think he was.

How did he just get past Kelley, he seperated him from his senses for christ sake, he was knocked down 'three' times and saying he was knocked down is a very loose use of the term. Kelley was down hard three times and we're not talking about a fight he almost lost because he didn't.

The fact he kept winning and winning is no coincidence and relying on power when you're that devastating isn't luck, Alicea hurt him more than Medina did but as he always did he ended it the next round.

Losing to Barrera harms his standing of course it does but it's as if you're trying to make out his whole reign was a struggle that relied on lucky punches, it didn't, he fought a high risk strategy that occasionally got him in trouble. It's no different to Marquez being a yo-yo that could never beat a boxer.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's safe to say Olivares was finished by the time he fought Pedroza but no doubt he was still a world class all conquering marvel that had no equal. Laporte was a solid fighter but no more than that, any top level boxer would expect to beat him, he was a tough SOB but he was no different to Medina really, just happened to lose to a better class of boxer.

Juan LaPorte was no different to Manuel Medina?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You said he was fighting on ITV prior to Kelley which was false and you also said it was his first UK PPV fight which was false, for an apparent genius you're a bit slow.

That had nothing to do the discussion. As I said a classic straw man.

I never said he only fought on ITV but it is a fact that he fought on ITV.  I will never forget the dislike Reg Gutteridge had for him.

I am also using my memory of the time whereas you are googling your little heart out.  You're the type of guy who ruins pub banter by pulling out his smart phone any time a fact is being debated.

You've been proven wrong so you're resorting to petty insults, no googling I just remember the fights involving the guy who got me into the sport, you on the other hand are trying to discredit him any way you can. Besides which isn't the point of the internet as this is an online forum to check what you're talking about and to prove you wrong again he was on Sky Sports for each and every on of his world title fights. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

He moved to Sky. He fought Belcastro on ITV for the European title. It is the fight I made my mind up that Hamed was a horrible little cretin that needed teaching a lesson.  The manner in which Barrera completely humiliated him by lifting him up and bouncing off a turnbuckle was complete catharsis.

The point I made is that Hamed made his big money in the States where he received HBO and Sky PPV.  You countered that by pulling out a Forbes article from 1997.  Did you remember reading that magazine article 17 years ago????..........

................................Of course you didn't, you did what you always do and started googling to inform yourself. I don't need to google to know what Hamed did. I was there watching it, I'm older than Naz.

You don't help yourself as it's clear you know very little and any information you offer is based what you have just googled in the last 2 mins.  

I don't need to insult you..........I pity you.

What you're saying is it's better to make up a load of crap than double check yourself?

It's not as if Hamed was hidden away from public view, i'd assume almost everyone on here is old enough to have seen his fights live so you're not exactly providing insight that nobody knows, you're just spouting a load of BS.

I didn't make up a load of crap. I said Hamed made his big money in America which he did.

You then started googling quicker than a prostitutes knickers going down to try and discredit me.

The fact is my point still stands and all you have done is create a load of spin. Pure straw man tactics.

You really are a sad man. You get called out on your Boxrec'ing by practically everybody on the site as it's clear you have no detailed knowledge and just use the internet to try and make yourself look informed. It is patently obvious you know fu*k all about whatever the subject is.

Do you have a problem with your ego, or can you not stand to be wrong? Whatever it is you come across as a weirdo.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's safe to say Olivares was finished by the time he fought Pedroza but no doubt he was still a world class all conquering marvel that had no equal. Laporte was a solid fighter but no more than that, any top level boxer would expect to beat him, he was a tough SOB but he was no different to Medina really, just happened to lose to a better class of boxer.

Juan LaPorte was no different to Manuel Medina?

10 minutes and no reply............his keyboard must be on fire at this stage.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:https://youtu.be/XWo5CaVViso

30 mins in. Bloody lucky the ref stepped in and then the bell rang.

I'm not seeing where he almost had his lights put out Haz, he gets hit with a good shot, his legs buckle slightly and he's then moving around with no ill effects, interesting that you'll use that against Hamed but not Galento against your favourite.

That you don't see the obvious doesn't surprise me. Hamed was badly hurt by a non- puncher due to his awful defence that left him wanting once he moved into world class.

While his power allowed him to overcome faded men such as Kelley (just), Vasquez and Johnson - he looked garbage against any top class fighter who still had something left. McCullough - a bantamweight - had him on the run late in their fight while Barrera outclassed him.

