does naseem hamed belong in the hall of fame?

[barry]

I don't think he could ever beat Barrera either, but had he trained in a manner, and when I say trained I don't mean that he was in poor condition just that he did not train with any kind of game plan for the fight, but had he trained in a manner that focused on a bit of defense and some solid technical skill then he would have given himself a lot better chance to win and had he fought in a bit technical manner then he would have given himself a better opportunity to land a big shot, but going in a throwing wide, looping punches...well when that happens a fighter gets embarrassed just like Hamed did!

[silkov]

People often say, "I just flamed you". My answer is always that only a BK burger gets flamed and I'm not leting anyone near my Whopper. These Internet cottagers are pure filth.

As for Hamed. No way does he beat Barrera. He is simply not good or skilled enough nor did he have the balance. He could have trained with Thomas and lost that fight.

Thats very true, the things that Hamed got away with against most of his opponents throughout his career he was never going to get away with against the top flight guys such as Barrera, Morales etc...

[silkov]

[quote="barry"]>>>I see you havent changed or grown up Barry!<<<

Oh quit whining!!! I wasn't speaking toward you, I was making a statment, but I guess your ears are too virgin to hear something like bullshit....next time I'll use "fudge sticks," would that be better for you?

And for the record...you're the one who resorted to insults little boy!

>>>and since when is 'an obvious fact' that Hamed would have beaten Barrera had he 'trained proper<<<

I see that you still do not have the ability to even properly read a sentence!!! You are a real idiot and you don't have the common sense to even see what is right in front of you! If you could then you would have read a couple of posts back where I stated that I don't think that Hamed could have beaten Barrera even if he had been at his best, but no...here you are as is typical with you making up fiction nonsense that no one ever said, which that seems to be about the best that you can do...talk about growing up...you need to do a lot of it!

Please...just don't bother me any more because I have no interest in anything you have to say alright![/quot

You'll give yourself a nosebleed you know!... 8)

[barry]

>>>If you trained him with more more focus on technical ability you would change his stance a little, his technique also and he would have none of the positives, power and unorthodox delivery, that he once had.<<<

That's quite possible, but then again if someone had been able to teach Hamed to have a solid stance to match with his unorthodox style then it might have even improved his power a bit. Maybe not, but maybe so. His unorthodox style is what certainly made him successful for most of his career, but also, earlier in his title reign, though very unorthodox, he did throw multiple punches and mixed them up. His balance was close to the worst that I can recall ever seeing, which in all of his knockdowns it was mainly balance that sent him down, but had he been able to rectify some of those unorthodox moves he may have been a truly great fighter, but that is one of those what ifs that we will never know about!

[barry]

>>>You'll give yourself a nosebleed you know!<<<

Nosebleed...nah...the only thing I got was a sprained index finger!

[silkov]

The problem with Hamed was much the same problem that Tyson had, in between his ears (many have this proplem it seems) both were basically bullies who crumbled when their veneers of invincibility was cracked, neither had the inner character or courage to comeback from defeats... had Hamed had Barreras mentality he would have been a far greater fighter... boxing is 80% mental as most of us knows already....... Ali was the greatest as much for his mental strength and character as for his physical talents.... much of which he left behind in the 60s...

[barry]

I agree completely about Hamed's mentality and pretty much all of that statement. Hamed never had the mental capacity it seemed to really deal with serious adversity!

[silkov]

Ah, peace in our time!.... I feel a nobel prize coming on, ...the ice caps have stopped melting!... ...Bushy has started talking sense!.... Gore is sending me a Christmas card!.... 8)

[silkov]

Joking aside though, going back to the original question of whether Hamed should be put in the Hall of fame or not, it depends on the qualifications needed of the fighters to get in, does a fighter have have been an out and out all time great, or pound for pounder, or does he simply have to have been amongst the best of his division for a while or have made an impact upon the sport during his career. I dont think anyone will deny that Hamed made an impact and was an entertaining edition to the sport while he was active and much as I grew to dislike him I have to admit to missing him! (I know its sad!!) ...my biggest disapointment with him is that he went away with his tail between his legs like he did, in many ways thats damaged everything that he acheived before the Barrera fight because now when one watches Hamed you always feel that you can see that bit of dog in him that Barrera brought to the surface.......

[BoxBuzz]

You are a real idiot and you don't have the common sense to even see what is right in front of you!

Are we allowed to insult other posters now ( even if it is Silkov :P ) ...... or are only moderators allowed to do it?

