Re: Pac-Naz - we now have definitve proof. Fact.
Again you cite age as a factor when it is not always the case. Certain fighters peak young such as Tyson others later in life Johnny Nelson and some just fight at the top level for many years such as Hopkins.
I know Naz lost to Barrera and it was a surprise because Marco had lost to Junior Jones and Morales. Peak Naz would have had a plan B and C if required to beat Barrera. Naz was clueless in the fight so much so that it had to be down to the fact he was finished at the top level. He only fought once after that fight.
Naz beat some quality fighters in his time and to do that he had to adapt. Naz would break down his opponents bit by bit and if he could not stop them he would comprehensively out box them and win on points.
Re: Pac-Naz - we now have definitve proof. Fact.
I'm team Primo on this one
Re: Pac-Naz - we now have definitve proof. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
A peak Naz beats Marquez, Barrera and Pac Man. His reflexes and power were second to none.
How does a peak Naz beat all of the above. I’m curious as to your line of thinking regarding Barrera.
Naz won the featherweight title late 1995 against Steve Robinson to eventually losing to Barrera 2001 he was dominate with the occasional lapse mainly later in those years.
Naz reflexes, speed, power, unorthodox style and timing made him unify and become the best featherweight in the division.
The peak Naz would have out boxed and out worked Barrera once he realised he could not knock him out. Naz had more variety in his game early on and as his relationship deteriorated with Ingle the less he trained and more he relied on his power. Naz became one dimensional by the time he faced MAB who exposed him for that.
Bullshit! Naz and Barrera were the same age (27) and just about peaking. Naz's unorthodox style was exposed by Barrera and once Barrera did this he went on to give Naz a boxing lesson.
I don't want to diss Naz too much because for his size he had freakish strength, and was highly popular and sought after in the Boxing World , hence topping bills in Vegas and earning shitloads of dough. And as far as British Boxers go , he is up there on the all time list.
But on a World level , and comparing to the other names you mentioned, I think you're being at best disrespectful to them and at worst downright fucking delusional!
I'm aware of the "Naz got too big for his boots , leaving Ingle" theory, but that is just an easy out.
admit it, before the Naz/Barrera fight, you had Naz as a massive favourite? this shows that he wasn't "on the slide" as much as you make out.
Barrera simply exposed him and schooled him. People at the top end of the Boxing tree knew that this was possible.
Your fucking mate, a very young Floyd was hounding Naz's connections for a fight for years , even offering to come down in weight for a catchweight contest. Because he could see that he would've tied an unorthodox Naz up in knots.
Don't take my word for it , rewatch the fight.
Master is fucking with you, but.......
Everyone had Naz a favourite. It was a pretty simple equation for most. Naz hit like a truck and Barrera would be happy to get in the way. Barrera flipped the script and boxed a fight most people didn't think he had in him. On the slide is maybe the wrong words to use. It generally implies that physically, what was once there is no longer. Not really the case with Naz and in particular that fight. Physically it was still there but he chose to cover it with a layer of fat which he spent the first half of training camp getting rid of. Whether or not it would have changed the course of the fight is up for debate, some serious, some tongue firmly in cheek to get a rise ;D Whats not up for debate though, well documented. One of them prepared like a demon, one of them didn't.
The same people who knew Naz would get his arse kicked are the same people who knew Calzaghe would humiliate Lacy. Mostly liars.
Everyone wanted a piece of Naz. Roy Jones used to take out full page ads in BM on behalf of Derrick Gainer begging for a fight. Was it because they'd spotted holes in his game? Maybe. Was it because they wanted some of the Naz money? Absolutely.
Re: Pac-Naz - we now have definitve proof. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Batman
I'm team Primo on this one
You would be but were too young to know how great Naz was.
Barrera also had a titanium plate in his head which was unfair.
Re: Pac-Naz - we now have definitve proof. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Again you cite age as a factor when it is not always the case. Certain fighters peak young such as Tyson others later in life Johnny Nelson and some just fight at the top level for many years such as Hopkins.
I know Naz lost to Barrera and it was a surprise because Marco had lost to Junior Jones and Morales. Peak Naz would have had a plan B and C if required to beat Barrera. Naz was clueless in the fight so much so that it had to be down to the fact he was finished at the top level. He only fought once after that fight.
Naz beat some quality fighters in his time and to do that he had to adapt. Naz would break down his opponents bit by bit and if he could not stop them he would comprehensively out box them and win on points.
Not having this. "Cite age as a factor" mate, he was 27 years old. if you're saying his peak was 24, then I'm saying he never had a peak, he never fulfilled it. there is no reason why he shouldn't be at his peak at 27.
