does naseem hamed belong in the hall of fame?

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 24 Sep 2007, 06:30

someones gotta knock big george down twice more for your stat to even begin to make sense. perhaps he'll come out of retirement again and help you along

theone · Post by **theone** » 24 Sep 2007, 16:50

someones gotta knock big george down twice more for your stat to even begin to make sense. perhaps he'll come out of retirement again and help you along

Lyle dropped Foreman twice; so there you go.

But thats irrelevant. The whole argument that Hamed wasn't elusive because he was dropped 5 times by 3 different people is silly to anyone who has watched more than a few of his fights.

Musashi · Post by **Musashi** » 24 Sep 2007, 16:53

Most of those knockdowns were a result of Naseem's awkward style and balance.

Did he ever appear to be really hurt?

theone · Post by **theone** » 24 Sep 2007, 17:00

Did he ever appear to be really hurt?

Momentarily stunned from finding himself down, yes. But he was never close to being hurt to the point that he seemed on the verge of being ko'd. He recovered extremely well from all his knockdowns.

Musashi · Post by **Musashi** » 24 Sep 2007, 17:07

How about Floyd Patterson? Does Floyd Patterson belong in the Hall? Floyd hit the deck a few dozen times. Anyways, it's not whether you get knocked down or how many times you get knocked down, it's whether you get back up.

theone · Post by **theone** » 24 Sep 2007, 17:32

How about Floyd Patterson? Does Floyd Patterson belong in the Hall? Floyd hit the deck a few dozen times.

I believe Louis is right in back of him on the knockdown list. Trinidad is another fighter who suffered alot of knockdowns(almost always in the second round!) but would proceed to get up and absolutely destroy most of the perpetrators.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 24 Sep 2007, 17:57

his poor balance was the reason i cannot accept that he can be rightly called elusive.

theone · Post by **theone** » 24 Sep 2007, 19:46

You're right Dec. Louis was down 10 times in his career. Carnera was down 11 times in one fight alone! Carnera probably suffered close to 20 knockdowns I bet.

Wheelchair · Post by **Wheelchair** » 27 Sep 2007, 11:45

The whole idea of a Hall of Fame was gone wonky somewhere. At the rate its going now almost anyone who ever laced on a glove will be in it!

Its all just very silly and devalues the idea when fighters like Mcguigan etc who only held portions of titles for a year get in.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 27 Sep 2007, 12:24

Decagon wrote:
Wheelchair wrote:The whole idea of a Hall of Fame was gone wonky somewhere. At the rate its going now almost anyone who ever laced on a glove will be in it!

Its all just very silly and devalues the idea when fighters like Mcguigan etc who only held portions of titles for a year get in.
Well, to be fair, Pedroza was the World Champion, because he held the WBA title and beat the guy who held the WBC title. And McGuinan beat Pedroza.

Who was the WBC title holder he beat?

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 28 Sep 2007, 04:25

Decagon wrote:LaPorte. He won the WBC title right after losing to Pedroza, so his title claim had no merit.

I see, thanks for that one...

Matt W · Post by **Matt W** » 29 Sep 2007, 06:07

McGuigan was decked - by Steve Cruz (3 times I think, including twice in the 15th).

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 01 Oct 2007, 09:33

oldwarrior wrote:it's been five years since hamed's last fight. no knock but being in jail for the past couple of years and considering his age of 34, perhaps he should call it a career.

should the "naz" be elected into boxing's hall of fame?

pros:

defended wbo title 16 times
36-1 lifetime record 31 kos
great handspeed and punching power
held wbo title for over 4 years

cons:

fought handpicked opposition for most of his career
name fighters were old and over the hill
lost to barrera in perhaps most defining fight

intangibles:

how would he have done against morales, pacquiao, marquez and other top named fighters?

chime in with your thoughts and comments

oldwarrior

I think he should. Yes he was soundly beaten by Barrera but there's no shame in that, Barrera is a great fighter.

