BoxRec

By James Slater

In his dazzling, seemingly all too brief prime – 1995 to 2000 – “Prince” Naseem Hamed was, whether you loved him or loathed him, one hell of an exciting fighter. Today, long retired (and almost unrecognisable from his younger days, Naz having piled on the pounds in retirement), Hamed has some career to look back on.

Hamed celebrates his 48th birthday today, and if he has been reading the fascinating, sure-to-cause-fierce-debate Top 100 Greatest Fighters Ever countdown from “The Bible of Boxing,” Ring Magazine, Hamed will have reason to smile. Or maybe, when we consider the enormous ego Hamed had (and maybe still has), Naz will frown when he finds where he has been ranked by Ring (read the article over at Ringtv.com, and with it all the conditions and reasons for the fighters being ranked where they have been ranked – with the fighters being chiefly gauged on their respective performances using Ring’s rating system).

Hamed has been placed at #75 in the 100 Greatest Ever Fighters list (again, the ranking achieved due to Hamed’s performances as gauged by Ring’s ratings system). Too high? You may think so; especially when you read some of the names Hamed has been ranked above – Harry Greb! Aaron Pryor! Juan Manuel Marquez! Erik Morales! Joe Frazier! And Marco Antonio Barrera!

You may even think it sacrilegious for the folks at “The Bible” to have ranked Hamed above these greats; Barrera of course being the man who defeated Hamed and all but ended his career. And upon reading the 100 list, it is tempting to believe Ring have got it wrong. Badly wrong (even when accepting the manner in which the writers have come to their conclusions).

Hamed had genuinely great power, no doubt about it. In fact, Hamed is perhaps deserving of being ranked as THE hardest punching featherweight in history. And the hype, the mass attention and interest Hamed brought his sport was hugely impressive and important. But still, can Hamed really be seriously looked at as the 75th greatest fighter ever – on any list; no matter the criteria by which it is compiled?

Hamed was a natural talent. He had that unearthly power, the kind no 126 pound man should have been able to generate, much less from those crazy, off-balance angles and positions. Also blessed with razor-sharp reflexes and speed, Hamed’s biggest asset just might have been his chin. Hamed was, later in his career – when a combination of him getting lazy in training/falling too deeply in love with his power and of scoring the KO served to hinder him – saved by his chin/recuperative powers numerous times (see his wars with Kevin Kelley, Augie Sanchez, Paul Ingle and, slightly earlier, Manuel Medina).

Yes, Hamed could take a punch. But Hamed’s blend of raw power, of switch-hitting and having a tremendous chin proved to be nowhere near enough to get the job done when he met Barrera in 2001. Here, Hamed was outboxed, some say schooled. There were tales of hand trouble, of an agonising effort at making weight. Hamed was finished.

To many fans, Hamed’s actions after losing for the first time hurt his legacy. With a rematch with Barrera his for the asking due to a rematch clause (and Barrera was more than happy to fight Hamed a second time; he was hoping for the fight in fact) – Naz instead allowed the clause to expire. There was no return fight, no attempt from “The Prince” at getting his revenge. This is not how the greats act, said (and still say) plenty of boxing fans.

Hamed boxed just once more, scoring a dull decision over Manuel Calvo in 2002. And then he was gone. Hamed exited with an impressive 36-1(31) record, and he defeated some fine fighters: Steve Robinson, Tom Johnson, Manuel Medina, Kevin Kelley, Wayne McCullough. But that loss to Barrera, and the memory of what Hamed chose to do after it, lingers.

Hamed was a great puncher, no doubt. Hamed was a great showman, no doubt. Hamed gave us some great fights, no doubt. But there is serious doubt, at least from where this writer sits, when it comes to accepting his ranking as the 75th greatest fighter of all time – on any list, no matter how it is compiled.

What say you guys?

Retired 20 years ago, seems crazy.

Was only 28.

and to think Hatton is only 43 now.

A case of money ruining his desire I think and once he lost he was finished. He was a good puncher and a good entertainer, not sure his style was suited for longevity though and Barrera clearly beat him, even with a point deducted. Lots of rumours that Hamed's preparation was poor but he never hung around to prove it was a one off defeat.

