This is a legit Hall of Famer you are talking about here. He did things to excellent Featherweight champions and borderline Hall of Famers (Vázquez should be in) than nobody else had ever done before. Barrera is another Hall of Famer who smartly countered him to death, particularly because by then Naz had become too enamored with his power and could be countered silly by someone with the discipline and smarts to do so, like Barrera. This piece makes Hamed seem like some overhyped clown with no substance. I enjoy your pro wrestling writing, but holy shit do I find this piece way off base.
It's interesting that you'd use the word clown. As Naz came to the ring before one of his fights, HBO's Larry Merchant said "send in the clown. Send in the fighter. In this case they are one and the same."
Descriptions of his unorthodox fighting style and somewhat lackluster opponents (the best of whom were mostly caught at the ideal time of steep decline) are from contemporary sources. I think they reflect pretty well the thoughts of many at the time.
As HBO mentioned over and over again, Barrera was Hamed's first true world level opponent in his prime.
Well, they all seemed to age overnight when they fought Hamed, then, because none of these supposedly non-world class opponents (who had all had long and fruitful reigns) like Tom Johnson, Vuyani Bungu, Manuel Medina, Wilfredo Vázquez, and Kevin Kelley had been treated before by other world-class opponents. Hell, Medina went on to have another championship reign afterwards. Similarly, Pipino Alicea, Yungo Badillo, and Augie Sánchez were well-regarded young unbeaten fighters who he destroyed. I guess they were overhyped too, huh?
I find it funny you cite contemporary opinions. I have been a Ring subscriber since 1982. I own an almost-complete collection, in fact. I am also a longtime subscriber to Boxing News and now Ringside Seat. I read Dan Rafael, Dougie Fischer, Steve Bunce, etc. I grew up in Puerto reading Mario Rivera Martinó. To a person, they all think Hamed is a landmark 126-pounder and legit Hall of Famer.
I think Naz had the same problem Camacho, Tyson, and pre-suspension Ali had, which is that people took their words at face value. Did anyone really believe Hamed when he said he sparred with 168-pounders and would win belts in eight divisions? This was his persona, which sold a shit-ton of tickets. Instead, people never got past the personality and never gave them the benefit of the doubt, which is why Tyson and Hamed and Roy Jones and De La Hoya will likely go to their graves having to read random columns saying that they were overrated and never beat anyone.
I don’t say any of this disrespectfully, by the way. I simply disagree with you very strongly on this. As strongly as I agree with you on most of your pro wrestling opinions. (I don’t follow or care about MMA.) A good writer is bound to piss people off sometimes! Keep up the great work.
Just to be clear, I covered boxing professionally for Bleacher Report. I'm not just wandering into this territory for fun. Although, also that!
I've re-read the story. I don't think that your description of what I wrote matches what I actually wrote here. I think it was a fair parsing of Hamed's career. He was extremely successful, but there was a level of doubt about the quality of his opposition.
I don't think you can go back and look at the history and deny that. It's right there in the piece, in surprisingly plain English, from the HBO boxing chief. The popular opinion was that he was avoiding the toughest fights. Surely this isn't the first time the idea that Hamed was carefully matched has come to your attention? It's explicit in all the commentary of his American fights and every major article written about him.
Maybe the UK versions were more gentle?
—Vuyani Bungu was a high quality fighter but also an aged super bantamweight. That was actually his first fight at featherweight.
—Tom Johnson was a fine alphabet champion, but if you look at his Boxrec, his own level of competition between Medina fights was almost comically bad.
—Medina was a good fighter who won and lost in equal measure when matched hard. This was a good win for sure.
—Kevin Kelley was a good fighter who was 2-4 in matches ranked 4/5 stars by Boxrec. This is a good win. I'm not sure it's something you'd hang your Hall of Fame hat on though.
—Vasquez was incredible. But he was also 17 years into his career and most of his best success came at lower weights.
These are perfectly fine fights. What's unusual about Hamed is that his career simply ended just as it was about to get interesting.
If I learned anything from the t-shirt kiosk at the mall, it’s hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard
POP
To be fair Naz wasn't training like he should. I'm not saying he would have won, but he was past his prime - some fighters just flame young.
