In Defence of Prince Naseem Hamed

Have seen a lot of criticism of Prince Naseem Hamed kicking around these boards recently and as both a Sheffield lad and a committed Naz fan felt I could not let the criticism pass without launching some sort of defence or corrective. Now the main thrust of the criticism is that Naz was all style, no substance, fought bums and lost the first time he stepped up. Whilst I obviously don’t agree with these views, they are views I can understand because it is fair to say he lost to the best fighter he faced. However I still believe this sells Naseem short and that his talent, achievements and opposition short.

Like many I am sure my exposure to Naseem came when he wrestled the European Bantamweight title away from Vincenzo Belcastro. Whilst this win is easily looked past is worth remembering Belvastro was hugely experienced and many an expert was saying this was too much too soon for Naz, predictions he made look laughable when the fight started, putting Belcastro over in the first and basically beating him as he pleased on the way to a shut out win. After adding the WBC international super bantam weight title and racking up a couple of defences he was given a shot at WBO world featherweight champion Steve Robinson. Now whilst I am not going to insult anybodies intelligence by proclaiming Robinson a great he was a genuine world champion with seven defences to his name so was clearly not the sacrificial lamb Naz’ critics would oft have you believe. Am sure we are all familiar enough with the fight to know Naz won it at a canter.

After a couple of defences, including beating the previously unbeaten Daniel Alicea Naz faced former two time world title holder Manuel Medina. Whilst this was far from his best performance Naz still had too much for Medina. Should not be overlooked that Medina went on to win versions of world titles a further three times after the Naz defeat which would suggest a decent fighter with plenty left in the tank at the time of the Naz defeat. After one further defence Naz faced IBF champion Tom Johnson finishing him in 8 rounds to unify two of the featherweight belts. After a few more defences including a stunning win over well respected contender Jose Badillo and his thrilling US debut over Kevin Kelley, Naz faced Wilfredo Vazquez. Until recently Wilfredo had been WBA champion, a title he never lost in the ring but was stripped of it for choosing to meet Naseem. As with so many others Vazquez was despatched before the final bell, meaning but for politics Naz would not have annexed three of the four belts. Would probably be fair to say Johnson and Vazquez may have seen slightly better days but they were world champions and far from the walking corpses some would have you believe.

Further defences against the teak tough Wayne McCullough and future world champion Paul Ingle led to yet another unification against Cesar Soto, a fight Naz yet again won, but unusually did have to go the distance to do. This would have meant that but for politics Naz would have unified all four major belts, a feat that even now is not particularly common. For me when one considers the number of champions Naz beat such as Soto, Johnson and Vazquez and the number of former or future champions such as McCullough, Ingle and Bungu I simply cannot accept Naz’ opposition was as poor as it is often portrayed. For me they were the best the division had to offer, and we can ask little more of a champion than this.
However all this is not to say Naseem’s career is exempt from criticism. The performance and preparation for Barrera was obviously inexcusable and him leaving the sport with a whimper at an age where he was young enough to come back obviously leaves a lot to be desired. However for me at his best he was brilliant, unorthodox, quick handed, difficult to hit clean and with chilling power in each hand. Even my levels of nuthuggery will fall short of proclaiming him an all time great but at his best he poses anyone some questions and his abilities and opposition deserve better than they are often given on here.

Excellent article, Jeff, and one I've been waiting for ever since the scandalous abuse aimed at Naz's level of opposition on a thread yesterday!

As you say, he beat the best at his weight at the time, and in utterly convincing, and sometimes devastating, fashion. It is a crying shame that he threw in the towel when he did, in what could have been his prime years at the age of 28. Reasons for his defeat to Barrera have been discussed endlessly across the years, but to this day I refuse to believe that Barrera beats any version of Naz, and a Naz with the focus and will to succeed that he carried just a year or two previously would in all likelihood have given MAB more than he could handle (bookies odds before the fight would also suggest this).

A cracking fighter, cracking entertainer, and the sort of character that it'd be nice to have around boxing now. Single handedly brought the 'little people' to the casual fans attention, and this alone is something that Naz should be remembered and thanked for.

