BoxRec

naz needs to be in......hell kostya was first ballot HoF so im cool with naz getting in

hurricanemitch14 wrote:naz needs to be in......hell kostya was first ballot HoF so im cool with naz getting in

Tsyzu was a good fighter, but his record is thinner than Naz's. Like Naz he was fed fading names like Chavez, and Kostya's signature win was against Zab Judah, who is good but definitely not great.

How easily (if at all) do you think he would have dealt with Quigg and Frampton?

Legend

polecateddy wrote:

hurricanemitch14 wrote:naz needs to be in......hell kostya was first ballot HoF so im cool with naz getting in

Tsyzu was a good fighter, but his record is thinner than Naz's. Like Naz he was fed fading names like Chavez, and Kostya's signature win was against Zab Judah, who is good but definitely not great.

Judah might not have been a great, although probably only Kevin Kelley out of those on Hamed's resume can match him (and let's not forget unlike Kelley, Judah was in his prime vs Tszyu).

However, the big difference is Judah and Tszyu were clearly #1 and #2 at the time of the fight.... there is really no disputing that surely. I'm not sure Hamed ever fought the #2 in the division at all. For most of Hamed's reign the large consensus was the Luis Espinosa was the #2 champion. Yes, it might be a bit like Sven Ottke for Joe, but for me it is an important omission for his resume. I think Espinosa at his pomp would have beaten all of Hamed's opponents at the time Hamed fought them.

Then off course there was Norwood and Marquez.

stujones wrote:

polecateddy wrote:

hurricanemitch14 wrote:naz needs to be in......hell kostya was first ballot HoF so im cool with naz getting in

Tsyzu was a good fighter, but his record is thinner than Naz's. Like Naz he was fed fading names like Chavez, and Kostya's signature win was against Zab Judah, who is good but definitely not great.

Judah might not have been a great, although probably only Kevin Kelley out of those on Hamed's resume can match him (and let's not forget unlike Kelley, Judah was in his prime vs Tszyu).

However, the big difference is Judah and Tszyu were clearly #1 and #2 at the time of the fight.... there is really no disputing that surely. I'm not sure Hamed ever fought the #2 in the division at all. For most of Hamed's reign the large consensus was the Luis Espinosa was the #2 champion. Yes, it might be a bit like Sven Ottke for Joe, but for me it is an important omission for his resume. I think Espinosa at his pomp would have beaten all of Hamed's opponents at the time Hamed fought them.

Then off course there was Norwood and Marquez.

Espinosa? You're reaching. Marquez was right near the end, and nobody really had any idea then he was a great fighter. Hamed held every belt at one time at featherweight. There are plenty of really decent fighters on Naz's record. People like Bungo.

i was a massive fan of Naz but can't deny that the same argument applies to Bungu, as applies to all his best wins- Johnson, Kelley, Bungu, McCullough, Vasquez, Robinson- all of them were right at the end of their career and none of them had a single significant win subsequently.

and the rest of his victims never had a significant win before or after. well, slight overstatement, but......

polecateddy wrote:
Espinosa? You're reaching. Marquez was right near the end, and nobody really had any idea then he was a great fighter. Hamed held every belt at one time at featherweight. There are plenty of really decent fighters on Naz's record. People like Bungo.

Yes the guy who held the WBC belt for 4 of Hamed 6 year reign.... the guy who beat Manuel Medina on many times and the guy who beat Cesar Soto also and Kennedy McKinney.

Check the boxing monthly archive - they had Espinosa at #2 from 1995-1999 and deservedly so. Not saying Espinosa would have beaten Naz.... but was more worthy of a Unification than the likes of Tom Johnson.

Naz never held the WBA title.

stujones wrote:

polecateddy wrote:
Espinosa? You're reaching. Marquez was right near the end, and nobody really had any idea then he was a great fighter. Hamed held every belt at one time at featherweight. There are plenty of really decent fighters on Naz's record. People like Bungo.

Yes the guy who held the WBC belt for 4 of Hamed 6 year reign.... the guy who beat Manuel Medina on many times and the guy who beat Cesar Soto also and Kennedy McKinney.

Check the boxing monthly archive - they had Espinosa at #2 from 1995-1999 and deservedly so. Not saying Espinosa would have beaten Naz.... but was more worthy of a Unification than the likes of Tom Johnson.

Naz never held the WBA title.

You might well be right. First time I've ever heard of Espinosa as a missed opponent. Mostly people get too fixated on the Barrera loss.

