BoxRec

stevedoc wrote:

G0mez wrote:If there are pies, pastries and other delicacies in the Hall Of Fame - then no, Naz should definitely not be in there. Especially if he is on his own.

did you see the size of him at the froch vs groves fight ,he looked like he had hattons ricky fatton suit on

He looked ripped.

Or at least the seam of his pants did !

He's going to be on a mobility scooter this rate. With all his belts draped over the front basket and his own 'Naz 1' plate on it.

TopGun wrote:Quite a few people saying 'no', can one of them say why?

i voted no on the bases of he never really fought any career defining fights,bit of a fast finger on the no button if im honest before having a real good think about it. he was the first person to beat every belt holder and did bring the non boxing fan to the screens to see him. then i see who has been inducted since he qualified to enter the HOF and he should definitley be there,out of the ones who have been inducted there is only about 5-6 id put in before naz. so school boy error on my part i said no but should of put yes.

Naz was a great fighter who by his own standards underachieved ! But his record speaks for itself, and more importantly he got thousands (maybe 10's of thousands) of kids into boxing in the mid to late 90's ! Hall of famer without a doubt

fasteddie wrote:

TopGun wrote:Quite a few people saying 'no', can one of them say why?

i voted no on the bases of he never really fought any career defining fights,bit of a fast finger on the no button if im honest before having a real good think about it. he was the first person to beat every belt holder and did bring the non boxing fan to the screens to see him. then i see who has been inducted since he qualified to enter the HOF and he should definitley be there,out of the ones who have been inducted there is only about 5-6 id put in before naz. so school boy error on my part i said no but should of put yes.

Very honest of you

I'd pay good money to see hamed in leopard print shorts attempting a rope flip!! Be a great thing for charity with no fighting just dancing

didn't he have his MBE removed?

ok i voted yes - purely on boxing merits.

I do think if he had stayed with Brendan ingle and not swapped to steward (even though steward was an amazing trainer/coach etc. etc. ) he would of beat Barrera - don't know all the ins and out and what's done is done they should of buried the hatchet and had a proper go at Barrera.

Same as I think if Cus D Amato had been around he would of steered and kept Tyson on the straight and narrow.

I would say no. He didn't mind giving out the beatings, but when he got one in return he chucked it and was never the same again. Hardly an HOFer.

TJ77 wrote:He was amazing all round entertainer and a nightmare to fight and no one has come close on these shores since.
Without doubt should be inducted and for my money should still be involved in the sport as a pundit.

Haha no thanks. I loved him as a fighter but cannot stand him when he takes over the microphone.

ThereByTheGrace wrote:I would say no. He didn't mind giving out the beatings, but when he got one in return he chucked it and was never the same again. Hardly an HOFer.

One loss at the end of his career means he doesn't get into the HOF? Compare his record to say McGuigan or Gatti...surely he gets in if they did no?

And boxing record aside his "fame" was on another level. The amount of casuals he brought to the sport was staggering.

I get the feeling the 20 people voting "No" didn't particularly take to his style or attitude. Based on achievements it's a no brainer IMO.

For those voting 'no' please consider the following:

Did Naz bring people to the sport who may have never taken up boxing
Did Naz entertain you out of the ring?
Did Naz entertain you inside the ring?
Did he win multiple titles at his weight?
Did other professional before and after him look up to him as an icon?
Was he credible world champion?
Did he defend his titles on multiple occasions?
I think nobody can say anything than an overwhelming Yes to every question.


Boxing like all sports is entertainment, so you could argue that this is one of the highest criteria to get into the HOF?

It is a terrible shame for British boxing if he does not one day enter the HOF.

100% yes.

The Barrera fight wasn't a complete domination either. People talk like it was one sided beat down where 120-108 was being kind to Naz. Barrera won 8 rounds to 4, give or take. Wow. Against Naz who was hardly in his best form.

I always thought any version of Naz would have lost to Barrera, but having gone over his earlier performances, well, I'm not saying a younger Naz would have beat him but he would have stood a better chance.

Imagine if Naz fought Mayweather, I'd pay good money for the press conference!

I voted yes, could have made it unquestionable but the nature of the end of his career, as others have mentioned, have hindered his chances.

TopGun wrote:For those voting 'no' please consider the following:

Did Naz bring people to the sport who may have never taken up boxing
Did Naz entertain you out of the ring?
Did Naz entertain you inside the ring?
Did he win multiple titles at his weight?
Did other professional before and after him look up to him as an icon?
Was he credible world champion?
Did he defend his titles on multiple occasions?
I think nobody can say anything than an overwhelming Yes to every question.


Boxing like all sports is entertainment, so you could argue that this is one of the highest criteria to get into the HOF?

It is a terrible shame for British boxing if he does not one day enter the HOF.

Those questions are irrelevant really.

Remember the HOF come from an annual ballot where only three "modern" fighters get inducted.

A fighters induction is based on their worthiness against the others on the list, and not covered by the above.

Most importantly, the HOF inductees are decided by the Boxing Writers Association of America in addition to "an international panel of boxing historians".

I imagine the international historians make up a small minority of that group, and as I already mentioned previously, the Yanks saw Naz as unlikeable and disrespectful British big mouth who got his come uppance against Barrera before promptly retiring.