Not great. Any era prior to the WBO one he would have been denied the luxury of picking and choosing, winning and vacating etc. Would not have been able to prolong the inevitable.

Big power and a freaky style, but something of a one trick pony. MAB made easy work of him and he retired quietly and pathetically. God only knows how brutally Marquez, Pacman and Mayweather would have gone through him. Morales too.

Very good. Nowhere near "great". It's a shame he never continued after Calvo. That said a lot about his mindset and his attitude towards his legacy.

Sensational talent and a legend of UK boxing.

Wasn't great at all, although his character made him popular.

He was a brilliant addition to the boxing landscape at the time, very good but wasn’t tested enough to talk about greatness, something of a wasted talent.

He brought some pizzaz. Ability-wise he had some power, but otherwise he was not anything special. He does have a scalp that is anything impressive. The Kevin Kelley fight was fun to watch. Overrated, thought not as overrated as Hatton, who was mentioned earlier.

littlepug wrote: ↑13 Feb 2022, 14:13 He was a brilliant addition to the boxing landscape at the time, very good but wasn’t tested enough to talk about greatness, something of a wasted talent.

I'm not sure thats is a fair assessment.
He was tested plenty. 16-1 in world title fights. 9-1 against former, future or current world champions. Outside of the 9 world champs he beat in his other 7 defences 3 or 4 of them fought for a world title at another point in their career so they were still good fighters.

Judging by the ring end of year ratings, I'm not sure if there is some kind of archive for monthly ratings.
Robinson was top 3
Madina was top 3-5
Johnson was #1
Kelly was top 5
Vazquez was 2 or 3
McCullogh was #8 and SBW
Paul Ingle was #3 by the end of 99, the year he fought Naz
Soto was #2
Bungu was #4

That's 8 guys who were in the top 5 excluding Barrera from September 95- April 2001. 4 of those were current world champions at the time he beat them.

The only possible guys you could bring up from 95-2000 are Espinoza, Norwood and Marquez who all lost at the wrong times for a Hamed fight. I don't think he ducked anybody.

p4p1 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2022, 01:10

littlepug wrote: ↑13 Feb 2022, 14:13 He was a brilliant addition to the boxing landscape at the time, very good but wasn’t tested enough to talk about greatness, something of a wasted talent.

I'm not sure thats is a fair assessment.
He was tested plenty. 16-1 in world title fights. 9-1 against former, future or current world champions. Outside of the 9 world champs he beat in his other 7 defences 3 or 4 of them fought for a world title at another point in their career so they were still good fighters.

Judging by the ring end of year ratings, I'm not sure if there is some kind of archive for monthly ratings.
Robinson was top 3
Madina was top 3-5
Johnson was #1
Kelly was top 5
Vazquez was 2 or 3
McCullogh was #8 and SBW
Paul Ingle was #3 by the end of 99, the year he fought Naz
Soto was #2
Bungu was #4

That's 8 guys who were in the top 5 excluding Barrera from September 95- April 2001. 4 of those were current world champions at the time he beat them.

The only possible guys you could bring up from 95-2000 are Espinoza, Norwood and Marquez who all lost at the wrong times for a Hamed fight. I don't think he ducked anybody.

I don’t think he ducked anyone either he just didn’t have the right dance partners to fully push him to another level.

Made some bad decisions in his career. Was not ready for MAB but would likely have lost even if his best version turned up on fight night.

One of the greatest punchers at the weight division. Shame he walked away so young.

littlepug wrote: ↑14 Feb 2022, 10:01

p4p1 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2022, 01:10

littlepug wrote: ↑13 Feb 2022, 14:13 He was a brilliant addition to the boxing landscape at the time, very good but wasn’t tested enough to talk about greatness, something of a wasted talent.

I'm not sure thats is a fair assessment.
He was tested plenty. 16-1 in world title fights. 9-1 against former, future or current world champions. Outside of the 9 world champs he beat in his other 7 defences 3 or 4 of them fought for a world title at another point in their career so they were still good fighters.

Judging by the ring end of year ratings, I'm not sure if there is some kind of archive for monthly ratings.
Robinson was top 3
Madina was top 3-5
Johnson was #1
Kelly was top 5
Vazquez was 2 or 3
McCullogh was #8 and SBW
Paul Ingle was #3 by the end of 99, the year he fought Naz
Soto was #2
Bungu was #4

That's 8 guys who were in the top 5 excluding Barrera from September 95- April 2001. 4 of those were current world champions at the time he beat them.