Just curious like, cos I want to insult a few people as well.

bladder...it may please you to know that your very presence here is remarkably insulting to many of us....so in some ways you are accomplishing that which you say you value.........and I mean that in all the good ways it can be said.

[silkov]

You are a real idiot and you don't have the common sense to even see what is right in front of you!

Are we allowed to insult other posters now ( even if it is Silkov :P ) ...... or are only moderators allowed to do it?

Just curious like, cos I want to insult a few people as well.

bladder...it may please you to know that your very presence here is remarkably insulting to many of us....so in some ways you are accomplishing that which you say you value.........and I mean that in all the good ways it can be said.

I dont think I like the tone of 'even if it is Silkov'.... call me paranoid but I feel picked on!.... anymore pee pee from Bladder and I might have to call my lawyer for insults made and alluded to and some that probably are still yet to come..... :x :(

[BoxBuzz]

Joking aside though, going back to the original question of whether Hamed should be put in the Hall of fame or not, it depends on the qualifications needed of the fighters to get in, does a fighter have have been an out and out all time great, or pound for pounder, or does he simply have to have been amongst the best of his division for a while or have made an impact upon the sport during his career. I dont think anyone will deny that Hamed made an impact and was an entertaining edition to the sport while he was active and much as I grew to dislike him I have to admit to missing him! (I know its sad!!) ...my biggest disapointment with him is that he went away with his tail between his legs like he did, in many ways thats damaged everything that he acheived before the Barrera fight because now when one watches Hamed you always feel that you can see that bit of dog in him that Barrera brought to the surface.......

Many people share that "spirit" thing when it comes to the HOF. Who had the real "feeling" for the sport regardless of other aspects of their career? That's a question often pondered. But primes can be short and interesting. IMHO the HOF status can be measured either way. Actual events which can be measured, assessed and judged. (Which I think barry did a great job in articulating) and then the "ethereal" aspects of a career. Like warrior spirit, indominatable character when things got tough, great work ethic, heroic fortitude. Things that are more intangible. The difference between Marciano and Hamed could be about either issue depending on the state of mind of the person debating the issue.

Did Marciano leave to soon? If he would have lost his next fight against Machen (for instance) and then come back with an easy win would he have been chastized and sent to the bottom of the list?

Just some things to ponder. I'm thinking Hamed is an average candidate that polarized people. Please don't think I"m saying he's Rocky. But the spinners have a great time with these details along the way.

And we are all spinners to some degree. No one has been able to create a "no spin zone" for these topics. So it's just best to be aware that spin is taking place all the time.

[barry]

There's a debate on the CBZ on this issue which a member stated that there should be more people elected, which I agree. There are so many greats who are now forgotten who should be acknowledged for what they did. Being that there seems to be several poor decisions about who is in the Hall that could be eliminated if there were many. It's not like the hall would be watered down, or flooded. There are probably between 1000 and 5000 fighters who should be recognized as great, or very near great and they all should be in the Hall, which that may sound like a large lot of inductees, but when considering the total amount of boxers who have fought in history, even 5000 would be a small percentage of the overall number.

[silkov]

I never begrudge a fighter entering the hall, because nearly all fighters are 'warriors' and when you take into account how many of them leave the best years of their lives behind them in the ring its not much really for them to be remembered a bit. I'll bet it makes all the difference to a lot of them in their retirement years. Maybe they should have different catagories in the hall, like one for the great champs and other catagories like contenders who contributed a lot to the sport, entertianing fighters, journeymen who have given a lot to the sport.... these guys might not be 'great fighters' but they still are important to the sport.......

[barry]

I would really like to see there be categories like that. Speaking of how some retired fighters feel about being remembered, well I recall some of what Ray Actis said. Someone was writing an article on Actis for Ring magazine back in the early, or middle 1990s. Actis could not believe that he was remembered and he died not to long after that article appeared and Actis was buried with that magazine, so it was obviously very important to him. That's one of the reasons why I am so fond of boxing history...I love to talk about these old fighters both living and those that have past on and they sure as hell did more to earn a spot in a Hall of Fame, earned a lot more so than those who vote a fighter not worthy!

[silkov]

Yeah I agree, I think it gave Ken Buchanan a huge lift when he was elected as his post boxing life has not been easy, but he seems to have a higher profile in the past few years, goes to the fights and seems a lot happier in himself.
One thing bothers me is any neither Benny Paret nor Davey Moore have been elected to the hall of fame (as far as I know!)...