Thoroughly deserved too.

He might have been drunk on his power & had some misguided belief about his boxing ability, but there can be no denying that he was one of the most exciting fighters of any era.

He's one fighter that I've really missed since he quit.

For me, its hard to argue with Naz's induction. Its already been proved in the past the Hall isn't just about resume but about 'fame' and what fighters brought to the sport. In that regard I don't really see why anyone would begrudge Naz his place. He was charismatic, brash, had tons of power, loved the spotlight and made people have an opinion on him. His resume is solid, not exactly a top HOF resume but he was a long reigning champion who has some impressive scalps, taking on other world champs and former champs along the way. Sure he got some of his best wins against fading stars, but then again I'd say Barrera got Naz at a good time too, so that door swings both ways.

stujones wrote:

polecateddy wrote:

hurricanemitch14 wrote:naz needs to be in......hell kostya was first ballot HoF so im cool with naz getting in

Tsyzu was a good fighter, but his record is thinner than Naz's. Like Naz he was fed fading names like Chavez, and Kostya's signature win was against Zab Judah, who is good but definitely not great.

Judah might not have been a great, although probably only Kevin Kelley out of those on Hamed's resume can match him (and let's not forget unlike Kelley, Judah was in his prime vs Tszyu).

However, the big difference is Judah and Tszyu were clearly #1 and #2 at the time of the fight.... there is really no disputing that surely. I'm not sure Hamed ever fought the #2 in the division at all. For most of Hamed's reign the large consensus was the Luis Espinosa was the #2 champion. Yes, it might be a bit like Sven Ottke for Joe, but for me it is an important omission for his resume. I think Espinosa at his pomp would have beaten all of Hamed's opponents at the time Hamed fought them.

Then off course there was Norwood and Marquez.

Good post.

Judah may not have gone on to be the star that was expected, but only a few (me included) expected KT to beat him.

I remember Max Kellerman saying something on the lines of 'Kostya is an overrated puncher with underrated boxing skills. He's Judah fodder' before the fight.

Hamed never fought a fight where he was up against it. Even MAB was seen as smart matchmaking as it wasn't expected that he would be as good at feather as Morales

Luisito Espinosa was dangerous but didn't have the greatest chin. It was a fight that should have happened.

He absolutely beasted Kennedy McKinney in 2 rounds after he was coming off possibly a career best win. He battered him around like a rag doll and I swear at one point, he makes him look so old it's like he morphs into Morgan Freeman.

Hamed also ducked Marquez, who was the WBO mandatory for about 2 years. He was an unknown quantity at that point and would go on to lose to Freddie Norwood, who was also another dangerman at the time. Kovacs was then WBO mandatory for a while, but again that fight didn't materialise and they then started saying he was their Super champ and all sorts of nonsense like that.

There was also a lot of talk about a fight with Gainer, and later in his career, Freitas, albeit at super feather. There was also talk of a showdown with Angel Vasquez for a while and I'm fairly sure he was linked with a UK promoter at one point (probably FW) as I saw him box in the UK, but he quickly went off the boil. Antonio Cermeno was another name of that time.

I'd have liked to have seen him in with Morales, McKinney, MAB, Acero-Sanchez, Vasquez and Bungu at 122. MAB could have been interesting, as after being bombed out by Junior Jones and then beaten again on points, he changed his style somewhat and was less open. I think Hamed at that point could have done a "Poison" on him.

CheckHook wrote:For me, its hard to argue with Naz's induction. Its already been proved in the past the Hall isn't just about resume but about 'fame' and what fighters brought to the sport. In that regard I don't really see why anyone would begrudge Naz his place. He was charismatic, brash, had tons of power, loved the spotlight and made people have an opinion on him. His resume is solid, not exactly a top HOF resume but he was a long reigning champion who has some impressive scalps, taking on other world champs and former champs along the way. Sure he got some of his best wins against fading stars, but then again I'd say Barrera got Naz at a good time too, so that door swings both ways.

Yes, but what about fighters from other countries who would be slated if they got in. Laugh all we want, but the likes of Ottke and Maske did as much for German boxing as Naz did for British boxing.... Naz went to the states and got a lot of publicity, but in terms press side support it was largely negative/sceptical.

And then moving down, if we are looking at "fame" - what Eubank - a 5 year reign as a world champion, but in Britain only was a huge star - even hosting Top of the Pops with laughable consequences.

orbtastic wrote:Luisito Espinosa was dangerous but didn't have the greatest chin. It was a fight that should have happened.