He was a good fighter with exceptional power. Wonderfully exciting and a champion for a number of years. A great fighter, though? I don't think he was.

How did he just get past Kelley, he seperated him from his senses for christ sake, he was knocked down 'three' times and saying he was knocked down is a very loose use of the term. Kelley was down hard three times and we're not talking about a fight he almost lost because he didn't.

The fact he kept winning and winning is no coincidence and relying on power when you're that devastating isn't luck, Alicea hurt him more than Medina did but as he always did he ended it the next round.

Losing to Barrera harms his standing of course it does but it's as if you're trying to make out his whole reign was a struggle that relied on lucky punches, it didn't, he fought a high risk strategy that occasionally got him in trouble. It's no different to Marquez being a yo-yo that could never beat a boxer.

I'm sure Marquez beat Casamayor and Barrera?

Your generalising is naive bordering on ignorant. Hamed's defence was so poor he struggled to live up to his billing in the US. America was never overly impressed with Hamed - seen as an exciting up-and-down fighter rather than the master boxer he fancied himself to be.

So I should just make up a load of old crap like you then Strongy because that proves your detailed knowledge of the sport so well. I have no real interest in much of what you say because you do frankly know nothing and then resort to talking about your Billionaire 'friends' in an attempt to back up your point.

It's almost as if we're talking about something that happened before the dawn of time, Hamed retired just over a decade ago it's not as if it's a subject that's not fresh in the memory.

For instance I know Hamed fought on Box Office because I paid for the fights, I haven't needed to jump on google to know that, unlike you i've remembered the actual facts.

The WBO was struggling for acceptance in the mid 90's but Hamed alongside De La Hoya helped it gain recognition, I wrote that exact same thing back in a debate about Oscar many years ago. I haven't suddenly jumped on google to look up ex WBO champions whereas you'll create lie after lie and then resort to your usual childish tactics repeating the same old put downs.

The start of Hamed's demise began when he fought Kelley. Going from memory here on this fact after a few beers so please google to verify, Hamed split from Ingle soon after he went to the States and was never the same fighter. At the time people said Naz needed Ingle because he created Hamed's style and nobody else train Naz that way. Naz was just too unorthodox to adept or change.

The fact Hamed was facing much better fighters was also a factor.

One thing Hamed was not was a master boxer, his greatest asset was not knowing what he was going to do so his opponent had no idea either. He lost his biggest fight but bringing up fights that he won without any controversy is absurd, his power and unorthodox style more often than not got him out of jail.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:So I should just make up a load of old crap like you then Strongy because that proves your detailed knowledge of the sport so well. I have no real interest in much of what you say because you do frankly know nothing and then resort to talking about your Billionaire 'friends' in an attempt to back up your point.

It's almost as if we're talking about something that happened before the dawn of time, Hamed retired just over a decade ago it's not as if it's a subject that's not fresh in the memory.

For instance I know Hamed fought on Box Office because I paid for the fights, I haven't needed to jump on google to know that, unlike you i've remembered the actual facts.

The WBO was struggling for acceptance in the mid 90's but Hamed alongside De La Hoya helped it gain recognition, I wrote that exact same thing back in a debate about Oscar many years ago. I haven't suddenly jumped on google to look up ex WBO champions whereas you'll create lie after lie and then resort to your usual childish tactics repeating the same old put downs.

You weren't old enough to buy those fights - come on man! You're barely out of nappies and most of your "opinions" blatantly come from googling fighters and their records.

Strongback wrote:The start of Hamed's demise began when he fought Kelley. Going from memory here on this fact after a few beers so please google to verify, Hamed split from Ingle soon after he went to the States and was never the same fighter. At the time people said Naz needed Ingle because he created Hamed's style and nobody else train Naz that way.  Naz was just too unorthodox to adept or change.

The fact Hamed was facing much better fighters was also a factor.

Kelley had two things going for him in that fight, he was a southpaw and he had superb balance but after the second knockdown that all went out the window. Got the feeling he felt he needed to end the fight there and then, was lunging in a lot more and got clocked with a left hook bang on the chin, good night. The moment he was boxing well but still got put down the fight was over, he was getting hurt each time he went down but Hamed was open but not really getting hurt. It was an exciting fight but in hindsight I don't see how Kelley could have won.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:One thing Hamed was not was a master boxer, his greatest asset was not knowing what he was going to do so his opponent had no idea either. He lost his biggest fight but bringing up fights that he won without any controversy is absurd, his power and unorthodox style more often than not got him out of jail.