The only possible guys you could bring up from 95-2000 are Espinoza, Norwood and Marquez who all lost at the wrong times for a Hamed fight. I don't think he ducked anybody.

I don’t think he ducked anyone either he just didn’t have the right dance partners to fully push him to another level.

He ducked his mandatory JM Marquez for 5 years. He only fought MAB because he thought he was an easy mark coming up from super bantam and having been KOd by JJ.

p4p1 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2022, 01:10

littlepug wrote: ↑13 Feb 2022, 14:13 He was a brilliant addition to the boxing landscape at the time, very good but wasn’t tested enough to talk about greatness, something of a wasted talent.

I'm not sure thats is a fair assessment.
He was tested plenty. 16-1 in world title fights. 9-1 against former, future or current world champions. Outside of the 9 world champs he beat in his other 7 defences 3 or 4 of them fought for a world title at another point in their career so they were still good fighters.

Judging by the ring end of year ratings, I'm not sure if there is some kind of archive for monthly ratings.
Robinson was top 3
Madina was top 3-5
Johnson was #1
Kelly was top 5
Vazquez was 2 or 3
McCullogh was #8 and SBW
Paul Ingle was #3 by the end of 99, the year he fought Naz
Soto was #2
Bungu was #4

That's 8 guys who were in the top 5 excluding Barrera from September 95- April 2001. 4 of those were current world champions at the time he beat them.

The only possible guys you could bring up from 95-2000 are Espinoza, Norwood and Marquez who all lost at the wrong times for a Hamed fight. I don't think he ducked anybody.

Because of the profilferation of alpha belts and the WBO's anything-goes-just-pay-us policy, using Naz's 'title statistics' is worthless. He bowled over B level guys who would never have been champ in 1, 2 belt eras.

The one A level guy he fought dominated him and after that he walked away. Says it all about his character.

Billy Tully wrote: ↑14 Feb 2022, 12:16

p4p1 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2022, 01:10

littlepug wrote: ↑13 Feb 2022, 14:13 He was a brilliant addition to the boxing landscape at the time, very good but wasn’t tested enough to talk about greatness, something of a wasted talent.

I'm not sure thats is a fair assessment.
He was tested plenty. 16-1 in world title fights. 9-1 against former, future or current world champions. Outside of the 9 world champs he beat in his other 7 defences 3 or 4 of them fought for a world title at another point in their career so they were still good fighters.

Judging by the ring end of year ratings, I'm not sure if there is some kind of archive for monthly ratings.
Robinson was top 3
Madina was top 3-5
Johnson was #1
Kelly was top 5
Vazquez was 2 or 3
McCullogh was #8 and SBW
Paul Ingle was #3 by the end of 99, the year he fought Naz
Soto was #2
Bungu was #4

That's 8 guys who were in the top 5 excluding Barrera from September 95- April 2001. 4 of those were current world champions at the time he beat them.

The only possible guys you could bring up from 95-2000 are Espinoza, Norwood and Marquez who all lost at the wrong times for a Hamed fight. I don't think he ducked anybody.

Because of the profilferation of alpha belts and the WBO's anything-goes-just-pay-us policy, using Naz's 'title statistics' is worthless. He bowled over B level guys who would never have been champ in 1, 2 belt eras.

The one A level guy he fought dominated him and after that he walked away. Says it all about his character.

Agree 100%. He was a good fighter, but his fans play up how talented he was to mythical proportions.

Billy Tully wrote: ↑14 Feb 2022, 12:12

littlepug wrote: ↑14 Feb 2022, 10:01

p4p1 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2022, 01:10

I'm not sure thats is a fair assessment.
He was tested plenty. 16-1 in world title fights. 9-1 against former, future or current world champions. Outside of the 9 world champs he beat in his other 7 defences 3 or 4 of them fought for a world title at another point in their career so they were still good fighters.

