does naseem hamed belong in the hall of fame?

kikibalt · Post by **kikibalt** » 19 Sep 2007, 09:05

p4p1 wrote:
kikibalt wrote:I still say that he was not that good of a fighter, none of those fighters mentioned above were great champions, much less HOF themselves.
he won 3 world titles and should of won a fourth how does that not make him good let allone exellent if he was great is up for debate but there is no doubt he was better than good

Winng titles don't mean a thing nowdays, it hasn't for at least 30 years, your boy could punch I give him that, but he couldn't chew gum and walk at the same time.

p4p1 · Post by **p4p1** » 19 Sep 2007, 09:10

kikibalt wrote:
p4p1 wrote:
kikibalt wrote:I still say that he was not that good of a fighter, none of those fighters mentioned above were great champions, much less HOF themselves.
he won 3 world titles and should of won a fourth how does that not make him good let allone exellent if he was great is up for debate but there is no doubt he was better than good
Winng titles don't mean a thing nowdays, it hasn't for at least 30 years, your boy could punch I give him that, but he couldn't chew gum and walk at the same time.

it still means something when you beat all the world champions in your weight division at that time if you watch a younger naseem who didnt rely on KOing people you will see he was a very capable boxer aswell he just had a big punch and in the end he got lazy and decided it was easier to try and blast thru people as soon as he can

Musashi · Post by **Musashi** » 19 Sep 2007, 09:22

p4p1 wrote:
kikibalt wrote:
p4p1 wrote: he won 3 world titles and should of won a fourth how does that not make him good let allone exellent if he was great is up for debate but there is no doubt he was better than good
Winng titles don't mean a thing nowdays, it hasn't for at least 30 years, your boy could punch I give him that, but he couldn't chew gum and walk at the same time.
it still means something when you beat all the world champions in your weight division at that time if you watch a younger naseem who didnt rely on KOing people you will see he was a very capable boxer aswell he just had a big punch and in the end he got lazy and decided it was easier to try and blast thru people as soon as he can

Exactly. He beat everybody who was anybody at his weight with the exception of Erik Morales. JMM & Pac don't count for reasons I've stated before.

And his resume is still very solid with or without those 3 fighters. I don't like him. I think he's always been an arrogant prick. But my personal opinion of him doesn't matter. I think Ali was an arrogant prick too. I don't like his style either, but it was effective. And he's probably one of the most powerful punchers ever in the Featherweight division.

theone · Post by **theone** » 19 Sep 2007, 09:35

Anyone judging fairly would say he gets in. The argument that Barrera exposed him as being garbage, and somehow devalues everyone he beat before is downright stupid.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 19 Sep 2007, 11:44

Hamed doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame just because he is better than a handful of fighters that don't belong. (the vast majority of Hall of Famers beat much better competition than Hamed and were better fighters.)

There are literally hundreds of other fighters that aren't in that are better than Jess Willard. Should we let them all in?

You have to take into consideration other fighters who aren't in the Hall of Fame. That is who Hamed is competing with.

Fighters like Eddie Mustapha Muhammad, Eddie Booker,Holman Williams, Lloyd Marshall, Lupe Pintor, and Rodrigo Valdez did a lot more than Hamed. None are in the Hall of Fame yet.

You also have to consider fighters such as Ernesto Marcel, Esteban DeJesus, Marvin Johnson, Bobby Chacon, Dave Holly, Jack Blackburn and many others.

As for Hamed's competition- None of the fighters that he beat were great fighters, at least not when he fought them. Collecting belts against mediocre beltholders doesn't mean you are a Hall of Famer.

He did fight Barrera, and got beat convincingly.
He could have fought Morales, but didn't.
He could have fought Marquez, who was a top fighter when Hamed was fighting, but he didn't.
He stopped fighting when he was 27, shortly before Pacquiao became a big name. He certainly could have fought Pacquiao.

All of these fighters were much better than anyone Hamed beat. If he had beaten anyone of these guys, he would have a much stronger case.

Borinken25 · Post by **Borinken25** » 19 Sep 2007, 14:21

Does Samuel Serrano belong in the HOF?
WBA super feather Champion. In title fights 15 W, 2L and 1D.

Does Wilfredo Vazquez belong in the HOF?
21 title fights, (3 time division champion) Bantam, Super Bantam and featherweight Champion.

Does Naseem Hamed belong in the HOF?

If Hamed does, then so is Samuel Serrano and Wilfredo Vazquez.