I learned the lesson of ' be careful what you wish for ' with Naz.

From the moment I first set eyes on him and heard him speak to the night he lost to Barrera I couldn't bear him. I also never, ever, missed one of his fights. Joy to watch in the ring, marvellously unorthodox, outrageously gifted, and with dynamite in either hand. I wanted him sat on his backside every time I watched him, but I was still awed by his talent.

After he came unstuck against MAB and disappeared I found myself missing him as much as I'd missed any fighter since Ali.

Could have and should have been an ATG, in my opinion.

After he came unstuck against MAB and disappeared I found myself missing him as much as I'd missed any fighter since Ali.
_______________________________________________________

Will come as absolutely no shock to discover I agree with every word of that Windy. Even when I see him interviewed now at ringside I find myself missing him. Totally agree with anyone who says some of what he said was graceless and totally lacking in class but he seemed to get away with it. Charisma is a difficult thing to define but whatever it was he had it for me. Could listen to him all day no matter how outlandish, however to listen to someone like Degale trying similar has me reaching for the mute button within seconds.

I was the same with Ali, jeff.

Even when he was going through his obnoxious stage I couldn't help but be fascinated by his presence and charisma.

Indeed, Windy, he certainly had the attributes required. A thrill to watch, and with the right mental attitude he could have been even bigger in the sport of boxing than he was before his demise. Nobody in and around his weight division would have had an easy night against the Naz on display vs Robinson et al, it is rare you see a fighter with all 3 of speed, power and chin.

I also miss his ring entrances, surely the best there has ever been.

Great article Rowley.

He certainly does attract an awful lot of flak for someone who really was a terrific fighter. Maybe his abrasive attitude rubbed too many people up the wrong way. I think you have comprehensively summed up his career in your post and I especially glad you mentioned the Badillo fight as I was there! Sheffield Arena 1997. I thought it was one his best performances and he really "boxed" in a far more traditional style than we were used to seeing. I remember him busting Badillo up with his often under used jab and breaking the guys spirit. Also the night Calzaghe beat Eubank for his first World belt.

The MAB loss will always be a stick to beat him with but he did have some solid names on his record, more so than Khan, Haye and Burns.

Great little fighter with dynamite in his fists, and a real sense of humour. Half the stuff he said was clearly tongue in cheek and, as already mentioned by FoF, the sort of character who I, for one, would be happy to have back.

Small world Tino, I was also at the Badillo fight, was cleaning up some old magazines and the like yesterday and I found the programme.

Consider me incredibly envious that you got to attend a Naz fight live.

In defence of Naseem, without him, Greggs wouldn't be half as successful as they are now. Course back then it was Thurston's (one for the kids there).

Not sure i've ever said his oppo was poor, but i have said he quite simply beat a decent list of alphabet/future alphabet champs and simply got his bottom handed to him by the first real true decent (and MAB was certainly decent) he faced, thus destroying all the hype he was the "next this next that" etc.

Can't make excuses about mental strength, as the great sportsmen don't reach the pinnacle (they may well fall from there once they've arrived) of their sport without having a mind and balls made of steel.

Criminal how he's rated so highly based on his opposition which was nothing better than a list of alphabet champs!

Not sure i've ever said his oppo was poor,
____________________________________________

Wasn't directed at you Coxy

Re: In Defence of Prince Naseem Hamed

----



I thought he'd taken out another rambler for a minute there.....

i would have loved to see he him in with the pac man at that weight. not saying he would win but his style would make for a amazing fight. always liked naz, been a sheffield lad myself, such a shame he give it up like he did, would love to see what a mentally focused naz could have done.

he did mention making a come back (about a year ago) but he has literally balooned in size and now in a trainer, so doubt that will ever happen.

He mentions a comeback everyear but he is only ever joking, making sure the public don't forget about him etc.

Have him the second best Brit of modern times.....fought some quality and delivered across the pond....

He thrived on his confidence though and when he was exposed..there was nothing left......

Never came back because he doubted himself.........

lot's of talent but lost his confidence..

