does naseem hamed belong in the hall of fame?

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 21 Sep 2007, 09:01

well brute i have to disagree with your assessment of hamed as being "very elusive". he was never elusive. elusivity was not one of his strengths. a good boxer earlier in his career with immense power but elusive? nah.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 21 Sep 2007, 10:01

Thought I would address some comments from Theone and Decagon.

theone- Hamed should not be put in the Hall of Fame just because A few guys that weren't that good are in. There have been mistakes. Adding more undeserving fighters only makes things worse. 90% of the fighters that have been elected are much better than Hamed.

The fighters that mentioned previously (Mustapha Muhammad,Booker,Williams,Marshall and Valdez) and others did much more than Hamed.

Edide Mustapha Muhammad beat Hall of Famer Mathew Saad Muhammad. He also beat Marvin Johnson, who arguably should be in. He gave Hall of Famers Michael Spinks and Victor Galindez tough fights. The lightheavyweight division was absolutely loaded when Mustapha Muhammad fought. It was much, much tougher to be the lightheavyweight champion during his era than the featherweight champion in Hamed's era.

Lloyd Marshall beat Hall of Famers Ezzard Charles, Jake LaMotta,Joey Maxim, and Charlie Burley.

Holman Williams beat Archie Moore, and beat Burley twice.

Eddie Booker beat Archie Moore and had two draws with Moore. He also beat Marshall and Williams.

Rodrigo Valdez gave Carlos Monzon two tough fights, almost winning the second time. He also beat Benny Briscoe three times. He was the only fighter to stop Briscoe in 96 fights, many against very tough competition. An old Briscoe gave Marvin Hagler a tough fight.

These fighters had much more impressive careers than Hamed. It's not even close. There are several other fighters who were more deserving as well. Hamed was the top featherweight for several years. It was a weak era. Many other featherweights in history would have been able to that. When better fighters came up, Hamed fought one of them, lost and didn't fight the others.

Decagon- If a fighter has a short prime, he better do something very special in that time. Hamed certainly didn't.

If he had trouble making the featherweight limit, then he could have moved up. If he would have beaten a great fighter at Jr Lightweight, then he would have a much stronger case for the Hall of Fame. He didn't even try because he would have lost.

Borinken25 · Post by **Borinken25** » 21 Sep 2007, 11:26

Decagon wrote:
Borinken25 wrote: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.
That's a poor comparison, because Serrano and Vazquez were never the true leaders of their respective divisions. There was more to Hamed than a bunch of title defenses. He knocked people out, and he fought all of the other champions. Serrano and Vazquez didn't.

Good point and I'll give Serrano, but not Vazquez. Vazquez did fight other champions at different weight classes and won. He won titles at bantam, super bantam and feather weight divisions and he was knocking people out too.

oliverfennell · Post by **oliverfennell** » 21 Sep 2007, 12:07

harrygreb wrote:well brute i have to disagree with your assessment of hamed as being "very elusive". he was never elusive. elusivity was not one of his strengths. a good boxer earlier in his career with immense power but elusive? nah.

I take it, then, that your experience of Naseem Hamed did not begin until the night he fought Kevin Kelly?

Borinken25 · Post by **Borinken25** » 21 Sep 2007, 12:41

Decagon wrote:He hopped from division to division, picking up trinkets. It takes more than that to be a great fighter.

Please Decagon, you could do better than that. At least Vazquez move up in weight and defeated other champions and Hamed did not do that.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 21 Sep 2007, 13:04

Decagon wrote:He did something special in his short prime. He faced all four belt holders, and knocked three of them out, outpointing the fourth. Unifying a championship is a special thing in boxing. Can you name one fighter who unified the belts and didn't make the Hall?

Well, off the top of my head, Donald Curry unified the welterweight title. I hope we can agree that he wasn't a Hall of Famer.

It's very misleading that few others haven't unified titles. Most greats never had the chance. There usually was only one champion that most people cared about until the 1960's. Even then for several years the WBA and WBC (there was no IBF or WBO yet) often recognized the same champion so there was no unification that could have happened.
Many fighters never got a chance of unification because of boxing politics. (Ironically Hamed was never the WBA champion becasue of boxing politics)
Picking up WBS belts shouldn't be the criteria for being in the Hall of Fame anyway. Who you beat is much more important than whether some paper title is on the line.