He absolutely beasted Kennedy McKinney in 2 rounds after he was coming off possibly a career best win. He battered him around like a rag doll and I swear at one point, he makes him look so old it's like he morphs into Morgan Freeman.

Hamed also ducked Marquez, who was the WBO mandatory for about 2 years. He was an unknown quantity at that point and would go on to lose to Freddie Norwood, who was also another dangerman at the time. Kovacs was then WBO mandatory for a while, but again that fight didn't materialise and they then started saying he was their Super champ and all sorts of nonsense like that.

There was also a lot of talk about a fight with Gainer, and later in his career, Freitas, albeit at super feather. There was also talk of a showdown with Angel Vasquez for a while and I'm fairly sure he was linked with a UK promoter at one point (probably FW) as I saw him box in the UK, but he quickly went off the boil. Antonio Cermeno was another name of that time.

I'd have liked to have seen him in with Morales, McKinney, MAB, Acero-Sanchez, Vasquez and Bungu at 122. MAB could have been interesting, as after being bombed out by Junior Jones and then beaten again on points, he changed his style somewhat and was less open. I think Hamed at that point could have done a "Poison" on him.

Didn't Warren sign Freitas? And kept calling Hamed out to fight him after their fall out.

Off course Hamed vs Junior Jones at Feather was considered a the dream match for a period - before McKinney sorted out Junior.

Yeah, Gainer style would have incredibly interesting for Naz - Remember RJJ calling out Naz to fight his friend regularly - both pre champion and after he beat Norwood.

But really Espinosa was the one Hamed should have fought, he was a long reigning champion. When after Espinosa lost to Soto, I don't feel many thought Soto was more than a temporary champion because he lost so many times before. Harsh, I know but in reality after Espinosa lost - most considered Norwood, then Gainer at the #2 in the division.

For me, he certainly deserves his place in the HoF.

After all, he was effectively the undisputed featherweight champion of the world having beaten Robinson, Johnson, Vasquez and Soto.

No doubt the huge money and fame considerably took away his edge which coincided with his American adventure (huge Adidas and HBO deals), but he was massive in the UK in the mid to late 1990s and really gave boxing mainstream appeal.

He could have delivered so much more but he still had a great career and had massive power for such a small fella.

stujones wrote:

CheckHook wrote:For me, its hard to argue with Naz's induction. Its already been proved in the past the Hall isn't just about resume but about 'fame' and what fighters brought to the sport. In that regard I don't really see why anyone would begrudge Naz his place. He was charismatic, brash, had tons of power, loved the spotlight and made people have an opinion on him. His resume is solid, not exactly a top HOF resume but he was a long reigning champion who has some impressive scalps, taking on other world champs and former champs along the way. Sure he got some of his best wins against fading stars, but then again I'd say Barrera got Naz at a good time too, so that door swings both ways.

Yes, but what about fighters from other countries who would be slated if they got in. Laugh all we want, but the likes of Ottke and Maske did as much for German boxing as Naz did for British boxing.... Naz went to the states and got a lot of publicity, but in terms press side support it was largely negative/sceptical.

And then moving down, if we are looking at "fame" - what Eubank - a 5 year reign as a world champion, but in Britain only was a huge star - even hosting Top of the Pops with laughable consequences.

Its not just that though with Naz, he captured everyone's imagination, even stateside people were sceptical but they were talking about him and wanted to see him. Everyone had an opinion and interest in what he was doing. He generated hype and hyperbole to a ridiculous level. If I recall, Merchant called Hamed vs Kelley something like 'a lighter version of Hagler Hearns' post fight. The truth is it was a clumsy performance from Naz who had far too much power for Kelly, but it still generated that type of hyperbole and interest because of Naz and how he captured peoples attention and imagination.... People wanted to buy into what Naz was selling because he was one of the best at selling himself. He made people take notice and people wanted to see him fight. No one had any interest in Eubank in the states, he was just some dodgy super middle hiding behind a title they could easily dismiss. His record is also really solid and not just about soft title defences, there are plenty of good names there too. To me, Naz is an obvious choice for the Hall (based on the criteria of having more than just a resume) he put a spotlight on the lighter weights, had a unique style, dominated his division for years and has a highlight reel to match any fighter.