This is a legit Hall of Famer you are talking about here. He did things to excellent Featherweight champions and borderline Hall of Famers (Vázquez should be in) than nobody else had ever done before. Barrera is another Hall of Famer who smartly countered him to death, particularly because by then Naz had become too enamored with his power and could be countered silly by someone with the discipline and smarts to do so, like Barrera. This piece makes Hamed seem like some overhyped clown with no substance. I enjoy your pro wrestling writing, but holy shit do I find this piece way off base.
It's interesting that you'd use the word clown. As Naz came to the ring before one of his fights, HBO's Larry Merchant said "send in the clown. Send in the fighter. In this case they are one and the same."
Descriptions of his unorthodox fighting style and somewhat lackluster opponents (the best of whom were mostly caught at the ideal time of steep decline) are from contemporary sources. I think they reflect pretty well the thoughts of many at the time.
As HBO mentioned over and over again, Barrera was Hamed's first true world level opponent in his prime.
Well, they all seemed to age overnight when they fought Hamed, then, because none of these supposedly non-world class opponents (who had all had long and fruitful reigns) like Tom Johnson, Vuyani Bungu, Manuel Medina, Wilfredo Vázquez, and Kevin Kelley had been treated before by other world-class opponents. Hell, Medina went on to have another championship reign afterwards. Similarly, Pipino Alicea, Yungo Badillo, and Augie Sánchez were well-regarded young unbeaten fighters who he destroyed. I guess they were overhyped too, huh?
I find it funny you cite contemporary opinions. I have been a Ring subscriber since 1982. I own an almost-complete collection, in fact. I am also a longtime subscriber to Boxing News and now Ringside Seat. I read Dan Rafael, Dougie Fischer, Steve Bunce, etc. I grew up in Puerto reading Mario Rivera Martinó. To a person, they all think Hamed is a landmark 126-pounder and legit Hall of Famer.
I think Naz had the same problem Camacho, Tyson, and pre-suspension Ali had, which is that people took their words at face value. Did anyone really believe Hamed when he said he sparred with 168-pounders and would win belts in eight divisions? This was his persona, which sold a shit-ton of tickets. Instead, people never got past the personality and never gave them the benefit of the doubt, which is why Tyson and Hamed and Roy Jones and De La Hoya will likely go to their graves having to read random columns saying that they were overrated and never beat anyone.
I don’t say any of this disrespectfully, by the way. I simply disagree with you very strongly on this. As strongly as I agree with you on most of your pro wrestling opinions. (I don’t follow or care about MMA.) A good writer is bound to piss people off sometimes! Keep up the great work.
Hey, if it's not clear, I appreciate the feedback and the passionate discourse. It's what I always hoped to see in the comments.
Just to be clear, I covered boxing professionally for Bleacher Report. I'm not just wandering into this territory for fun. Although, also that!
I've re-read the story. I don't think that your description of what I wrote matches what I actually wrote here. I think it was a fair parsing of Hamed's career. He was extremely successful, but there was a level of doubt about the quality of his opposition.
I don't think you can go back and look at the history and deny that. It's right there in the piece, in surprisingly plain English, from the HBO boxing chief. The popular opinion was that he was avoiding the toughest fights. Surely this isn't the first time the idea that Hamed was carefully matched has come to your attention? It's explicit in all the commentary of his American fights and every major article written about him.
Maybe the UK versions were more gentle?
—Vuyani Bungu was a high quality fighter but also an aged super bantamweight. That was actually his first fight at featherweight.
—Tom Johnson was a fine alphabet champion, but if you look at his Boxrec, his own level of competition between Medina fights was almost comically bad.
—Medina was a good fighter who won and lost in equal measure when matched hard. This was a good win for sure.
—Kevin Kelley was a good fighter who was 2-4 in matches ranked 4/5 stars by Boxrec. This is a good win. I'm not sure it's something you'd hang your Hall of Fame hat on though.
—Vasquez was incredible. But he was also 17 years into his career and most of his best success came at lower weights.
These are perfectly fine fights. What's unusual about Hamed is that his career simply ended just as it was about to get interesting.