Brute · Post by **Brute** » 22 Sep 2007, 02:08

harrygreb wrote:well brute i have to disagree with your assessment of hamed as being "very elusive". he was never elusive. elusivity was not one of his strengths. a good boxer earlier in his career with immense power but elusive? nah.

Bullshit! He was nearly impossible to hit.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 22 Sep 2007, 06:17

its funny how people who love hamed try to ignore the later rubbishy stuff and focus solely on the excellent work before people tagged him. he spent quite a few occasions lifting his asss off the canvas, ergo, claiming exalted levels of elusivity for hamed is, quite simply, hogwash.

theone · Post by **theone** » 22 Sep 2007, 07:47

its funny how people who love hamed try to ignore the later rubbishy stuff and focus solely on the excellent work before people tagged him. he spent quite a few occasions lifting his asss off the canvas, ergo, claiming exalted levels of elusivity for hamed is, quite simply, hogwash.

The fact that Hamed was dropped only 5 times in his career by 3 different fighters is amazing to me considering his awkward, hands low, often off balance style.
Hamed was a very elusive fighter most of the time; I don't see how anyone who watched more than a few of his fights could argue that.

p4p1 · Post by **p4p1** » 22 Sep 2007, 09:43

theone wrote:
its funny how people who love hamed try to ignore the later rubbishy stuff and focus solely on the excellent work before people tagged him. he spent quite a few occasions lifting his asss off the canvas, ergo, claiming exalted levels of elusivity for hamed is, quite simply, hogwash.
The fact that Hamed was dropped only 5 times in his career by 3 different fighters is amazing to me considering his awkward, hands low, often off balance style.
Hamed was a very elusive fighter most of the time; I don't see how anyone who watched more than a few of his fights could argue that.

he was very hard to hit the hits he got looked bad because of the way he leant in all directions to avoid them which most of the times he did... name another fighter in the world that could lean so far off balance like he did then as he was coming back up counter and knock guys out with one punch he was a top fighter he fought who was available to him at the time he took apart tom johnson when he wasnt supposed to be able to, out slugged kevin kelly and because berrera counter punched the counter puncher this taked away all of hameds credabilitytaking nothing away from berrara he fought a smart fight if he had of come forward on naz he would bin KO'd he came to hamed once in the fight and got his nose broken with a left uppercut. the KO of augie sanchez is one of the most brutal KO's i have seen the way he hit him twice with huge punches on his way down this was a guy that switch hit and put people on the floor a right hander who made people think he was left handed(ingle taught him to fight with his strong hand as the lead hand) IMO i think he deserves to be in the HOF maybe not straight away but at some point in the near future... hamed did move up weight classes he debuted at flyweight won the EBU bantam title and the WBC intl super bantam title i no these are not world title but proof he still carried power as he moved up weights(though this is partly due to his body maturing)

Arbachakov · Post by **Arbachakov** » 22 Sep 2007, 11:48

Ambling Alp wrote:Thought I would address some comments from Theone and Decagon.

theone- Hamed should not be put in the Hall of Fame just because A few guys that weren't that good are in. There have been mistakes. Adding more undeserving fighters only makes things worse. 90% of the fighters that have been elected are much better than Hamed.

The fighters that mentioned previously (Mustapha Muhammad,Booker,Williams,Marshall and Valdez) and others did much more than Hamed.

Edide Mustapha Muhammad beat Hall of Famer Mathew Saad Muhammad. He also beat Marvin Johnson, who arguably should be in. He gave Hall of Famers Michael Spinks and Victor Galindez tough fights. The lightheavyweight division was absolutely loaded when Mustapha Muhammad fought. It was much, much tougher to be the lightheavyweight champion during his era than the featherweight champion in Hamed's era.

Lloyd Marshall beat Hall of Famers Ezzard Charles, Jake LaMotta,Joey Maxim, and Charlie Burley.

Holman Williams beat Archie Moore, and beat Burley twice.

Eddie Booker beat Archie Moore and had two draws with Moore. He also beat Marshall and Williams.

Rodrigo Valdez gave Carlos Monzon two tough fights, almost winning the second time. He also beat Benny Briscoe three times. He was the only fighter to stop Briscoe in 96 fights, many against very tough competition. An old Briscoe gave Marvin Hagler a tough fight.

These fighters had much more impressive careers than Hamed. It's not even close. There are several other fighters who were more deserving as well. Hamed was the top featherweight for several years. It was a weak era. Many other featherweights in history would have been able to that. When better fighters came up, Hamed fought one of them, lost and didn't fight the others.