Boxerbeetle wrote:

handsofstone wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote: My memory is hazy when it comes to some of Naz's South American opponents, but wasn't Cabrera the guy he absolutely dominated & stopped in about 7 rounds without taking a punch & spent the last few rounds singing & dancing whilst landing shots at will? Brilliant performance from Hamed that night, it was sort of his Ali vs Williams.

All that being said, I'm not 100% comfortable with Naz being in the HoF. I was a huge fan & can remember every inch of the electrifying feelings I had whilst watching the Kelley fight as a teenager. But I'm just not sure that any fighter who couldn't show any determination to overcome his 1st & only professional loss is suitable to go in the HoF (admittedly I don't particularly care about the HoF anyway, so won't lose any sleep over it).

Nah i dont think its the one your talking about BB,he KO'd Cabrera in 2,ive got a Naz dvd and i recognised Cabrera straight away even though i was only 12 at the time of the fight,17 years ago

Hmmm ok, wonder who I'm thinking of then. All I remember is that he was South or Central American & had a black eye when he turned up for the press conference! If I figure it out, I'll be able to re-watch the fight on Youtube!

I think it was Jose Badillo

Fair play to Naz, he's definitely worth a place in HOF. The posts here say it all - crossover appeal, champion for years, spectacular style. That's what you need to get in there and he had it.

stujones wrote:

polecateddy wrote:
Espinosa? You're reaching. Marquez was right near the end, and nobody really had any idea then he was a great fighter. Hamed held every belt at one time at featherweight. There are plenty of really decent fighters on Naz's record. People like Bungo.

Yes the guy who held the WBC belt for 4 of Hamed 6 year reign.... the guy who beat Manuel Medina on many times and the guy who beat Cesar Soto also and Kennedy McKinney.

Check the boxing monthly archive - they had Espinosa at #2 from 1995-1999 and deservedly so. Not saying Espinosa would have beaten Naz.... but was more worthy of a Unification than the likes of Tom Johnson.

Naz never held the WBA title.

He beat the WBA champion tho ? so does it really matter? #justsayin

stujones wrote:

CheckHook wrote:For me, its hard to argue with Naz's induction. Its already been proved in the past the Hall isn't just about resume but about 'fame' and what fighters brought to the sport. In that regard I don't really see why anyone would begrudge Naz his place. He was charismatic, brash, had tons of power, loved the spotlight and made people have an opinion on him. His resume is solid, not exactly a top HOF resume but he was a long reigning champion who has some impressive scalps, taking on other world champs and former champs along the way. Sure he got some of his best wins against fading stars, but then again I'd say Barrera got Naz at a good time too, so that door swings both ways.

Yes, but what about fighters from other countries who would be slated if they got in. Laugh all we want, but the likes of Ottke and Maske did as much for German boxing as Naz did for British boxing.... Naz went to the states and got a lot of publicity, but in terms press side support it was largely negative/sceptical.

And then moving down, if we are looking at "fame" - what Eubank - a 5 year reign as a world champion, but in Britain only was a huge star - even hosting Top of the Pops with laughable consequences.

This is a massive factor, in other countries, their legends are not legends in our eyes. I remember once saying that the Koreans held onto all three of the alphabet belts in 1987 and a wag on here went 'well, who gives a fornicate about that?' The Koreans obviously, sure, it didn't vibrate to over here but that was a huge round robin tournament that went begging - bigger than Hatton vs Witter going amiss.

As for Espinosa, he was a serious fighter - hard as nails.

Boxerbeetle wrote:

handsofstone wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote: My memory is hazy when it comes to some of Naz's South American opponents, but wasn't Cabrera the guy he absolutely dominated & stopped in about 7 rounds without taking a punch & spent the last few rounds singing & dancing whilst landing shots at will? Brilliant performance from Hamed that night, it was sort of his Ali vs Williams.

All that being said, I'm not 100% comfortable with Naz being in the HoF. I was a huge fan & can remember every inch of the electrifying feelings I had whilst watching the Kelley fight as a teenager. But I'm just not sure that any fighter who couldn't show any determination to overcome his 1st & only professional loss is suitable to go in the HoF (admittedly I don't particularly care about the HoF anyway, so won't lose any sleep over it).

Nah i dont think its the one your talking about BB,he KO'd Cabrera in 2,ive got a Naz dvd and i recognised Cabrera straight away even though i was only 12 at the time of the fight,17 years ago

Hmmm ok, wonder who I'm thinking of then. All I remember is that he was South or Central American & had a black eye when he turned up for the press conference! If I figure it out, I'll be able to re-watch the fight on Youtube!