Why are you attempting to lecture me on what type of fighter Hamed was? I watched him from the Belcastro fight on - I haven't just YouTubed him.

Cliched rubbish that.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:So I should just make up a load of old crap like you then Strongy because that proves your detailed knowledge of the sport so well. I have no real interest in much of what you say because you do frankly know nothing and then resort to talking about your Billionaire 'friends' in an attempt to back up your point.

It's almost as if we're talking about something that happened before the dawn of time, Hamed retired just over a decade ago it's not as if it's a subject that's not fresh in the memory.

For instance I know Hamed fought on Box Office because I paid for the fights, I haven't needed to jump on google to know that, unlike you i've remembered the actual facts.

The WBO was struggling for acceptance in the mid 90's but Hamed alongside De La Hoya helped it gain recognition, I wrote that exact same thing back in a debate about Oscar many years ago. I haven't suddenly jumped on google to look up ex WBO champions whereas you'll create lie after lie and then resort to your usual childish tactics repeating the same old put downs.

You weren't old enough to buy those fights - come on man! You're barely out of nappies and most of your "opinions" blatantly come from googling fighters and their records.

All your opinions on the other hand come from articles you've googled, those in glass houses, when you've found a good Eugene Hart fight to watch do let me know.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:So I should just make up a load of old crap like you then Strongy because that proves your detailed knowledge of the sport so well. I have no real interest in much of what you say because you do frankly know nothing and then resort to talking about your Billionaire 'friends' in an attempt to back up your point.

It's almost as if we're talking about something that happened before the dawn of time, Hamed retired just over a decade ago it's not as if it's a subject that's not fresh in the memory.

For instance I know Hamed fought on Box Office because I paid for the fights, I haven't needed to jump on google to know that, unlike you i've remembered the actual facts.

The WBO was struggling for acceptance in the mid 90's but Hamed alongside De La Hoya helped it gain recognition, I wrote that exact same thing back in a debate about Oscar many years ago. I haven't suddenly jumped on google to look up ex WBO champions whereas you'll create lie after lie and then resort to your usual childish tactics repeating the same old put downs.

I don't claim to be a historian or a book man.

The most knowledgeable guy that ever posted on 606 forgot more about boxing over his breakfast than any of the historians we have on here. His name was the Fight Doctor.

I learned about boxing by sparring with Eugene McEnaney when we were kids, he became a multiple Irish senior boxing champion. He hit me with ever punch from every angle that could be thrown. I sparred with 4 or 5 Irish champions. I was taught how to properly throw punches by the Liam Moore who'd been in the game half a century when I walked through his door.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:So I should just make up a load of old crap like you then Strongy because that proves your detailed knowledge of the sport so well. I have no real interest in much of what you say because you do frankly know nothing and then resort to talking about your Billionaire 'friends' in an attempt to back up your point.

It's almost as if we're talking about something that happened before the dawn of time, Hamed retired just over a decade ago it's not as if it's a subject that's not fresh in the memory.

For instance I know Hamed fought on Box Office because I paid for the fights, I haven't needed to jump on google to know that, unlike you i've remembered the actual facts.

The WBO was struggling for acceptance in the mid 90's but Hamed alongside De La Hoya helped it gain recognition, I wrote that exact same thing back in a debate about Oscar many years ago. I haven't suddenly jumped on google to look up ex WBO champions whereas you'll create lie after lie and then resort to your usual childish tactics repeating the same old put downs.

You weren't old enough to buy those fights - come on man! You're barely out of nappies and most of your "opinions" blatantly come from googling fighters and their records.

All your opinions on the other hand come from articles you've googled, those in glass houses, when you've found a good Eugene Hart fight to watch do let me know.

Articles I've read over the last 25 years, books I've read, fights I've attended, fights I've watched, fighters/trainers I've spoken to.....

What an embarrassment to have formed opinions from that!

https://youtu.be/M_lJKInqhtU

Anyone who claims 19:23 isn't a knockdown isn't anyone to be taken very seriously.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:So I should just make up a load of old crap like you then Strongy because that proves your detailed knowledge of the sport so well. I have no real interest in much of what you say because you do frankly know nothing and then resort to talking about your Billionaire 'friends' in an attempt to back up your point.