They all fought decent opposition, but none of them has a defining win over a prime A fighter. So to answer the question, NO.

monkeybusiness · Post by **monkeybusiness** » 19 Sep 2007, 15:48

I'd put Naz in there.
He beat some good fighters, brought milion dollar paydays to the featherwieghts and was undisputed for a while.
I think it's easy to knock him because he set himself such high standards which he ultimately failed to live up to.
Remeber, the Barrera fight wasn't a washout

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 19 Sep 2007, 17:10

how do you explain hameds departure from the sport so soon after the barrera schooling?

Musashi · Post by **Musashi** » 19 Sep 2007, 17:12

harrygreb wrote:how do you explain hameds departure from the sport so soon after the barrera schooling?

Lack of interest?

Diamond WEAPON · Post by **Diamond WEAPON** » 19 Sep 2007, 17:58

npal wrote:
harrygreb wrote:how do you explain hameds departure from the sport so soon after the barrera schooling?
Lack of interest?

I'd say it was a lack of confidence, his next fight was pretty lackluster and he just didn't seem the same, rather than tearing after his opponent like he had previously always done he fought pretty cautiously and just lost that air of intimdation and invincibility he'd had before. I think Barrera really beat him mentally even more than he did physically.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 19 Sep 2007, 20:23

I want to say no. But then I think that Tyson will probably get in, based on his first title reign and his fame and his punching power. Hamed was as famous as a Featherweight can be, was a big puncher, had a long title reign. They lost their titles in dramatic fashion, but at least Hamed didn't get KTFO. Not sure if this is good logic or not, but I'm just playing devil's advocate, maybe he should be in? I don't know.

theone · Post by **theone** » 19 Sep 2007, 20:31

I think Barrera really beat him mentally even more than he did physically.

i thought he looked out of sorts before the fight. He didn't do his customary flip into the ring I believe, and looked a bit lackadaisical and disinterested to me before the fight.

Did anyone else notice that?

Diamond WEAPON · Post by **Diamond WEAPON** » 19 Sep 2007, 22:50

theone wrote:
I think Barrera really beat him mentally even more than he did physically.
i thought he looked out of sorts before the fight. He didn't do his customary flip into the ring I believe, and looked a bit lackadaisical and disinterested to me before the fight.

Did anyone else notice that?

Well he did get hit with a cup of beer as he was making his ring entrance, so I imagine that probably discouraged the flip because he was pissed.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 20 Sep 2007, 06:23

hameds behaviour leading up to the fight were the actions of a guy set to lose. i and many others had no doubt at all about the outcome of this fight.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 20 Sep 2007, 06:41

Ambling Alp wrote:Hamed doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame just because he is better than a handful of fighters that don't belong. (the vast majority of Hall of Famers beat much better competition than Hamed and were better fighters.)

There are literally hundreds of other fighters that aren't in that are better than Jess Willard. Should we let them all in?

You have to take into consideration other fighters who aren't in the Hall of Fame. That is who Hamed is competing with.

Fighters like Eddie Mustapha Muhammad, Eddie Booker,Holman Williams, Lloyd Marshall, Lupe Pintor, and Rodrigo Valdez did a lot more than Hamed. None are in the Hall of Fame yet.

You also have to consider fighters such as Ernesto Marcel, Esteban DeJesus, Marvin Johnson, Bobby Chacon, Dave Holly, Jack Blackburn and many others.

As for Hamed's competition- None of the fighters that he beat were great fighters, at least not when he fought them. Collecting belts against mediocre beltholders doesn't mean you are a Hall of Famer.

He did fight Barrera, and got beat convincingly.
He could have fought Morales, but didn't.
He could have fought Marquez, who was a top fighter when Hamed was fighting, but he didn't.
He stopped fighting when he was 27, shortly before Pacquiao became a big name. He certainly could have fought Pacquiao.

All of these fighters were much better than anyone Hamed beat. If he had beaten anyone of these guys, he would have a much stronger case.

The whole HOF being a bout fame point that Buzz raised got me in a spin... If that dsfinition is how it is then okay but I'd rather think about it in sporting terms.

In some ways Hamed did well but in the end I agree with Alp.

Hamed had the ability and the opponents to cement his place but in the end he didn't do enough.

The fact that other undeserving fighters are in shouldn't matter.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 20 Sep 2007, 09:44

Ezzard wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:Hamed doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame just because he is better than a handful of fighters that don't belong. (the vast majority of Hall of Famers beat much better competition than Hamed and were better fighters.)