Wondeful entertainer and very good talent. He went out when it was right for him. Boxing is a hard sport. Just dont have him driving anything other than gold clubs.

Phenom living in Sheffield I hear the comeback rumours a lot, although as they become even more fanciful they are heard less and less. My take on it is around 2005 he really considered it and may have even been back in the gym but think given his weight and time out of the ring these visits to the gym have bought home to him how hard it would be to do any kind of comeback and the realities of the situation have stopped it ever happening.

I still live in hope though

rowley wrote:Small world Tino, I was also at the Badillo fight, was cleaning up some old magazines and the like yesterday and I found the programme.

Were you the unhelpful chap that sent me the wrong way, clearly on purpose, when I asked for directions to the Arena?

A few of us were staying in a Travelodge type place on the outskirts of the city and decided to walk to the arena. It was only after walking for half an hour and not seeing any signs, we decided that the guy was having his own bit of fun at our expense. Git.

HumanWindmill wrote:I learned the lesson of ' be careful what you wish for ' with Naz.

From the moment I first set eyes on him and heard him speak to the night he lost to Barrera I couldn't bear him. I also never, ever, missed one of his fights. Joy to watch in the ring, marvellously unorthodox, outrageously gifted, and with dynamite in either hand. I wanted him sat on his backside every time I watched him, but I was still awed by his talent.

After he came unstuck against MAB and disappeared I found myself missing him as much as I'd missed any fighter since Ali.

Could have and should have been an ATG, in my opinion.

His interview after the Augie Sanchez fight is what turned me against him, wishing someone would wipe that smirk of his face.

Little did I know I would get my wish the very next fight but I do feel people dismiss his record as there is no Mayweather, JMM, Morales type wins on there.

Only has himself to blame.

I can remeber seeing him in the dressing room after the fight and Lewis was saying "everyone loses at somepoint, its how we bounce back" with Naz nodding in agreement. Ironic haha

shame as well as he didn't embaress himself agains MAB, i think he could have bounced back, maybe even tryed for the rematch.

If Naz did make a comeback, it'd garner plenty of viewers that is for sure!!! Me included!

Eddy he had a rematch clause and in the ring after the fight he made the right noises about exercising it, but alas not. Personally think Naz is not studpid and knew he had regressed in fights before that and probably also knew the reasons, such as cutting corners in training. Personally think it would have taken him too much to mend the bridges with Ingle and really commit to his training again, both of which to me would have been essential were he to stand a chance with Barrera.

I think it depends on the context when discussing Hamed.

I agree with you that the quality of opposition and the accompanying performances indicate he was very good.

However their is only so much mileage you give him for that I think. Losing to the best fighter he faced and his unceremonious exit from the sport coupled with his questionable attitude damages him quite significantly. He never beat an elite fighter and lost to the only one he faced. I dont think he ever showed enough to convince he beats the next level up of guys like the Morales, MAB, JMM, Pacquiaos although obviously the timing of the fights would be crucial. However this is the bracket he is most talked about in context with which is why he causes debate.

But if you look at him outside that context as a regular champion then his reign is good and his opposition solid. He just falls short of the next step up of guys and his loss to MAB and subsequent early exit makes it difficult to place him alongside those guys.

Agree with you Manos, impossible to place him at any higher level thanhe attained as he got fairly well beaten by the only guy he went up against. Can't make a case against the guys you mentioned (and more at the same level around at the time) based on beating some very solid but still alphabet champs (who never exactly achieved greatness themselves).

The guy had no heart. If he did he would've whooped all of them, particularly at that time, Pacquiao.

Naz Pacman would have been a tear up of the highest order. Pacquaio went on to knock the stuffing out of Barrera, so not sure Naz would have whooped him, though he would certainly have had a chance.

Fists of Fury wrote:Naz Pacman would have been a tear up of the highest order. Pacquaio went on to knock the stuffing out of Barrera, so not sure Naz would have whooped him, though he would certainly have had a chance.

Pacquiao was regularly being put on the floor at that stage of his career, as well as being very open. I think the heavy handed Naz would have starched him.

