Re: An explation as to why two big boxing names never met
@TitoFan
You have got very confused by the writers point. He believes it's a misconception that Naz was "humiliated" against Barrera. Here is what he said - "The history of the 2001 fight between ‘Prince’ Naseem Hamed and Marco Antonio Barrera has been re-written. A dominant performance by Barrera, in a competitive fight that two judges scored 115-112, has been rewritten as schooling; an embarrassing and uncompetitive boxing lesson for Hamed.The historical reality of that fight is somewhat different to its current perception."
The writer lists numerous factors why Naz retired. "Humiliation" is not one of them.
Thanks for that article though. The writer makes points that Fenster, Big H, Saddo and numerous other Saddo posters have made many times.
There is nothing wrong with believing that Naz would duck Marquez. However, when confronted with evidence to the contrary it is very foolish to continue with this line of thinking.
Re: An explation as to why two big boxing names never met
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
To be honest @
Greenbeanz I didn't call Calzaghe or Cleverly English, I used the term British....is Wales all of a sudden not in that little category?
The idea I mean to convey is that the more theatrical/drama queen boxers like Naz are not my favorite and in my view England (& Wales apparently) have produced many of these fighters who are all hat and no cattle. Certainly Calzaghe & Naz were World Class, but to me their theatrics take away from their actual skill. Call me old school, but I like a fighter to be confident, but not over the top cocky, I never have liked those kinds of fighters. When it gets to the point of David Haye where the build up to the fight is more hyped up and talked about than the fight, then you're hurting the sport, but hey, maybe I'm wrong. You fellas seem more than willing to shell out money to watch a retired boxer fight a banned boxer for some trinket title, I have to tell you as a boxing fan I'm more interested in Price & Fury and what they can do. They've not run their mouths, they've not made t-shirts, they've just fought and I respect that more than the attention whores.
"I don't mean to disrespect Calzaghe and I'm not denying Naz's talent I just think that when you let your talent do the talking you get more respect. It's great that guys like Hatton, Froch, Cleverly, Price, & Fury are turning things around for England..."
Once again Lyle you are assuming. You are lumping all British fans together and while many enjoy the theatrics of fighters like Nas and Haye, many like you, are similarly unimpressed by their out of ring personas. The idea that any hype can be bad for the sport is ridiculous. Plenty of fight build ups have been more interesting than the actual fights. Britain does not have a patent on over the top cocky fighters, they are in the minority, but quite naturally their big mouths will make them more obvious from afar. Not only are you doing all other British boxers a disservice by suggesting that because a few brash fighters sell their fights in a manner you disapprove of , the whole "English" game needs turning round, like @Althugz you are also revealing your deep ignorance.
Altug I really do not understand your one minute liking characters like Nas and Eubank, who was a prime example of an over the top cocky fighter, and the next minute congratulating people who dismiss their achievements because they do not like their style. You can not separate the style of people like Nas, Eubank, Haye and Calzaghe from their brash and arrogant personalities. They are one and the same thing. You really think you can get in a Boxing ring and put on an act ? Supreme confidence even when misguided is what allows athletes to achieve great things. If you don't think you are great you will not dictate things in the ring. The belief that you are better than everyone else is the starting point once you get to these guy's levels.
For the record I am a fan of Marquez and Nas, Frazier and Ali, Hatton and Calzaghe. Price,Chisora and Haye, Quigg ,Munroe and Frampton. etc etc etc
Re: An explation as to why two big boxing names never met
As long as fans pay to watch the best fight guys who arent, why should they meet. Work as a wal mart greeter for 5 mil a year or work in a cole mine for the same dough. Cash is king and the easist path to it is what wins. Shit there are tons of us out ready to lay down cash to watch two lames in haye and chisora. And we ask why we don't get good match up's ? Cause they'll make tons with crap match up's like this. Doubt the super bowl would sell out if it were the rams and bills coming off loses playing this year, unless it was marketed towards boxing fans
Re: An explation as to why two big boxing names never met
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
@
TitoFan
You have got very confused by the writers point. He believes it's a
misconception that Naz was "humiliated" against Barrera. Here is what he said -
"The history of the 2001 fight between ‘Prince’ Naseem Hamed and Marco Antonio Barrera has been re-written. A dominant performance by Barrera, in a competitive fight that two judges scored 115-112, has been rewritten as schooling; an embarrassing and uncompetitive boxing lesson for Hamed.The historical reality of that fight is somewhat different to its current perception."
The writer lists numerous factors why Naz retired. "Humiliation" is not one of them.
Thanks for that article though. The writer makes points that Fenster, Big H, Saddo and numerous other Saddo posters have made many times.
There is nothing wrong with believing that Naz would duck Marquez. However, when confronted with evidence to the contrary it is very foolish to continue with this line of thinking.
And I think you totally misunderstood my intent on posting that link. Regardless of how many excuses the writer may have wanted to impress upon us about why and when Hamed quit... the timing of it still stands as odd. Prior to the Barrera fight, Hamed had pretty much had his way. He was able to: spend half an hour dancing and prancing for the camera on his way to the ring... come in on flying carpets... and basically putting on pre-fight shows that would make any choreographer envious. Then he would beat his opponent, and march triumphantly back to the dressing room.