Judging by the ring end of year ratings, I'm not sure if there is some kind of archive for monthly ratings.
Robinson was top 3
Madina was top 3-5
Johnson was #1
Kelly was top 5
Vazquez was 2 or 3
McCullogh was #8 and SBW
Paul Ingle was #3 by the end of 99, the year he fought Naz
Soto was #2
Bungu was #4

That's 8 guys who were in the top 5 excluding Barrera from September 95- April 2001. 4 of those were current world champions at the time he beat them.

The only possible guys you could bring up from 95-2000 are Espinoza, Norwood and Marquez who all lost at the wrong times for a Hamed fight. I don't think he ducked anybody.

I don’t think he ducked anyone either he just didn’t have the right dance partners to fully push him to another level.

He ducked his mandatory JM Marquez for 5 years. He only fought MAB because he thought he was an easy mark coming up from super bantam and having been KOd by JJ.

Marquez lost to Norwood during that time. Marquez was only his mandatory around 2000-2001 IIRC. He fought Barrera instead of Marquez because at the time nobody cared about Marquez so there was no money in the fight. I remember at the time people were questioning why Marquez was the mandatory and were in support of him tossing the belt for a bigger fight. Marquez went on to become the greater fighter of the two but at the time I don't think it is a sure thing that he beats Hamed. Norwood wasn't as good as Hamed, neither was John. Both of whom Marquez lost against. For whatever reason Marquez got better in his mid 30s.

Billy Tully wrote: ↑14 Feb 2022, 12:16

p4p1 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2022, 01:10

littlepug wrote: ↑13 Feb 2022, 14:13 He was a brilliant addition to the boxing landscape at the time, very good but wasn’t tested enough to talk about greatness, something of a wasted talent.

I'm not sure thats is a fair assessment.
He was tested plenty. 16-1 in world title fights. 9-1 against former, future or current world champions. Outside of the 9 world champs he beat in his other 7 defences 3 or 4 of them fought for a world title at another point in their career so they were still good fighters.

Judging by the ring end of year ratings, I'm not sure if there is some kind of archive for monthly ratings.
Robinson was top 3
Madina was top 3-5
Johnson was #1
Kelly was top 5
Vazquez was 2 or 3
McCullogh was #8 and SBW
Paul Ingle was #3 by the end of 99, the year he fought Naz
Soto was #2
Bungu was #4

That's 8 guys who were in the top 5 excluding Barrera from September 95- April 2001. 4 of those were current world champions at the time he beat them.

The only possible guys you could bring up from 95-2000 are Espinoza, Norwood and Marquez who all lost at the wrong times for a Hamed fight. I don't think he ducked anybody.

Because of the profilferation of alpha belts and the WBO's anything-goes-just-pay-us policy, using Naz's 'title statistics' is worthless. He bowled over B level guys who would never have been champ in 1, 2 belt eras.

The one A level guy he fought dominated him and after that he walked away. Says it all about his character.

Yeah all the guys who held belts during his era were never good enough to have been champ in the 1-2 belt era, even the guys who were ranked in the top 2 or 3 by the ring

those guys were legit high ranked at the time, but tbf they were weak divisions for the most part. naz never beat someone on a level that would really cement him as a great in the way that his conqueror barrera (or marquez or morales or pac) were

tom johnson, manny medina, ingle, steve robinson etc....all good fighters no doubt, but no one very impressive when discussing all-time standings. naz couldnt get it done when he stepped up beyond that and it hurts his legacy , especially since the loss basically ended him

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑15 Feb 2022, 00:43 those guys were legit high ranked at the time, but tbf it was a weak division. naz never beat someone on a level that would really cement him as a great in the way that his conqueror barrera (or marquez) were

The division got much stronger once Pac, Barrera and Morales entered it which coincided with Marquez coming into his prime. I don't think he had anything more than a punchers chance against those guys while everyone was at their best. But he was the best FW in the world for 5 or so years. I don't think he had the attitude to carry on and maintain a high level nonce he had the money and fell in love with his power.

But he did take on the best in the division before Barerra which is really all you could ask of him.

p4p1 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2022, 21:18

Billy Tully wrote: ↑14 Feb 2022, 12:12

littlepug wrote: ↑14 Feb 2022, 10:01
I don’t think he ducked anyone either he just didn’t have the right dance partners to fully push him to another level.

He ducked his mandatory JM Marquez for 5 years. He only fought MAB because he thought he was an easy mark coming up from super bantam and having been KOd by JJ.