There are literally hundreds of other fighters that aren't in that are better than Jess Willard. Should we let them all in?

You have to take into consideration other fighters who aren't in the Hall of Fame. That is who Hamed is competing with.

Fighters like Eddie Mustapha Muhammad, Eddie Booker,Holman Williams, Lloyd Marshall, Lupe Pintor, and Rodrigo Valdez did a lot more than Hamed. None are in the Hall of Fame yet.

You also have to consider fighters such as Ernesto Marcel, Esteban DeJesus, Marvin Johnson, Bobby Chacon, Dave Holly, Jack Blackburn and many others.

As for Hamed's competition- None of the fighters that he beat were great fighters, at least not when he fought them. Collecting belts against mediocre beltholders doesn't mean you are a Hall of Famer.

He did fight Barrera, and got beat convincingly.
He could have fought Morales, but didn't.
He could have fought Marquez, who was a top fighter when Hamed was fighting, but he didn't.
He stopped fighting when he was 27, shortly before Pacquiao became a big name. He certainly could have fought Pacquiao.

All of these fighters were much better than anyone Hamed beat. If he had beaten anyone of these guys, he would have a much stronger case.
The whole HOF being a bout fame point that Buzz raised got me in a spin... If that dsfinition is how it is then okay but I'd rather think about it in sporting terms.

In some ways Hamed did well but in the end I agree with Alp.

Hamed had the ability and the opponents to cement his place but in the end he didn't do enough.

The fact that other undeserving fighters are in shouldn't matter.

I respect the purists....I just don't buy that the Hall of Fame does. And I even know that IN THE BEGINNING it was meant to be a salute to the best of the best SKILL wise. But my friends...that was long ago.....a lot of water under the bridge since then.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 20 Sep 2007, 10:59

On one hand Hamed is more deserving than several guys in the HOF, on the other though, numerous fighters who haven't been inducted have better credentials.

oliverfennell · Post by **oliverfennell** » 20 Sep 2007, 11:05

Hamed at his peak was an A-list fighter, while Pacquaio didn't hit the A-list - or featherweight - until he beat Barrera. Criticising Hamed for not fighting Pacquaio is like criticising Ray Leonard for not fighting Nigel Benn.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 20 Sep 2007, 13:01

It's not the same. It's not like Hamed started to get old and retired and someone else came along after that.
He stopped fighting when he was just 28. (and hadn't taken that much wear and tear) That is young no matter how you try to spin it. He could have fought Pacquaio in 2003 or 2004.

Do you really think it was a coincidence that he stopped fighting when the competition around his weight became much better? He stopped fighting because after the Barerra fight he knew that he couldn't beat these guys.

If Barrera,Morales, and Pacquaio wouldn't have come along, he wouldn't have retired when he was 28. In fact he may still be fighting, picking up meaningless belts. He didn't have the ability to beat these guys or the guts to even try.
He did not have a Hall of Fame career.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 20 Sep 2007, 16:44

28 isn't ancient at all if you have only had 37 fights and taken very little punishment.
Pep,Canzoneri and Attell all had well over 100 fights and had been in many ring wars. (btw Pep would have been the featherweight champion for a few years if almost anyone but Saddler had been the champion.)

Do you really think if Pep,Canzoneri, Attell fought the number of fights that Hamed did and had the same opponents that Hamed did that they would have retired at the age of 28?

If you want to make an arguement that Hamed is better than McGuigan, thats fine. I think McGuigan is slightly better but that is arguable. However, putting Hamed in the Hall of Fame just because he is better than McGuigan as has been suggested is silly. As I said before,should we put in everyone that is better than Jess Willard?
Two wrongs don't make a right.

What people have to remember is that the competition that Hamed faces to get in the Hall of Fame are the outstanding fighters who havben't been elected.
Does Hamed really deserve to get in before people like Eddie Mustapha Muhammad,Eddie Booker,Lloyd Marshall, Holman Williams, or Rodrigo Valdez?
I find it hard to believe that people that are at all familar with their careers believe that.
There many others who are probably more deserving than Hamed as well.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 20 Sep 2007, 16:54

Ambling Alp wrote:28 isn't ancient at all if you have only had 37 fights and taken very little punishment.
Pep,Canzoneri and Attell all had well over 100 fights and had been in many ring wars. (btw Pep would have been the featherweight champion for a few years if almost anyone but Saddler had been the champion.)