Hamed beat some quality fighters, and made it look easy many times. He was exciting to watch, fast and a tremendous puncher with either hand. As written earlier if McGuigan is Hamed should definitely be.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 01 Oct 2007, 11:35

As written earlier, Hamed is not competing with Barry McGuigan. (Though you certainly could argue that McGuigan had a better career).

Are you going to put in every fighter that is better than the worst fighters in the Hall of Fame? Should we put in every heavyweight that was better than Jess Willard or James Braddock?

When the next Hall of Fame election comes up, voters have to choose among fighters who aren't in the Hall of Fame. This includes many great fighters that have been passed over previously. Some have literally been passed over for decades. There are several who (unlike Hamed) actually beat great fighters, including some legitimate Hall of Famers. Those fighters should get in before Hamed.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 01 Oct 2007, 12:17

I do agree that some people don't like Hamed and some people don't seem capable of judging fairly the career of a fighter that they don't like.

That being said, there really doesn't seem to be much of an arguement for Hamed. He beat some good fighters, but so did many fighters that aren't in the Hall of Fame. Some beat several good fighters and great fighters and aren't in.

He is judged so harshly for the Barrera fight because it's the only fight he had against a great fighter. Had he had several fights against great fighters and won some of them, it would be a different story.
None of the opponents that Hamed beat (atleast anyone that was close to their prime) are remotely close to being worthy of being Hall of Famers themselves.

chesh · Post by **chesh** » 04 Oct 2007, 07:39

MIKEE wrote:they should have left it for true world champs, and those later fighters who were compellingly the best of their division for at least 4-5 years

Hamed was the best featherweight for 5 years. Barrera moved up from 122 to fight him. The only question mark is JMM whom Naz avoided. He also turned down a fight with Hamed as it was at short notice. This was the time Naz ended up fighting Augie Sanchez. Apart from the JMM debate, Naz was the premier and dominant featherweight from summer '95 until that fateful night in April '01 when he got his comeuppance. I do, however, think he has the credentials for the HOF. What hurts his legacy, of course, is not his loss to an ATG like MAB, but his failure to come back (apart from the abysmal showing against Euro level fighter Calvo) as great fighters usually do.

Mukel · Post by **Mukel** » 04 Oct 2007, 11:38

Naz without question should be in the HOF.

Manny Pac hadnt even moved upto featherweight when Naz vanished from earth, never mind established himself, thats like saying why didnt
Liston fight Frazier, Pacman didnt fight MAB till 2 and a half years after Naz lost, by then he had vanished off the scene and was inactive and unofficially retired.

Norwood ducked Hamed, thats pretty well known.

Barrera won fair and square, but he won by 3 to 4 point hardly destroyed Naz and exposed him, Naz wasnt half the fighter he was after he left Brendan Ingle.

Naz's achievements are better than most, he has a better resume than a lot of greats, dont let hatred consume you.

Flump · Post by **Flump** » 04 Oct 2007, 15:11

I can't stand the little cowardly twat but I think he deserves to be in, he did liven the division up massively and beat some good fighters. And it was a pleasure seeing Barrera school him too, I might add.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 05 Oct 2007, 07:09

blackburn may have been a double murderer but that does not automatically qualify him for the name of TWAT.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 05 Oct 2007, 09:22

Boxing.Gloves wrote:Naz without question should be in the HOF.

Manny Pac hadnt even moved upto featherweight when Naz vanished from earth, never mind established himself, thats like saying why didnt
Liston fight Frazier, Pacman didnt fight MAB till 2 and a half years after Naz lost, by then he had vanished off the scene and was inactive and unofficially retired.

Norwood ducked Hamed, thats pretty well known.

Barrera won fair and square, but he won by 3 to 4 point hardly destroyed Naz and exposed him, Naz wasnt half the fighter he was after he left Brendan Ingle.

Naz's achievements are better than most, he has a better resume than a lot of greats, dont let hatred consume you.

This is a lot different than Liston not fighting Frazier.
Hamed wouldn't have "vanished from the scene" if he hadn't lost to Barrera convincingly (the fight wasn't as close as the scorecards) and if Pacquiao and Morales wouldn't have been on the scene. If those 3 didn't exist, Hamed wouldn't have retired so early.