It's almost as if we're talking about something that happened before the dawn of time, Hamed retired just over a decade ago it's not as if it's a subject that's not fresh in the memory.

For instance I know Hamed fought on Box Office because I paid for the fights, I haven't needed to jump on google to know that, unlike you i've remembered the actual facts.

The WBO was struggling for acceptance in the mid 90's but Hamed alongside De La Hoya helped it gain recognition, I wrote that exact same thing back in a debate about Oscar many years ago. I haven't suddenly jumped on google to look up ex WBO champions whereas you'll create lie after lie and then resort to your usual childish tactics repeating the same old put downs.

You weren't old enough to buy those fights - come on man! You're barely out of nappies and most of your "opinions" blatantly come from googling fighters and their records.

All your opinions on the other hand come from articles you've googled, those in glass houses, when you've found a good Eugene Hart fight to watch do let me know.

Here you go dip5hit:

https://youtu.be/8o0P5kEu9O8

https://youtu.be/eGehiqH7SBQ

https://youtu.be/ozogMMvMdg0

https://youtu.be/ro39x9auQdI

https://youtu.be/PfZIwtydlhk

https://youtu.be/1Hy5xA-9j6c

https://youtu.be/nFvD5NEYtCI

My god just reading this thread is exactly the reason I dont post much anymore. Be.l.lends from the old 606 site are getting worse with age. Alot of folk on here need to take a long hard look at themselves.

[/quote]
I don't claim to be a historian or a book man.  

The most knowledgeable guy that ever posted on 606 forgot more about boxing over his breakfast than any of the historians we have on here. His name was the Fight Doctor.

I learned about boxing by sparring with Eugene McEnaney when we were kids, he became a multiple Irish senior boxing champion.  He hit me with ever punch from every angle that could be thrown.  I sparred with 4 or 5 Irish champions. I was taught how to properly throw punches by the Liam Moore who'd been in the game half a century when I walked through his door.[/quote]

I smell bull crap

I don't claim to be a historian or a book man.  

The most knowledgeable guy that ever posted on 606 forgot more about boxing over his breakfast than any of the historians we have on here. His name was the Fight Doctor.

I learned about boxing by sparring with Eugene McEnaney when we were kids, he became a multiple Irish senior boxing champion.  He hit me with ever punch from every angle that could be thrown.  I sparred with 4 or 5 Irish champions. I was taught how to properly throw punches by the Liam Moore who'd been in the game half a century when I walked through his door.[/quote]

I smell bull crap [/quote]


You can't believe somebody who is into boxing trained in an amateur boxing club growing up. It's hardly a stretch.

Aside from the bickering. Can we agree hamed kelley was a cracking fight while it lasted. Without having to google anything. Just looking for a bit of common ground. A group hug.

Nope, don't believe you in the slightest.

Whenever it looks like your going to be wrong you have some story to back up your claim or to try and make yourself look good.

Wasn't the Hamed/Kelly fight the one where it was thought that maybe the pair of them would go hell for leather to just try and knock the other one out?

Haito wrote:My god just reading this thread is exactly the reason I dont post much anymore. Be.l.lends from the old 606 site are getting worse with age. Alot of folk on here need to take a long hard look at themselves.

This.

Haito wrote:My god just reading this thread is exactly the reason I dont post much anymore. Be.l.lends from the old 606 site are getting worse with age. Alot of folk on here need to take a long hard look at themselves.

I wouldn't read too much into it. I take it with a pinch of salt as I am sure most do.

You are the be11end you idiot.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You are the be11end you idiot.

I didn't refer to anybody in particular in my post, more a general comment.  You seem a bit sensitive.

Rein it in for christ sake, the same BS post after post, im bored of it as im sure everyone else. Either debate the points at hand or don't bother at all.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Rein it in for christ sake, the same BS post after post, im bored of it as im sure everyone else. Either debate the points at hand or don't bother at all.

You have a pop at me on a point nothing to do with boxing and it's my fault.

Twisting and turning, that's all you ever do. Trying to subvert the debate.

I don't like Hamed, I haven't liked him for 20 years. I have my view on this no matter how much crap you throw against the wall.