Do you really think if Pep,Canzoneri, Attell fought the number of fights that Hamed did and had the same opponents that Hamed did that they would have retired at the age of 28?

If you want to make an arguement that Hamed is better than McGuigan, thats fine. I think McGuigan is slightly better but that is arguable. However, putting Hamed in the Hall of Fame just because he is better than McGuigan as has been suggested is silly. As I said before,should we put in everyone that is better than Jess Willard?
Two wrongs don't make a right.

What people have to remember is that the competition that Hamed faces to get in the Hall of Fame are the outstanding fighters who havben't been elected.
Does Hamed really deserve to get in before people like Eddie Mustapha Muhammad,Eddie Booker,Lloyd Marshall, Holman Williams, or Rodrigo Valdez?
I find it hard to believe that people that are at all familar with their careers believe that.
There many others who are probably more deserving than Hamed as well.

Now this I can agree with....their are other fighters whose fame/skill quotient superscedes Hamed's and he should get in line. However don't be suprised if the "voters" hopscotch him over some more deserving blokes because of the glitter.

Borinken25 · Post by **Borinken25** » 20 Sep 2007, 17:30

Ambling Alp wrote:It's not the same. It's not like Hamed started to get old and retired and someone else came along after that.
He stopped fighting when he was just 28. (and hadn't taken that much wear and tear) That is young no matter how you try to spin it. He could have fought Pacquaio in 2003 or 2004.

Do you really think it was a coincidence that he stopped fighting when the competition around his weight became much better? He stopped fighting because after the Barerra fight he knew that he couldn't beat these guys.

If Barrera,Morales, and Pacquaio wouldn't have come along, he wouldn't have retired when he was 28. In fact he may still be fighting, picking up meaningless belts. He didn't have the ability to beat these guys or the guts to even try.
He did not have a Hall of Fame career.

I have to agree with your assesment. No Morales, Marquez, Paquiao or Norwood on his resume. He didn't even try to get a rematch vs Barrera. He did not fight the best fighters available. Yes he dominated against bums, but what about the elite? We will never know because he chose to retire before facing any of them.

theone · Post by **theone** » 20 Sep 2007, 17:40

Do you really think it was a coincidence that he stopped fighting when the competition around his weight became much better? He stopped fighting because after the Barerra fight he knew that he couldn't beat these guys.

If Barrera,Morales, and Pacquaio wouldn't have come along, he wouldn't have retired when he was 28. In fact he may still be fighting, picking up meaningless belts. He didn't have the ability to beat these guys or the guts to even try.
He did not have a Hall of Fame career.

To say Hamed didn't have to guts to face those fighters is a bit harsh. Hamed never struck me as the timid type; even when Barrera was battering him around, Hamed took it like a man and never stopped trying to win the fight. He could have just stayed on his stool when he thought the fight was lost like Tszyu did, but he didn't. I don't know happened to his desire after the the Barrera fight, but i would bet it didn't have anything to do with him being afraid to fight anybody.

Does Hamed really deserve to get in before people like Eddie Mustapha Muhammad,Eddie Booker,Lloyd Marshall, Holman Williams, or Rodrigo Valdez?

Sure, why not? Hamed was the premier featherweight for over 6 years and beat everyone he had to beat convincingly up until he faced Barrera. He should be judged by what he did in his division. Besides, those guys may have a more impressive name or two in their win columns than Hamed does, but they have also have losses to guys at the level that Hamed never lost to as well.
If it isn't fair to say he should get in because less deserving guys are in, what makes it anymore more fair to say if other guys got slighted?

Musashi · Post by **Musashi** » 20 Sep 2007, 19:45

Decagon wrote:How long was Mike Tyson's prime?

If only Tyson had retired in his prime... The myth would have never been destroyed. One can dream.

Brute · Post by **Brute** » 20 Sep 2007, 21:15

Hamed could be an annoying shit, but you had to admit he was a clever boxer with a good punch and very elusive. Many of the fighters he beat are still world rated today and many won world titles after he beat them. In 37 fights he only lost to Barrera and was never knocked out. I think he makes a good case for HOF membership.

If you disqualify people on character grounds, the Hall would be thinly populated. Many hall of fame members had criminal records. As for him retiring at 28, he had been boxing for ten years and probably decided it was time to get out. You do not get brownie points for hanging around until you are walking on your heels. You make your money and get out on top. If I never see another boxer in the state Muhammed Ali is in now, it will be too soon.