Manny is still not too hard to hit and he was more so back then. Also like all Ingle fighters Naz loved guys who come onto you and Manny would certainly do that. Manny was a totally different fighter in those days and the fight would have been a corker but by no means a gimme for Manny.

Oh of course not, a real pick em, but certainly no roll over for either man.

Have seen a lot of criticism of Prince Naseem Hamed kicking around these boards recently and as both a Sheffield lad and a committed Naz fan felt I could not let the criticism pass without launching some sort of defence or corrective. Now the main thrust of the criticism is that Naz was all style, no substance, fought bums and lost the first time he stepped up. Whilst I obviously don’t agree with these views, they are views I can understand because it is fair to say he lost to the best fighter he faced. However I still believe this sells Naseem short and that his talent, achievements and opposition short.
..................................
The thing is with the British public, they don't like a big headed disrespectful, brash, arrogant all into one person, he had the lot IN ABUNDANCE!. And i don't agree with all this they love a loser cobblers, did we love Benn for being a loser? or being a 2 time world champ and coming back in epic style against McClellan, going to Italy winning world titles. I don't like Naseem, and never have done, what really made me sick about the guy was when he had a big rant at Colin Hart saying he didn't like him, etc Hart's a journalist, he's payed to say how he feels. Also his outburst about McGuigan 'If Barry McGuigan had been around today, or i'd been around in his day i'd of knocked that boy spark out'. Bull, McGuigan was loved, was he a loser? no a WBA featherweight champ who dethroned Pedroza and united Ireland and thrilled fellow Brits. A true champ comes back, Benn when he lost to Watson, Lewis a few times, he chose to eat kebabs, and run people over.

Manny is still not too hard to hit and he was more so back then. Also like all Ingle fighters Naz loved guys who come onto you and Manny would certainly do that. Manny was a totally different fighter in those days and the fight would have been a corker but by no means a gimme for Manny.
.........................
Come on man don't compare him to Pacquiao, do me a favour. I'm not being bias because i like Pacquiao either, but look what Pacquiao did to Barrera, he walked into the ring in 2003 virtually unknown and destroyed him, Naseem was lazy as they come, yeah he had power, but he would be comfortably outworked. Don't mention him with the Pacquiao's, Barrera's Morales'.

Steven_89 wrote:Bull, McGuigan was loved, was he a loser? no a WBA featherweight champ who dethroned Pedroza and united Ireland and thrilled fellow Brits.

McGuigan united Ireland?

I'd have thought that would have been on the news. Someone should tell the government...

I'm not comparing him to Manny now but had the fight happened he would not be fighting the Manny now, he would be fighting the pre Roach still developing Manny. This is a whole different fighter to what we see now. Had a tendency to leap in with punches, did not possess the movement he has now and had an even more poruous defence than he has now. Fell short of making a prediction other than to say at the time the fight was even slightly viable, if indeed it ever was it was no gimme either way.

I'd have thought that would have been on the news. Someone should tell the government...
..................................
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKxoIn6IH7I

cheers

I'm not comparing him to Manny now but had the fight happened he would not be fighting the Manny now, he would be fighting the pre Roach still developing Manny. This is a whole different fighter to what we see now. Had a tendency to leap in with punches, did not possess the movement he has now and had an even more poruous defence than he has now. Fell short of making a prediction other than to say at the time the fight was even slightly viable, if indeed it ever was it was no gimme either way.
...............
Orite, fair enough.

But Naz had poor footwork, poor balance, awful technique in a sense of doing things correctly. Now he was a good fighter and very unorthodox but let's not make out he's Mayweather in the way his technique went

i think its hard to predict who would win a fight between naz and any of the elite fighters at the time, just because naz's style is so awkward and unusual its impossible to predict how anyone would react to it. what i am confident about is that he would have had a least 1-2 upsets if he fought all the best fighters availible at the time.

i think its hard to predict who would win a fight between naz and any of the elite fighters at the time, just because naz's style is so awkward and unusual its impossible to predict how anyone would react to it. what i am confident about is that he would have had a least 1-2 upsets if he fought all the best fighters availible at the time.
.....................
I don;t think his style would of worked with a sublime box-puncher like Morales/Barrera, Barrera was the only world class fighter he ever fought so as you say we don't know.