Barrera had lost to Junior Jones and Morales, but the Morales fight, a. was a classic between 2 TOP TOP fighters. and b. Many people (Me among them) thought he won. so the loss didn't take anything away from him , if anything it gave him more kudos.
The only reason he was finished at the top level was because Barrera finished him. and the only reason he only fought once more after that was because Barrera took his invincibility , his heart and his soul.
While Naz was winning , the cracks in his unorthodox style could be papered over. but once he got beat, his head was fucked. he couldn't believe that anybody could beat him , and he couldn't come back from that. This isn't meant to be a pop at Naz, but mentally he couldn't cope with losing.
This is more a pop at people like @Master , who think that when they talk about the "best in the World" that the World starts in Cornwall and ends in Newcastle!
so disrespectful to other nationalities , and not just in Boxing either.
Re: Pac-Naz - we now have definitve proof. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Batman
I'm team Primo on this one
You would be but were too young to know how great Naz was.
Barrera also had a titanium plate in his head which was unfair.
Think I was about 12 at the time but I know my Dad always fucking despised Naz and he let me stay up to watch the fight because he was so sure Barrera was going to win and he wanted me to see it.
I'm pretty sure that's the first fight I stayed up to watch.
Re: Pac-Naz - we now have definitve proof. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Batman
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Batman
I'm team Primo on this one
You would be but were too young to know how great Naz was.
Barrera also had a titanium plate in his head which was unfair.
Think I was about 12 at the time but I know my Dad always fucking despised Naz and he let me stay up to watch the fight because he was so sure Barrera was going to win and he wanted me to see it.
I'm pretty sure that's the first fight I stayed up to watch.
I'm getting shit confused, just had a look anf it was the day after my 16th birthday, I was going on the piss up town and my old man talked me into staying in to watch the fight. I thought it was Ricky Hatton that I stayed into watch on my 16th birthday.
I don't know what fight I was thinking of before, fuck me it's hard keeping track of dates and events as you get older.
Re: Pac-Naz - we now have definitve proof. Fact.
Whether people like it or not, Naz at one point was considered the best featherweight in the World by anyone that counts. Whichever way you slice it he was World class elite level. It's no disrespect to echo this.
It's a very simplified synopsis of Hamed's career to say he was fine until he ran into Barrera. Anyone with half a clue could see the gloss coming off way before he got to Vegas. Barrera skilfully applied the coup de grace.
Re: Pac-Naz - we now have definitve proof. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Again you cite age as a factor when it is not always the case. Certain fighters peak young such as Tyson others later in life Johnny Nelson and some just fight at the top level for many years such as Hopkins.
I know Naz lost to Barrera and it was a surprise because Marco had lost to Junior Jones and Morales. Peak Naz would have had a plan B and C if required to beat Barrera. Naz was clueless in the fight so much so that it had to be down to the fact he was finished at the top level. He only fought once after that fight.
Naz beat some quality fighters in his time and to do that he had to adapt. Naz would break down his opponents bit by bit and if he could not stop them he would comprehensively out box them and win on points.
Not having this. "Cite age as a factor" mate, he was 27 years old. if you're saying his peak was 24, then I'm saying he never had a peak, he never fulfilled it. there is no reason why he shouldn't be at his peak at 27.
Barrera had lost to Junior Jones and Morales, but the Morales fight, a. was a classic between 2 TOP TOP fighters. and b. Many people (Me among them) thought he won. so the loss didn't take anything away from him , if anything it gave him more kudos.
The only reason he was finished at the top level was because Barrera finished him. and the only reason he only fought once more after that was because Barrera took his invincibility , his heart and his soul.
While Naz was winning , the cracks in his unorthodox style could be papered over. but once he got beat, his head was fucked. he couldn't believe that anybody could beat him , and he couldn't come back from that. This isn't meant to be a pop at Naz, but mentally he couldn't cope with losing.
This is more a pop at people like @
Master , who think that when they talk about the "best in the World" that the World starts in Cornwall and ends in Newcastle!
so disrespectful to other nationalities , and not just in Boxing either.
Tyson had a peak and was over before he hit 24. It happened to Naz which is a shame as he would have beaten Floyd as well.
Re: Pac-Naz - we now have definitve proof. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Batman
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Batman
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Batman
I'm team Primo on this one
You would be but were too young to know how great Naz was.
Barrera also had a titanium plate in his head which was unfair.
Think I was about 12 at the time but I know my Dad always fucking despised Naz and he let me stay up to watch the fight because he was so sure Barrera was going to win and he wanted me to see it.
I'm pretty sure that's the first fight I stayed up to watch.