Marquez lost to Norwood during that time. Marquez was only his mandatory around 2000-2001 IIRC. He fought Barrera instead of Marquez because at the time nobody cared about Marquez so there was no money in the fight. I remember at the time people were questioning why Marquez was the mandatory and were in support of him tossing the belt for a bigger fight. Marquez went on to become the greater fighter of the two but at the time I don't think it is a sure thing that he beats Hamed. Norwood wasn't as good as Hamed, neither was John. Both of whom Marquez lost against. For whatever reason Marquez got better in his mid 30s.

So to be clear, your excuse that he didn't fight the obviously dangerous Marquez is because 'nobody cared about Marquez' and 'Marquez lost a fight in a 5 year period'.

Do you have any idea how many of Hamed's easy opponents had losses and were unknown?

Hint: virtually all of them.

I met him a few months ago and he was very nice and easy going. He’s clearly still got plenty of dough also. Huge now. It took me a second to realise it was him. When I went over to him he was sound as a pound right away.

I agree with most that he didn’t cement his greatness in the ring but he was an absolutely unique talent on his way up. Manny Steward said he was the hardest pound for pound puncher he’s known.

Billy Tully wrote: ↑15 Feb 2022, 09:52

p4p1 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2022, 21:18

Billy Tully wrote: ↑14 Feb 2022, 12:12

He ducked his mandatory JM Marquez for 5 years. He only fought MAB because he thought he was an easy mark coming up from super bantam and having been KOd by JJ.

Marquez lost to Norwood during that time. Marquez was only his mandatory around 2000-2001 IIRC. He fought Barrera instead of Marquez because at the time nobody cared about Marquez so there was no money in the fight. I remember at the time people were questioning why Marquez was the mandatory and were in support of him tossing the belt for a bigger fight. Marquez went on to become the greater fighter of the two but at the time I don't think it is a sure thing that he beats Hamed. Norwood wasn't as good as Hamed, neither was John. Both of whom Marquez lost against. For whatever reason Marquez got better in his mid 30s.

So to be clear, your excuse that he didn't fight the obviously dangerous Marquez is because 'nobody cared about Marquez' and 'Marquez lost a fight in a 5 year period'.

Do you have any idea how many of Hamed's easy opponents had losses and were unknown?

Hint: virtually all of them.

I don't think at the time anyone considered Marquez a dangerous fight. He hadn't really fought a FW of consequence until 98. It's clear from 97 on Hameds main goal was to win the rest of the belts which he did from 97-99. Marquez had a chance at winning one of the belts that Hamed vacated in 99 and lost. He didn't just lose 1 fight in a 5 year period, he lost the first time he stepped up against the competition that you say was so bad.
96 after a couple of gimmies he took on Madina who was ranked above Marquez and was certainly a well known fighter having won a couple of titles.
97 he took on both Johnson (IBF Champ) and Kelly who were ranked above Marquez
98 he took on Vazquez (WBA Champ) who was ranked above Marquez
99 he took on Ingle and Soto (WBC Champ) both were ranked above Marquez

I'm not sure how he ducked Marquez while taking on guys who at the time were thought better than Marquez. It's normal for champions to have a couple of gimmies each year depending on how often they fight. He probably would have spanked the version of Marquez that fought between 95&99. Would be a great name on his record in hindsight, which you would discredit by saying that Marquez wasn't yet in his prime. Which of course he wasn't.

p4p1 wrote: ↑16 Feb 2022, 01:10

Billy Tully wrote: ↑15 Feb 2022, 09:52

p4p1 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2022, 21:18
Marquez lost to Norwood during that time. Marquez was only his mandatory around 2000-2001 IIRC. He fought Barrera instead of Marquez because at the time nobody cared about Marquez so there was no money in the fight. I remember at the time people were questioning why Marquez was the mandatory and were in support of him tossing the belt for a bigger fight. Marquez went on to become the greater fighter of the two but at the time I don't think it is a sure thing that he beats Hamed. Norwood wasn't as good as Hamed, neither was John. Both of whom Marquez lost against. For whatever reason Marquez got better in his mid 30s.

So to be clear, your excuse that he didn't fight the obviously dangerous Marquez is because 'nobody cared about Marquez' and 'Marquez lost a fight in a 5 year period'.

