Pac-Naz - we now have definitve proof. Fact.

[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.

[Batman]

I'm team Primo on this one

[Master]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Master]

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.

[Primo Carnera]

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.

[Memphis]

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.

[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.

[Primo Carnera]

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.

[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.

Floyd had problems with southpaws and Naz was a brutal puncher. If Zab hurt him imagine what Naz would have done to him.

[Primo Carnera]

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.

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.

[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.

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.