I'm getting shit confused, just had a look anf it was the day after my 16th birthday, I was going on the piss up town and my old man talked me into staying in to watch the fight. I thought it was Ricky Hatton that I stayed into watch on my 16th birthday.
I don't know what fight I was thinking of before, fuck me it's hard keeping track of dates and events as you get older.
When you have worked it out please come back and tell us. :)
Re: Pac-Naz - we now have definitve proof. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Again you cite age as a factor when it is not always the case. Certain fighters peak young such as Tyson others later in life Johnny Nelson and some just fight at the top level for many years such as Hopkins.
I know Naz lost to Barrera and it was a surprise because Marco had lost to Junior Jones and Morales. Peak Naz would have had a plan B and C if required to beat Barrera. Naz was clueless in the fight so much so that it had to be down to the fact he was finished at the top level. He only fought once after that fight.
Naz beat some quality fighters in his time and to do that he had to adapt. Naz would break down his opponents bit by bit and if he could not stop them he would comprehensively out box them and win on points.
Not having this. "Cite age as a factor" mate, he was 27 years old. if you're saying his peak was 24, then I'm saying he never had a peak, he never fulfilled it. there is no reason why he shouldn't be at his peak at 27.
Barrera had lost to Junior Jones and Morales, but the Morales fight, a. was a classic between 2 TOP TOP fighters. and b. Many people (Me among them) thought he won. so the loss didn't take anything away from him , if anything it gave him more kudos.
The only reason he was finished at the top level was because Barrera finished him. and the only reason he only fought once more after that was because Barrera took his invincibility , his heart and his soul.
While Naz was winning , the cracks in his unorthodox style could be papered over. but once he got beat, his head was fucked. he couldn't believe that anybody could beat him , and he couldn't come back from that. This isn't meant to be a pop at Naz, but mentally he couldn't cope with losing.
This is more a pop at people like @
Master , who think that when they talk about the "best in the World" that the World starts in Cornwall and ends in Newcastle!
so disrespectful to other nationalities , and not just in Boxing either.
Tyson had a peak and was over before he hit 24. It happened to Naz which is a shame as he would have beaten Floyd as well.
No he wouldn’t.:rolleyes: :horseshit:
Re: Pac-Naz - we now have definitve proof. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Again you cite age as a factor when it is not always the case. Certain fighters peak young such as Tyson others later in life Johnny Nelson and some just fight at the top level for many years such as Hopkins.
I know Naz lost to Barrera and it was a surprise because Marco had lost to Junior Jones and Morales. Peak Naz would have had a plan B and C if required to beat Barrera. Naz was clueless in the fight so much so that it had to be down to the fact he was finished at the top level. He only fought once after that fight.
Naz beat some quality fighters in his time and to do that he had to adapt. Naz would break down his opponents bit by bit and if he could not stop them he would comprehensively out box them and win on points.
Not having this. "Cite age as a factor" mate, he was 27 years old. if you're saying his peak was 24, then I'm saying he never had a peak, he never fulfilled it. there is no reason why he shouldn't be at his peak at 27.
Barrera had lost to Junior Jones and Morales, but the Morales fight, a. was a classic between 2 TOP TOP fighters. and b. Many people (Me among them) thought he won. so the loss didn't take anything away from him , if anything it gave him more kudos.
The only reason he was finished at the top level was because Barrera finished him. and the only reason he only fought once more after that was because Barrera took his invincibility , his heart and his soul.
While Naz was winning , the cracks in his unorthodox style could be papered over. but once he got beat, his head was fucked. he couldn't believe that anybody could beat him , and he couldn't come back from that. This isn't meant to be a pop at Naz, but mentally he couldn't cope with losing.
This is more a pop at people like @
Master , who think that when they talk about the "best in the World" that the World starts in Cornwall and ends in Newcastle!
so disrespectful to other nationalities , and not just in Boxing either.
Tyson had a peak and was over before he hit 24. It happened to Naz which is a shame as he would have beaten Floyd as well.
No he wouldn’t.:rolleyes: :horseshit:
Floyd had problems with southpaws and Naz was a brutal puncher. If Zab hurt him imagine what Naz would have done to him.
Re: Pac-Naz - we now have definitve proof. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Again you cite age as a factor when it is not always the case. Certain fighters peak young such as Tyson others later in life Johnny Nelson and some just fight at the top level for many years such as Hopkins.
I know Naz lost to Barrera and it was a surprise because Marco had lost to Junior Jones and Morales. Peak Naz would have had a plan B and C if required to beat Barrera. Naz was clueless in the fight so much so that it had to be down to the fact he was finished at the top level. He only fought once after that fight.