Barrera changed all that. For all of Hamed's pre-fight bravado, Barrera owned him, manhandled him, thoroughly beat the snot out of him, and even shoved his face into the corner post for good measure.
Hamed waits a year... has one more fight so he can go out with a victory... and slinks off into the sunset. Why didn't he seek out JMM? Why didn't he seek a rematch? (Although a lot of good THAT would have done). Why did he just up and quit? Because as someone else already said on this forum... he acted like the childish kid when he gets beaten up, then takes his ball and goes home.
So with all of this as a backdrop, it sounds foolish when you or anyone else brings up the ridiculous point that somehow Juan Manuel Marquez ducked him, with the implication that JMM was scared of Hamed.
Re: An explation as to why two big boxing names never met
I've never said Marquez was "scared" of Naz.
I've just provided evidence that Marquez refused to fight Naz when given the chance. Marquez has verified it, Beristain (his manager/trainer) has verified it and HBO (who were putting up the money to make the fight) verified it.
Naz was UNBEATEN when Marquez turned down the fight. I'm sure with hindsight he was gutted watching Barrera beat Naz. I bet he was saying - "that could have been me, why did I duck the prince, Nacho you said he was too tricky and awkward, I'm fighting for peanuts when I could have made $500,000"
Re: An explation as to why two big boxing names never met
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
I've never said Marquez was "scared" of Naz. I'm glad you made that clear.
I've just provided evidence that Marquez refused to fight Naz when given the chance. Marquez has verified it, Beristain (his manager/trainer) has verified it and HBO (who were putting up the money to make the fight) verified it.
Naz was UNBEATEN when Marquez turned down the fight. I'm sure with hindsight he was gutted watching Barrera beat Naz. I bet he was saying - "that could have been me, why did I duck the prince, Nacho you said he was too tricky and awkward, I'm fighting for peanuts when I could have made $500,000"
You caught me in a good mood today (rare). So I did get a chuckle out of the blue bolded part.
What the hell.....
I do think JMM had all the tools to give Hamed a double dose of what Barrera gave him. But the Prince never gave him that chance, since he decided to abruptly quit and walk away. I didn't like the little prick... but he did have skills. And a fight between him and JMM would've been fun to watch.
Re: An explation as to why two big boxing names never met
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
@
TitoFan
You have got very confused by the writers point. He believes it's a
misconception that Naz was "humiliated" against Barrera. Here is what he said -
"The history of the 2001 fight between ‘Prince’ Naseem Hamed and Marco Antonio Barrera has been re-written. A dominant performance by Barrera, in a competitive fight that two judges scored 115-112, has been rewritten as schooling; an embarrassing and uncompetitive boxing lesson for Hamed.The historical reality of that fight is somewhat different to its current perception."
The writer lists numerous factors why Naz retired. "Humiliation" is not one of them.
Thanks for that article though. The writer makes points that Fenster, Big H, Saddo and numerous other Saddo posters have made many times.
There is nothing wrong with believing that Naz would duck Marquez. However, when confronted with evidence to the contrary it is very foolish to continue with this line of thinking.
And I think you totally misunderstood my intent on posting that link. Regardless of how many excuses the writer may have wanted to impress upon us about why and when Hamed quit... the timing of it still stands as odd. Prior to the Barrera fight, Hamed had pretty much had his way. He was able to: spend half an hour dancing and prancing for the camera on his way to the ring... come in on flying carpets... and basically putting on pre-fight shows that would make any choreographer envious. Then he would beat his opponent, and march triumphantly back to the dressing room.
Barrera changed all that. For all of Hamed's pre-fight bravado, Barrera owned him, manhandled him, thoroughly beat the snot out of him, and even shoved his face into the corner post for good measure.
Hamed waits a year... has one more fight so he can go out with a victory... and slinks off into the sunset. Why didn't he seek out JMM? Why didn't he seek a rematch? (Although a lot of good THAT would have done). Why did he just up and quit? Because as someone else already said on this forum... he acted like the childish kid when he gets beaten up, then takes his ball and goes home.
So with all of this as a backdrop, it sounds foolish when you or anyone else brings up the ridiculous point that somehow Juan Manuel Marquez ducked him, with the implication that JMM was scared of Hamed.
Agreed, I dont think any of them were scared of any of them as fighters what was scarey for them would be the loss of the gravy train not the beating off another fighter.
Aside from in the mind of the fighter they wouldnt think just one fight ahead its a ladder of events in the planning to make the most cash and get the punters involved.
I recon Nazes controllers avoided Marquez for a couple of years because of risk of the loss of the gravy train in one fight.
Same goes for Marquez, once Naz eventually decided he can have a shot, Marquez probably had his route to the best fighters and more paydays laid out in his mind and didnt want to take a risk with a big hitter for one paycheck and disrupt his aim at a great legacy (as it turned out).