He does not have a better resume than 90% of the fighters who are in the Hall of Fame. There are several fighters who haven't been elected to the Hall of Fame that have better resumes than Hamed.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 05 Oct 2007, 09:58

You know....just the fact that he creates such discussion with differeing and somewhat strong opinions tells you something. For me it really hinges on that thing that Alp scolds me for over and over. And the spirit of it is this.

Should the Hall of Fame really be "The Hall of Accomplishment". And for many of us that's what the word meant when it all started. So for Naz's "Fame" he should be in without a doubt. No one deny's it. But in the old days "fame" and "accomplishment" went hand in hand. Nowadays That aint necessarily so.

Alp I hope I have helped you understand my take.....I'm mincing words only because mincing words is exactly why this debate is taking place. And my guess is that because of "word mincing" Hamed will find himself in the HOF with ease. That with a bit of help that his accomplishments are just enough to push him over the top. He is without the media hype a legitimate "borderline" candidate IMHO. So the hype cinches it for him.

See what happens when we let "political correctness" distort "real meaning"? Thankfully this is a somewhat benign example of that.

kikibalt · Post by **kikibalt** » 05 Oct 2007, 10:14

But he only beat HAS-BEENS and NEVER-WAS!

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 05 Oct 2007, 12:45

BoxBuzz wrote:You know....just the fact that he creates such discussion with differeing and somewhat strong opinions tells you something. For me it really hinges on that thing that Alp scolds me for over and over. And the spirit of it is this.

Should the Hall of Fame really be "The Hall of Accomplishment". And for many of us that's what the word meant when it all started. So for Naz's "Fame" he should be in without a doubt. No one deny's it. But in the old days "fame" and "accomplishment" went hand in hand. Nowadays That aint necessarily so.

Alp I hope I have helped you understand my take.....I'm mincing words only because mincing words is exactly why this debate is taking place. And my guess is that because of "word mincing" Hamed will find himself in the HOF with ease. That with a bit of help that his accomplishments are just enough to push him over the top. He is without the media hype a legitimate "borderline" candidate IMHO. So the hype cinches it for him.

See what happens when we let "political correctness" distort "real meaning"? Thankfully this is a somewhat benign example of that.

I think you are right. Hamed probably will make it in, if not on the first ballot.
His fame is what will probably put him over.

It would interesting to me who the people that support him are. I think many are younger fans who are a lot more impressed with fighters winning WBS belts than older fans usually are.
I have noticed that Hamed's supporters have barely talked about other great fighters who Hamed would be put in ahead of. I mentioned several who were better than Hamed and only once did someone even dispute one of those fighters.
This leads me to believe that these people don't know about and/or don't care about the history of the sport. They just want their guy in and don't seem to care that their are more deserving fighters that are in.

Myself and others do care. We want the best guys in. Of course there some bad picks in the past that can't be undone. However, as I have said before, two wrongs don't make a right. The more undserving fighters that get in instead of deserving fighters, the less credibility the Boxing Hall of Fame will have.

Actually, I would argue that as of right now, the International Boxing Hall of Fame has done a better job of picking members than other major sports.
The Pro Football Hall of Fame somehow doesn't have Art Monk in it!
there are so many problems with the Baseball Hall of Fame that it's hard to know where to start.

Boxbuzz is right when he says that Hamed has created a lot of discussion. I started a thread a few weeks ago where I rated all 200 Hall of Famers in 5 different levels. You would think that this would cause countless debates. I mean this is rating 200 fighters over a period of over 100 years. Well there was some interest from some of the people that were really interested in boxing history. There were a total of 66 replies.

We now have over 150 replies to this thread about one guy.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 05 Oct 2007, 19:14

Bet if I start a Vitali Klitschko appreciation thread it goes more pages than this.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 05 Oct 2007, 19:23

Seamus wrote:Bet if I start a Vitali Klitschko appreciation thread it goes more pages than this.

I would happily send it to the current scene...since he is not retired....

does naseem hamed belong in the hall of fame?

Re: does naseem hamed belong in the hall of fame?