Jose Badillo

People are also forgetting how huge Hamed was in the Arab world. He was the first Arab boxing superstar and watched through the Arab world. I have a friend who is Algerian and he said when he fought everyone would watch.... I'm talking about in Algeria. He was a hero and star throughout the Arab world where previously they were not too interested in Boxing.

One more thing - I repeat an earlier question - what is the criteria for induction? The Ibhof website doesn't state it....

Well one things for sure Naz is still splitting opinions even now. Just like he did back in his prime.

It's a tough call for me is this one. I lived in Sheffield in the 90s and can remember the buzz that Naz created in the city at the time. It was electric. Not just Naz but there was a real excitement around the whole Ingle camp too with the likes of Ryan Rhodes coming through. It was a great time to be a boxing fan and a great time to be so close to where it was all happening. I was a big fan.

The performance against Belcastro was simply amazing. The KOs that followed were exciting. The guy rapidly became a star and was as much of a celebrity as he was a boxer.

Therein became the problem for me. He was a goose that laid golden eggs. The guy had a licence to print money and it was all on the back of that showmanship and this well crafted belief that he was invincible. So in order to keep the money coming in he had to be matched carefully. Some might say cynically.

For example he was number one contender for Barreras title at Super Bantam. Both were young, undefeated and considered the best. That was a fight that should have happened in 1995. But Naz moved up and fought Steve Robinson for the WBO Featherweight title. His first fight at the weight for the title. Robinson was good, but he was certainly nowhere near the threat Barrera was. Can't knock the display, it was pure genius but I couldn't help but think Robinson was a bit hard done by the whole affair.

His first defence should have been against Arnulfo Castillo. Hard as nails Mexican who could brawl and had slick boxing skills too. Undefeated. Hungry. Fight fell through after Naz pulled out twice, fair enough through injury, and Said Lawal is brought in. Enough said. Castillo moves up to Super Feather and gives Julien Lorcey two of the fights of his life in Paris.

So it goes on. Naz continued to look exceptional in beating some of the top names in the division, but it could be argued the division was ruled by guys who were past their best. Vasquez and Johnson were ready for the taking and Naz obliged in style. Kelley was a livewire and I'll remember that night forever for the excitement it caused. Medina was a good gatekeeper and gave Naz a decent test, Alicea, Molina and Cabrera were nobodies who achieved nothing before or after. Badillos best performance was a game but losing effort against Tom Johnson.

However you scrutinise it though, Naz dominated the division. The debate is whether the division was crying out for someone to take it over when Naz arrived on the scene. Especially when you consider one weight below we had Barrera, Jones, Morales, Gainer, Cermeno and one weight above were the likes of a young Mayweather, Corrales, Freitas, Casamayor

I think the reason Naz quit when he did was because his options were to move up into the Lions den that was Super Feather, or stay at Feather where Barrera, Morales and Marquez had established themselves. I distinctly remember Freitas calling out Naz and offering to fight him at the Sheffield Arena. What an amazing night that would have been.

But I think by then Naz had made his money, got a family to think about and had no interest in any fight that could be dangerous. He was very, very good but I just don't think he wanted to take the risk of showing us how good he really was.

CiganoBoxer wrote:

stujones wrote:

polecateddy wrote:
Espinosa? You're reaching. Marquez was right near the end, and nobody really had any idea then he was a great fighter. Hamed held every belt at one time at featherweight. There are plenty of really decent fighters on Naz's record. People like Bungo.

Yes the guy who held the WBC belt for 4 of Hamed 6 year reign.... the guy who beat Manuel Medina on many times and the guy who beat Cesar Soto also and Kennedy McKinney.

Check the boxing monthly archive - they had Espinosa at #2 from 1995-1999 and deservedly so. Not saying Espinosa would have beaten Naz.... but was more worthy of a Unification than the likes of Tom Johnson.

Naz never held the WBA title.

He beat the WBA champion tho ? so does it really matter? #justsayin

There is colouring the truth, but that works both ways. Yes, I was being pedantic about Vasquez - but what was truly criminal was Wilfredo Vasquez's defence Genario Rios on the Undercard of Holyfield vs Moorer 2. There is no way Vasquez should have been WBA champion after that fight - one of the worst decisions I have ever seen, that gets truly forgotten about.

Vasquez should not have been WBA champion by the time he fought Hamed, and he wasn't.