Naz beat some quality fighters in his time and to do that he had to adapt. Naz would break down his opponents bit by bit and if he could not stop them he would comprehensively out box them and win on points.
Not having this. "Cite age as a factor" mate, he was 27 years old. if you're saying his peak was 24, then I'm saying he never had a peak, he never fulfilled it. there is no reason why he shouldn't be at his peak at 27.
Barrera had lost to Junior Jones and Morales, but the Morales fight, a. was a classic between 2 TOP TOP fighters. and b. Many people (Me among them) thought he won. so the loss didn't take anything away from him , if anything it gave him more kudos.
The only reason he was finished at the top level was because Barrera finished him. and the only reason he only fought once more after that was because Barrera took his invincibility , his heart and his soul.
While Naz was winning , the cracks in his unorthodox style could be papered over. but once he got beat, his head was fucked. he couldn't believe that anybody could beat him , and he couldn't come back from that. This isn't meant to be a pop at Naz, but mentally he couldn't cope with losing.
This is more a pop at people like @
Master , who think that when they talk about the "best in the World" that the World starts in Cornwall and ends in Newcastle!
so disrespectful to other nationalities , and not just in Boxing either.
Tyson had a peak and was over before he hit 24. It happened to Naz which is a shame as he would have beaten Floyd as well.
No he wouldn’t.:rolleyes: :horseshit:
Floyd had problems with southpaws and Naz was a brutal puncher. If Zab hurt him imagine what Naz would have done to him.
How many did he lose to? It’s ok, I’ll wait.
And anyway, are you trying to say Naz is a southpaw in the true sense of the word. A boxer like Naz can’t really be called southpaw , orthodox or whatever, because of his unique style.
But hey, keep clutching, I think I can see another straw down there.
Re: Pac-Naz - we now have definitve proof. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Again you cite age as a factor when it is not always the case. Certain fighters peak young such as Tyson others later in life Johnny Nelson and some just fight at the top level for many years such as Hopkins.
I know Naz lost to Barrera and it was a surprise because Marco had lost to Junior Jones and Morales. Peak Naz would have had a plan B and C if required to beat Barrera. Naz was clueless in the fight so much so that it had to be down to the fact he was finished at the top level. He only fought once after that fight.
Naz beat some quality fighters in his time and to do that he had to adapt. Naz would break down his opponents bit by bit and if he could not stop them he would comprehensively out box them and win on points.
Not having this. "Cite age as a factor" mate, he was 27 years old. if you're saying his peak was 24, then I'm saying he never had a peak, he never fulfilled it. there is no reason why he shouldn't be at his peak at 27.
Barrera had lost to Junior Jones and Morales, but the Morales fight, a. was a classic between 2 TOP TOP fighters. and b. Many people (Me among them) thought he won. so the loss didn't take anything away from him , if anything it gave him more kudos.
The only reason he was finished at the top level was because Barrera finished him. and the only reason he only fought once more after that was because Barrera took his invincibility , his heart and his soul.
While Naz was winning , the cracks in his unorthodox style could be papered over. but once he got beat, his head was fucked. he couldn't believe that anybody could beat him , and he couldn't come back from that. This isn't meant to be a pop at Naz, but mentally he couldn't cope with losing.
This is more a pop at people like @
Master , who think that when they talk about the "best in the World" that the World starts in Cornwall and ends in Newcastle!
so disrespectful to other nationalities , and not just in Boxing either.
Tyson had a peak and was over before he hit 24. It happened to Naz which is a shame as he would have beaten Floyd as well.
No he wouldn’t.:rolleyes: :horseshit:
Floyd had problems with southpaws and Naz was a brutal puncher. If Zab hurt him imagine what Naz would have done to him.
How many did he lose to? It’s ok, I’ll wait.
And anyway, are you trying to say Naz is a southpaw in the true sense of the word. A boxer like Naz can’t really be called southpaw , orthodox or whatever, because of his unique style.
But hey, keep clutching, I think I can see another straw down there.
Corley, Zab and even Manny hurt Floyd so not clucthing at any straws. Floyd would have been weight drained and whoomp there it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgPtJ0pTutc
Re: Pac-Naz - we now have definitve proof. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Again you cite age as a factor when it is not always the case. Certain fighters peak young such as Tyson others later in life Johnny Nelson and some just fight at the top level for many years such as Hopkins.
I know Naz lost to Barrera and it was a surprise because Marco had lost to Junior Jones and Morales. Peak Naz would have had a plan B and C if required to beat Barrera. Naz was clueless in the fight so much so that it had to be down to the fact he was finished at the top level. He only fought once after that fight.
