Marquez-Naz? Why did Marquez blatantly refuse to fight Naz? Fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

AdamGB,

Fenster didn't even say Naz would knock him down. I just produced a statistic that shows Naz has a 100% KO record when decking opponents (at 126). This statistic strongly suggests that Naz could have KO'd Marquez had he floored him. I didn't say he would have.

I'm merely revealing what the stats say.

I don't know who would have won between Naz-Marquez. I 100% firmly believe though that Marquez would have still become a GREAT even with a spectaular one-punch KO loss, inside three rounds probably, to the Naz fella. That's all i'm saying.

---

Failster is looking at the facts in an inverted way... as I have said... instead of looking at what Naseem did against C and B level fighters and old men you should be looking at what Marquez did against YOUNG, ELITE or flat out top P4P fighters who put him down.

pac put him down 3 times - he still only got a draw
katsidis put him down - he got TKO'd by JMM
floyd put him down - he still had to box 12 rounds to a UD

All 3 of these fighters are either bigger, stronger, more powerful, or just LEAGUES better than Hamed... of the 3 that put JMM down... only one even managed to get a win out of it. None got a stoppage.

You WANT hamed to be better than he was, so you're looking at it backwards. Same as when people wanted Hatton to beat Floyd and Pac... so they looked at it through rose tinted glasses.

I already gave you plenty of 'stats' showing why Naseem's power was over rated, there's some facts showing what has happened when people have put JMM down.

Another shut out UD to the 2nd high calibre opponent he'd faced would have hurt Hamed's career and legacy A LOT.

Just ask him why he retired after barrera schooled him and his lacklustre UD win against a B fighter after that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdamGB

Another shut out UD to the 2nd high calibre opponent he'd faced would have hurt Hamed's career and legacy A LOT.

Just ask him why he retired after barrera schooled him and his lacklustre UD win against a B fighter after that.

---

I think it was more to do with 9/11 and not many people at that time being keen on a boxer making his way to the ring shouting "Allah is great"

Also I feel what happened to Paul Ingle played a bigger part in the decision than most would imagine.
add to that the fact he was a young millionaire settled down with his newly formed family and had fallen out of love with training played a big part in things :)

If he wasn't an egotistical narcissist I would agree 100% ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdamGB

Another shut out UD to the 2nd high calibre opponent he'd faced would have hurt Hamed's career and legacy A LOT.

Just ask him why he retired after barrera schooled him and his lacklustre UD win against a B fighter after that.

---

Marquez dodged him before the Barrera fight. Marquez wasn't a big name back in 2000. That's why I was wondering why he refused to fight.

As I keep saying - Marquez would still have been great even with a Naz KO loss on his record.

AdamGB,

Those are rubbish stats that prove nothing. The more you fight the more chance of getting KO'd. That's obvious.

All you've done is inadvertently highlight just what a truly phenomenal puncher Naz was.

Naz had 16 "world" title wins. What do these guys have in common?

Robinson
Lawal
Alecia
Medina (cuts loss)
Molina
Johnson
Cabrera
Badillo
Kevin Kelley (corner retirement)
Ingle
Bungu

Ready? They were all suffering their FIRST ever sparkage loss to Naz. Repeat - FIRST ever sparkage loss. None of these men, which includes "world" champions, had EVER been stopped until feeling the power of the Rocket Launchers. What happened AFTER is irrelevant.

Only Wayne McCullough, who the Incredible Hulk couldn't flatten and Soto, who had never been off his feet went the distance.

Naz fella = extraordinary sparkage ability. Fact.

Heard you the third time mate.

Hamed wasn't great and a 2nd shut out loss to only the 2nd real fighter he'd faced would have been even more damaging than the Barrera spectacle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

AdamGB what do these guys have in common?

Robinson
Lawal
Alecia
Medina (cuts loss)
Molina
Johnson
Cabrera
Badillo
Kevin Kelley (corner retirement)
Ingle
Bungu

---

They're all B fighters with multiple knockout losses? ;)

Don't give me that 'doesn't matter what happened after shit - just cos it suits your agenda. Buster Douglas was the first to tko tyson, is he an ATG? No? Look what happened to buster afterwards.

If buster had went on to not stink the loss would have hurt tysons legacy less. What happens aftet counts. Don't ignore the facts that don't suit you.

Hamed never stopped somebody who nobody else didn't. Stone hard fact for the facster.

If we're talking about what people have in common - the only fighter comparable to JMM on Hameds record is BARRERA. Not down, not rocked, not hurt, not even close.

For what it's worth, I always thought Naz was more of an entertainer then a fighter. His style was very unorthodox to say the least, he got by with it until he ran into a no nonsense, counter puncher, (Barrera) who exposed his glaring flaws. Naz's inability to move up to the elite level was predictable, he lacked the conventional boxing skills and heart, needed to get there.

BTW, George Foreman used to be a Naz fanboy (go figure), I believe he actually cried when Naz got his ass handed to him by MAB, true story.

Yes... A good showman and devestating against lower calibre opponents, that's about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spicoli

Does Hamed still resemble a waking taking real life Mr. Potato head these days?

---

Minus the big nose and the pair of glasses, yes.

AdamGB,

You're using a present day Marquez, who has established his greatness, instead of the man blacklisted as a "boring" fighter who was struggling to get a title fight. One of the reasons Marquez gave for dodging Naz was - "I want to win a world title first." See.. he hadn't even won a title back then.

AS for your KO stats, you're viewing this from a far to simplistic angle

There are a multitude of factors to explain a KO loss. Not just the number of fights and the natural age process but also moving weight classes and previous damage etc.

All that matters is, those men challenged Naz for his "world" title without previously ever suffering a KO loss, yet they all received one.

Whoomp there it is!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdamGB

Yes... A good showman and devestating against lower calibre opponents, that's about it.

---

The Clowning of the "Princess":

(Barrera had nothing but contempt for Hamed, lmao)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J63J9XmJWRg

Naz was just a showman that beat lower calibre fighters who were the LINEAL featherweight champion, the WBC champion, WBA champion and WBO champion.

Naz OWNED an entire division.

Lets all IGNORE the facts because we hate the Naz fella. Hilarious. Serioulsy hilarious. With a capital fact. Fact.

Come on facster, don't get upsey and take your ball home! :(

I hate Floyd Mayweather... Doesn't mean I thought Hatton stood a chance or that I think Pac will beat him.

Tell me, who were the three most dominant champs who's reign hamed ended?