I think Naz's attitude lost him a lot of fans, more entertaining than Degales choice of words mind you :P
I feel like he's marmite you either love him or hate him, he was an extremely good fighter and if he didn't cut corners he would have mowst certainly given Barrera a better fight. Though the man had a good chin, was only really knocked over due to his balance being all over the place, never did uderstand how he knocke dso many people out with being off balance all the time entertaining in the ring just lacked the discipline and if someone has the speed he's gonna beat him because that hands down style is just far far far too easy to hit for a world class fighter, reason why I think Pacqiaou could have devastated him, though the counter punching of Hamed and power gives him a chance!

Steven_89 wrote:i think its hard to predict who would win a fight between naz and any of the elite fighters at the time, just because naz's style is so awkward and unusual its impossible to predict how anyone would react to it. what i am confident about is that he would have had a least 1-2 upsets if he fought all the best fighters availible at the time.
.....................
I don;t think his style would of worked with a sublime box-puncher like Morales/Barrera, Barrera was the only world class fighter he ever fought so as you say we don't know.

We are re-writing history a bit here. Barrera was considered damaged goods by many in the run up to the fight. Humbled by Jones, beaten by Morales. He was out of contention as a serious player, and Naz was a top five P4P fighter and heavy favourite with the bookies.
The fact that Barrera won catapulted him into the limelight and brought him his reputation

Thoroughly unpleasant guy though....Stories of Carl Thompson threatening to bang him out..Eubank too..

And when I was at a function in yorkshire some security guard threatened to bang him out if he didn't stop being arrogant towards him..

Great fighter but enjoyed his beating..

Great fighter but enjoyed his beating..
...............................
not great imo but agree about enjoying the beating

I was in Cardiff for the Robinson fight.There were enigmatic posters saying "coronation day" plastered about (the prince becoming king).His antics ,such as punching his opponent in time with the crowd chanting "steve-o" ,well they were hard to stomach.I later turned a blind eye to this kind of stuff(eg., saying that one of the opponents may be in danger of leaving the venue in a coffin!)and simply appreciated his uniqueness.
He was the best Brendan Ingle fighter,and B.I "type" fighter. My opinion is that his style of fighting does not lend itself to a long career, small guys who rely on reflexes "age" quicker than all other types.
His last ever bout, Manuel Carvo, illuminated his shortcomings all too starkly.Since the Kelley fight in particular, he was warned many times from the usual roll call of boxing sages to adapt, or burn out. The look in his eye,as well, when Ingle was last in his corner, just said, "I'm not listening".His own worst enemy.Ingle purposefully taught him about the killer punch last, because he knew he would rely on it to the detriment of his other skills.The Carvo fight showed that he had simply stopped learning.
He was booed that night, the fans fed up with his smokescreen, he did not fight positively and seemed deluded in believing he was the Naz of old who could roll away from punches and counter.An unworthy exit, however, for perhaps the most exciting and naturally talented boxer we've produced in the last 40 years.

I remember at the time (of the Barrera fight) he wanted to fight the man that he thought won the Barrera v Morales fight and not the man who actually won it.
As someone said earlier I don't think he disgraced himself against Barrera but at the time I remember thinking that he would have beat Morales( of that time) handily and maybe a hard fight would have given him the realisation that you can' t cut corners in training and still compete with elite fighters.
Naz had all the talent to become as good as Pacquaio is now and may have done with a better mental attitude.

I think the 'be careful what you wish for' distum that Windy pointed out earlier is very apt for Naz. Even at a young age I disliked him on a personal level; but I think his achievements are looking better with time, and when I look back now I realise that he was brilliant for British boxing, and that we were lucky to have him.

Ted 'Kid' Lewis and Jimmy Wilde are usually WAY out there on their own when it comes to Britain's number one and two greats, but Hamed could have been number three had he reached his full potential. As Rowley demonstrated, this idea that he feasted off C-level opposition for years is a load of cobblers. He cleaned out his division as emphatically as any British fighter, post WW2, has done.