Tough call, but no for me.... not yet anyway.... although depends on how you view it. If you view it on "well look who is in" then he could have a chance, but I don't agree with some of the calls (not sure Kostya Tszyu should have been a first balloter)... but then its a case of two wrongs.

Won his title in unfair circumstances - cannot fault the performance.... If thats a sign of poor boxing "politics" then most fighters will have some of that. Steve Robinson was given 4/5 weeks notice or so for the biggest fight of his life.

His light burnt out two quickly, never really "sold" the American market. I'm not talking $$$$, I'm talking I don't think the American market took him as more than an entertaining but second rate fighter who they wanted to see beat. Struggles against a "shot" Kelley and Augie Sanchez whilst great fights didn't convince the likes of Burt Sugar etc that we had a super talent.... Didn't impress vs McCullough and Soto. When he would put in a Robinson, Badillo esque performance it was always in the UK.

Then he came up against his first test against a "chinny" and "out weighed" MAB and got dominated. The score cards, although accurate didn't reflect the dominance. Barrera was the daddy in that fight throughout, rounds Hamed won were rounds in which MAB switched off / rested etc. Then he basically packed it in, despite the big mouth that he is a "lion" and he will be back and he wants Barrera - rematch clauses and all.

If you want to be hyper critical, you can even say Hamed's own greatness and ability was a reason why the sport has declined in the UK.... crazy talk? maybe, but Hamed was seen as the gold nugget to FW / Sky's deal.... losing terrestial TV. Those that were in secondary school at this time, my age, ask yourself what was talked about more in the school - Benn / Eubank etc on ITV or Hamed vs Kelley? Boxing was drawing in viewing figures of 16 / 17 million before the Sky deal, then it became a minority sport.

We are all slagging off McGuigan's inclusion and yes I don't necessarily agree with it.... but McGuigan wasn't a first balloter, far from it and whilst his actual boxing career wasn't a great - he did attract bigger audiences, brought the sport back to the mainstream.... was stopping streets etc..... loved in America (despite what happened with Cruz) and I think critical has always had a role in the sport even though its near 30 years since he retired. Hamed hasn't exactly followed the sport since his retirement.

Gatti - well sorry to say this but I doubt he would be in if he was alive.

This thread has become a bit like Naz's career, a decent argument put forward against his induction and then everything goes quiet and fades out.

One thing I've always disagreed with when it comes to discussing Hameds career is the idea that Kelley was "shot", I don't agree with that at all but on the other hand I don't see it as some major win either as Kelley was just another former titlist with enough of a name for a US debut for Naz.

Cracking fight though.

I agree, Kelley wasn't shot. They were pretty evenly matched and that showed with the amazing battle they had. Both dangerous but chinny fighters. Naz's power won out though.

Johnson, Vasquez and Bungu were definitely shot by the time Naz walked through them and to be honest I think everyone believed Barrera would be too.

Without a doubt. Titles, talent and charisma. He was a boyo in his day though definitely a case of 'what might have been' with him and if you're including McGuigan and Gatti you cannot overlook The Prince.

DaveyH wrote:I agree, Kelley wasn't shot. They were pretty evenly matched and that showed with the amazing battle they had. Both dangerous but chinny fighters. Naz's power won out though.

Johnson, Vasquez and Bungu were definitely shot by the time Naz walked through them and to be honest I think everyone believed Barrera would be too.

I guess it depends on what your opinion of a shot fighter is, to me a shot fighter is what Danny Williams is now, whereas Johnson, Vasquez and Bungu were past their best but they were still good enough to be reigning titlists at the time Hamed fought them. Fighters going head to head while both at their peak is a rarity anyway so I don't look too much into that.

I saw KOTV last night and they showed a fight where Hamed KO'd this guy, who looked Hispanic to me, because the ref let him carry on when his legs were all over the place. I was sure it was the one who looks like Peter Griffin - i.e. Terry O'Connor, but I've searched Hamed's record and can't find O'Connor reffing him
I'm sure it was round 2 unless they skipped forward, but it looked like the full fight pretty much.
Sorry my post has nothing to do with the question, but the refereeing was again, "iffy" I'm afraid

banjo wrote:

DaveyH wrote:I agree, Kelley wasn't shot. They were pretty evenly matched and that showed with the amazing battle they had. Both dangerous but chinny fighters. Naz's power won out though.

Johnson, Vasquez and Bungu were definitely shot by the time Naz walked through them and to be honest I think everyone believed Barrera would be too.

I guess it depends on what your opinion of a shot fighter is, to me a shot fighter is what Danny Williams is now, whereas Johnson, Vasquez and Bungu were past their best but they were still good enough to be reigning titlists at the time Hamed fought them. Fighters going head to head while both at their peak is a rarity anyway so I don't look too much into that.

Vasquez shouldn't have been though....his fight on the Holyfield vs moorer 2 undercard was a disgusting decision.

Btw my post was looking at things from a us fight fan / boxing experts point of view. Naz destruction of baddilo was one of the best performances I've seen in a British ring.

Yes he should

Yes, but I think the inductees this year were more deserving.