[p4p1]

i can not disagree with this but at the same time i find it hard to agree with this but i think it would also be a exelent tribute to many men that fought many wars in the ring but never had the ability to go all the way but at the same time if you let journeymen and the alike fighters into a hall of fame you could have no reasonh for letting in every fighter that won a world title... i like the idea but where do you stop it do you let someone in that has had say 10 cracks at a world title and never won it but showed heart for a long time as a contender who gave to the sport and not let in someone for instance like hamed that was the best featherweight around but should of been greater and never really showed as much heart as he needed to for me this is a very hard question because we all have to respect nearly every fighter that has done this sport for a living and taken many blows... how ever i do not beleive james bradock is much more than a jouneyman/champ that had one great story of a life but i do not see 1 world title defence warenting to be in the hall of fame but i do not begrudge him being there i think that he should be remembered i really am in two minds for this question maybe be we should post a new topic on boxrec and see what other users think

[oliverfennell]

I don't buy the "past his prime" arguement when he fought Barrera either. I saw Hamed on HBO several times and didn't show that he had great boxing skills. He had a big punch and good hand speed , but otherwise didn't show exceptional boxing skill.

And therein lies the problem with your argument. Hamed's best fights DID come before his US/HBO debut. Whether he was past his prime or not by then is open to question, because it was more a case of him getting complacent than any natural erosion of skill, but his pre-Kelly fights displayed the qualities you've heard of.

So the 23 year old Hamed who came to the United States was no longer that great? After so many years of greatness, he had grown complacent?
What a coincidence that he grew complacent right when came to the United States in 1997. That's too bad. What a coincidence that we didn't see Hamed at his best.

Even if someone buys that that arguement, Hamed didn't even pick up his WBO belt (which wasn't even considered a major belt at the time) until September of 1995. So he had what, one, two years of "greatness"?
That's not a Hall of Fame career even if you buy that arguement.

Sure, his performances went downhill as the competition increased. And no, I'm not arguing those two WBO years were HOF-stuff. Just that on the way up, as a contender and in the early part of his reign, DID show he had amazing reflexes, speed and defensive abilities. He could hit opponents from any angle with power shots and go whole rounds without being hut, and this purely from reflexes - AVOIDING shots rather than blocking them. And this wasn't because of the level of opposition - he fought some very decent guys on the way up. No, they weren't A-listers, but most of them had performed better before and since against other top flight guys.

Obviously Naz was too young to be "past his prime" physically by the time he made it to America, but he HAD grown complacent. He had grown dependent on his power and devolved into a slugger rather than the unorthodox box of tricks we saw coming up.

As for it being a coincidence that this happened as he made his American debut - well, the signs were there already, but he bought into his own hype job due to being given the main event at MSG, which led to a complacent display. That he was in such an exciting, well-received fight probably contributed to him continuing to employ a slugging style through the remainder of his career.

Should you doubt my appraisal of his early years, then I implore you to seek out these fights on DVD. They're easy enough to find. Don't just take my word for it, but also don't just base your arguments on what you have and haven't seen of the man. Watch his early fights, compare them to his later fights, and then try to tell me he didn't have great boxing skills at least up to a certain point in his career.

[Ambling Alp]

I really don't care how he supposedly looked for 2 years. Even if he looked great for two years, that isn't enough to make him a Hall of Famer.

Why in the world would he be complacent at the age of 23? He hadn't done enough yet. Even if he was compacent, that's his problem.

To be considered a great fighter, you have to prove it. He never proved it.

[oliverfennell]

I really don't care how he supposedly looked for 2 years. Even if he looked great for two years, that isn't enough to make him a Hall of Famer.

Why in the world would he be complacent at the age of 23? He hadn't done enough yet. Even if he was compacent, that's his problem.

To be considered a great fighter, you have to prove it. He never proved it.

You are, of course, right to say complacency is his own problem. What he did and didn't achieve in the US can and will be argued back and forth. But I'm just saying people don't realise he was possibly twice the fighter before he came to America. No, this portion of his career, given the opposition, does not in itself equate to HOF standard. But I'm just illustrating how there was a time when he was, on a skill level, better than many give him credit for.

[harrygreb]

no arguments there

[oldwarrior]

With tomorrow's IBHOF ceremony taking place, Lennox Lewis got in right away. Will Naz have to wait awhile longer or does he not make it in at all? Does it tarnish his image the longer the committee takes to vote him in?

thoughts or comments?

oldwarrior

[Collins2000]

Memories of Bazza.

[bollox]

I'm not so sure he deserves to be in but I reckon he'll make it in

[yiddle]

hamed yes , mcguigan got in so why not