As unpopular as I may be for saying it, he clearly outranks Hatton, Benn and McGuigan and was a better all-round fighter than the three of them. Borderline top ten Brit for me (twelfth as I see it right now) but the biggest disappointment is that he could have elevated himself so much higher.

The fact of the matter is that Barrera took Naz to school, and Naz never got over it.
The respected boxing writer Colin Hart has said that he has serious doubts if ever Naz would have beaten another former British world feathertweight Champion, Howard Winstone, simply for the fact that Naz would have had to go looking for him and that Howard had a marvelous defence and lightning reactions, and he thinks Naz wouldn't have been able to land a decent hard punch on him. Interesting thoughts from Colin.

Didn't Colin Hart call Ali v Foreman ,or something...?

George Hotel1895 wrote:The respected boxing writer Colin Hart has said that he has serious doubts if ever Naz would have beaten another former British world feathertweight Champion, Howard Winstone, simply for the fact that Naz would have had to go looking for him and that Howard had a marvelous defence and lightning reactions, and he thinks Naz wouldn't have been able to land a decent hard punch on him. Interesting thoughts from Colin.

Good post and I'd agree, there's every chance that Winstone beats Hamed in a one-off fight. In fact, it's a popular view that Winstone may have beaten all but two or three Featherweights that ever lived had he carried a bigger punch, and I agree that's not too far off the money. One thing I will say, though, is that Winstone had three cracks at overcoming Saldivar, who was easily the best fighter he ever faced. He failed each time. Only by a slither of a margin on a couple of those attempts, but he failed all the same. Puts Hamed's one failure against Barrera in to perspective. Winstone was prone to the odd lapse in concentration (which probably cost him the second of the three Saldivar fights) and if Saldivar's heavy hands from a southpaw stance took advantage of that, then it stands to reason that Hamed's heavy hands from a southpaw stance could, too.

Winstone-Hamed is an absolutely fascinating match up, GeorgeHotel1895. But in terms of career achievements, accomplishments and legacy, it's Hamed all day, every day.

88Chris05 wrote:

George Hotel1895 wrote:The respected boxing writer Colin Hart has said that he has serious doubts if ever Naz would have beaten another former British world feathertweight Champion, Howard Winstone, simply for the fact that Naz would have had to go looking for him and that Howard had a marvelous defence and lightning reactions, and he thinks Naz wouldn't have been able to land a decent hard punch on him. Interesting thoughts from Colin.

Good post and I'd agree, there's every chance that Winstone beats Hamed in a one-off fight. In fact, it's a popular view that Winstone may have beaten all but two or three Featherweights that ever lived had he carried a bigger punch, and I agree that's not too far off the money. One thing I will say, though, is that Winstone had three cracks at overcoming Saldivar, who was easily the best fighter he ever faced. He failed each time. Only by a slither of a margin on a couple of those attempts, but he failed all the same. Puts Hamed's one failure against Barrera in to perspective. Winstone was prone to the odd lapse in concentration (which probably cost him the second of the three Saldivar fights) and if Saldivar's heavy hands from a southpaw stance took advantage of that, then it stands to reason that Hamed's heavy hands from a southpaw stance could, too.

Winstone-Hamed is an absolutely fascinating match up, GeorgeHotel1895. But in terms of career achievements, accomplishments and legacy, it's Hamed all day, every day.

Did Naz ever meet anyone of the calibre of Vincenti Salvidar, and beat them?
Marco Antonio Barrera was a class act, but not in Salvidars class, and as i have said and a majority would agree that he gave Naz a boxing lesson. Heaven forbid what he would have done to Naz, who wasn't the hardest boxer ever to hit.
Anyway the truth of the matter is like in all these cases we will never find know, but its fascinating to discuss, and you have your opinion and i have mine, and we will have to agree to disagree.

Barrera deservedly won but going by the way some people talk about you'd have thought it was a one sided schooling but scores of 115-112 would suggest otherwise