Do you have any idea how many of Hamed's easy opponents had losses and were unknown?

Hint: virtually all of them.

I don't think at the time anyone considered Marquez a dangerous fight. He hadn't really fought a FW of consequence until 98. It's clear from 97 on Hameds main goal was to win the rest of the belts which he did from 97-99. Marquez had a chance at winning one of the belts that Hamed vacated in 99 and lost. He didn't just lose 1 fight in a 5 year period, he lost the first time he stepped up against the competition that you say was so bad.
96 after a couple of gimmies he took on Madina who was ranked above Marquez and was certainly a well known fighter having won a couple of titles.
97 he took on both Johnson (IBF Champ) and Kelly who were ranked above Marquez
98 he took on Vazquez (WBA Champ) who was ranked above Marquez
99 he took on Ingle and Soto (WBC Champ) both were ranked above Marquez

I'm not sure how he ducked Marquez while taking on guys who at the time were thought better than Marquez. It's normal for champions to have a couple of gimmies each year depending on how often they fight. He probably would have spanked the version of Marquez that fought between 95&99. Would be a great name on his record in hindsight, which you would discredit by saying that Marquez wasn't yet in his prime. Which of course he wasn't.

Going to check up the rankings of his challengers and come back to this thread.

I had a look back through some old magazines to refresh my memory on how highly ranked Naz opponents were.

Because The Ring has a history of corruption and rankings for sales, I ignored that tainted publication and used the world top 10 of the British, Naz-friendly (but as far as I could see, impartial and unbiased) Boxing Monthly, and the independent world top 25 of Boxing Illustrated, a very good consensus rating system voted for by journalists and based on opposition and performance.

I checked in on worthless alphabet rankings from time to time - no surprise that every unranked boxer, including the ones that didn't even crack the BI world top 25, were always in the WBO top 10 and often no 1(!!!). Anyway here's what I found:

95
Steve Robinson - BM no 6 / BI no 4

96
Said Lawal - BM unranked / BI unranked
Daniel Alicea - BM unranked / BI unranked
Manuel Medina - BM no 5 / BI no 8
Daniel Molina - BM unranked / BI unranked

97
Tom Johnson - BM no 3 / BI no 2
Billy Hardy - BM unranked / BI no 21
Juan Gerado Cabrera - BM unranked / BI unranked
Jose Badillo - BM unranked / BI unranked
Kevin Kelley - BM no 4 / BI no 5

98 [can't find my BIs from this era]
Wilfredo Vasquez - BM no 3
Wayne McCullough - BM unranked at feather but no 6 at super-bantam

99
Paul Ingle BM unranked
Cesar Soto - BM no 2

00
Vuyani Bungu - BM no 6
Augie Sanchez - BM no 10

01
MAB BM no 1 at super-banty

So over a five-and-a-half-year-period, Naz's top scalps are Steve Robinson, Manuel Medina, Tom Johnson, Kevin Kelley, Wilfredo Vasquez and Cesar Soto.

Does beating those guys make him great? Is that the ledger of an all-time great? I have to say, that list looks very poor next to the victims of other fighters.

In fairness, it did seem difficult to find opponents for Naz, the banger Luisito Espinosa was often no 2 behind him for a long time but allegedly didn't want the fight, and as soon as he lost to Soto Naz was matched with him.

Who else could he have fought? Juan Manuel Marquez was top 10 ranked from 1997 onwards and was his WBO mandatory, mysteriously ignored. Freddie Norwood and Derrick Gainer would have been more interesting opponents than many of his challengers. Below him at super-banty there was Morales, Junior Jones and McKinney that would have made for bigger challenges, or if Naz really was frustrated with not being able to get big fights, above him at super-feather there were ambitious challenges in the shape of Floyd Mayweather, Azumah Nelson, Diego Corrales, Acelino Freitas etc. As it was he preferred a smaller guy and picked Barerra, who beat him silly and sent him into retirement with his tail between his legs.

How great was Naz? 0-1 against greats.

Great entertainer, very good boxer. Could have done more had he trained properly and stayed hungry. He believed his natural abilities could see him through and beat the very best, which we found out wasn't true when he faced the great Marco Antonio Barerra.