Decagon- If a fighter has a short prime, he better do something very special in that time. Hamed certainly didn't.

If he had trouble making the featherweight limit, then he could have moved up. If he would have beaten a great fighter at Jr Lightweight, then he would have a much stronger case for the Hall of Fame. He didn't even try because he would have lost.

Valdez in his prime got a gift decision against Rudy Robles and Struggled terribly with Gratien Tonna(minter did much better against him even in the dight he lost on cuts)

He was never the man and lost twice when he had the chance to prove himself.He also lost when past his prime to oen of the worst middkleweight champions ever...a huge black mark for at least the first fight they had when Valdez was not shot.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 22 Sep 2007, 12:25

down five times in his career. seems to me he wasnt elusive enough.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 22 Sep 2007, 17:25

that statistic is total BS and you know it. ok lets just have a look at the man who keeps cropping up on this thread barry mcguigan...hhmm i see never once off his feet in his entire career. the first guy i look up has already made a significant dent into your ridiculous statistic. admit it it came out of your arse didnt it?

tennessee · Post by **tennessee** » 22 Sep 2007, 18:04

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 22 Sep 2007, 23:57

Decagon wrote:If you took out every fighter who was knocked down five times or more - or put down for the 10-count - the IBHOF would be empty. The only World Heavyweight Champion who would still be in would be Rocky Marciano.

Rocky? He got floored by light heavy.....maybe he shouldn't be there either.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 23 Sep 2007, 00:03

Joe Louis was knocked down something like ten times in his career. KO'd twice.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 23 Sep 2007, 11:00

that doesnt prove your whacky stat!!
i'm not arguing about guys who have been knocked out for the 10. i'm questioning your claim about 90% of hall of famers having been decked more than 5 times in their career.

and i stand by my statement that if you have been put down - at all - then you aint elusive enough.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 23 Sep 2007, 15:28

george foreman stayed upright most of the time

theone · Post by **theone** » 23 Sep 2007, 15:54

Wepner dropped Foreman? Wow, I didn't know that.

JAHamilton77 · Post by **JAHamilton77** » 23 Sep 2007, 17:08

Funny thing about Hamed, is he wasnt nearly as great as those who tout him say he was, but at the same time he wasnt nearly as bad as those who piss on him all the time say he is.

In the end he never had that one defining where he beat a truly elite opponent, he just has a collection of wins over good to really good opponents.

I think if Miguel Cotto were to lose his fight with Shane Mosley and suddenly retire he would be in much the same boat Hamed is in when it comes to HoF eligibility.

theone · Post by **theone** » 23 Sep 2007, 17:23

I think if Miguel Cotto were to lose his fight with Shane Mosley and suddenly retire he would be in much the same boat Hamed is in when it comes to HoF eligibility.

Whoa...Cotto still needs a ways to go before he matches Hamed's career accomplishments.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 23 Sep 2007, 17:31

If Cotto beats Mosley he's definitely ahead of Hamed.

TamTam · Post by **TamTam** » 23 Sep 2007, 19:24

I've always maintained that Hamed was a HOF caliber fighter, but his career remains tainted because of the way it finished. He's going to have that negative fan and media reaction to his first loss, hanging over his head when nomination and voting time comes up.

I know plenty of voting members who have said that they will never vote for Hamed, regardless of what case is presented and who else is nominated in the same year. Like McGwire, Palmeiro and co., Hamed will have to deal with bias when it comes time for induction.

JAHamilton77 · Post by **JAHamilton77** » 23 Sep 2007, 23:09

theone wrote:
I think if Miguel Cotto were to lose his fight with Shane Mosley and suddenly retire he would be in much the same boat Hamed is in when it comes to HoF eligibility.

Whoa...Cotto still needs a ways to go before he matches Hamed's career accomplishments.

I will say Cotto is still behind Hamed, thats why I chose my words carefully, as I think niether is HoF at this point. Cotto isnt that far off though in that niether man ever beat a truly elite fighter.

The more I look at them the more closely I think their resumes match up in fact. Especially if you snip off Tom Johnson & Kevin Kelley from Hamed's record.

theone · Post by **theone** » 23 Sep 2007, 23:23

Especially if you snip off Tom Johnson & Kevin Kelley from Hamed's record.

why would you?