Naz beat some quality fighters in his time and to do that he had to adapt. Naz would break down his opponents bit by bit and if he could not stop them he would comprehensively out box them and win on points.
Not having this. "Cite age as a factor" mate, he was 27 years old. if you're saying his peak was 24, then I'm saying he never had a peak, he never fulfilled it. there is no reason why he shouldn't be at his peak at 27.
Barrera had lost to Junior Jones and Morales, but the Morales fight, a. was a classic between 2 TOP TOP fighters. and b. Many people (Me among them) thought he won. so the loss didn't take anything away from him , if anything it gave him more kudos.
The only reason he was finished at the top level was because Barrera finished him. and the only reason he only fought once more after that was because Barrera took his invincibility , his heart and his soul.
While Naz was winning , the cracks in his unorthodox style could be papered over. but once he got beat, his head was fucked. he couldn't believe that anybody could beat him , and he couldn't come back from that. This isn't meant to be a pop at Naz, but mentally he couldn't cope with losing.
This is more a pop at people like @
Master , who think that when they talk about the "best in the World" that the World starts in Cornwall and ends in Newcastle!
so disrespectful to other nationalities , and not just in Boxing either.
Tyson had a peak and was over before he hit 24. It happened to Naz which is a shame as he would have beaten Floyd as well.
No he wouldn’t.:rolleyes: :horseshit:
Floyd had problems with southpaws and Naz was a brutal puncher. If Zab hurt him imagine what Naz would have done to him.
How many did he lose to? It’s ok, I’ll wait.
And anyway, are you trying to say Naz is a southpaw in the true sense of the word. A boxer like Naz can’t really be called southpaw , orthodox or whatever, because of his unique style.
But hey, keep clutching, I think I can see another straw down there.
Corley, Zab and even Manny hurt Floyd so not clucthing at any straws. Floyd would have been weight drained and whoomp there it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgPtJ0pTutc
;D;D;D Hahaha you clown. feel free to not answer the question . They're fucking paid to "hurt" him! like Ricky Hatton said "it's not a tickling contest". and anyway, they never hurt Floyd. When the fuck did Manny hurt Floyd? you are seriously losing it now kid. :cool:
Re: Pac-Naz - we now have definitve proof. Fact.
Not to mention those fights were all at 140 and 47... trolling is a new look for Master though, cut him slack;D
I’m not even sure hamed would have been able to move up to 130 in his day, there were a lot of really good fighters there back then. How does he do against Castillo, casamayor, Freitas, corralles, Nate Campbell? All a lot bigger guys than Barrera and way better than anyone he beat imo.
Re: Pac-Naz - we now have definitve proof. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
A peak Naz beats Marquez, Barrera and Pac Man. His reflexes and power were second to none.
How does a peak Naz beat all of the above. I’m curious as to your line of thinking regarding Barrera.
Naz won the featherweight title late 1995 against Steve Robinson to eventually losing to Barrera 2001 he was dominate with the occasional lapse mainly later in those years.
Naz reflexes, speed, power, unorthodox style and timing made him unify and become the best featherweight in the division.
The peak Naz would have out boxed and out worked Barrera once he realised he could not knock him out. Naz had more variety in his game early on and as his relationship deteriorated with Ingle the less he trained and more he relied on his power. Naz became one dimensional by the time he faced MAB who exposed him for that.
Bullshit! Naz and Barrera were the same age (27) and just about peaking. Naz's unorthodox style was exposed by Barrera and once Barrera did this he went on to give Naz a boxing lesson.
I don't want to diss Naz too much because for his size he had freakish strength, and was highly popular and sought after in the Boxing
Agree that the Naz that faced Barrera was far removed from the version of Naz before Kevin Kelly fight.
Even at the Kelly fight, Naz was slipping in away that wasnt due to higher competition. Naz went into all attack mode early which suggests to me that he could not box his way out of it.
Anyone care to recall the state of Nazs training camps once he fought more in USA and how much more easily he was hit and why?
What happened to his ambition of 5 weight champ that he declared on UK TV? Was it really BS?
When Naz crossed the pond he deteriorated, dropped his trainer and retired young after his defeat.
Re: Pac-Naz - we now have definitve proof. Fact.
Naz was before my time, but if he declared that, of course it was bs. He only won world titles in one weight division.. What was he going to do, move up to welter and fight Trinidad:rolleyes: like I said, we can only speculate whether he could have even moved up at all, no matter how seriously he took his career. That’s not a knock on him per say either, he was small even for a featherweight and there were a lot of great fighters around just north of him in those days.
