Hamed, Bowe, Mancini Elected To HOF

First topic message reminder :

Hamed finally made it then. Does he belong? What about Bowe and Mancini?

And you do it again.

milkyboy wrote:Aside from the bickering. Can we agree hamed kelley was a cracking fight while it lasted. Without having to google anything. Just looking for a bit of common ground. A group hug.

Wonderfully exciting fight. Hamed did shine a light on the lower weight classes - undoubtedly. EVERYONE wanted to fight him as he generated more cash/interest than any other featherweight that had preceded him. In that sense, he belongs in the HOF.

I was merely offering some context to those who hadn't followed his fights (other than on YouTube or BoxRec).

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You said he was fighting on ITV prior to Kelley which was false and you also said it was his first UK PPV fight which was false, for an apparent genius you're a bit slow.

That had nothing to do the discussion. As I said a classic straw man.

I never said he only fought on ITV but it is a fact that he fought on ITV.  I will never forget the dislike Reg Gutteridge had for him.

I am also using my memory of the time whereas you are googling your little heart out.  You're the type of guy who ruins pub banter by pulling out his smart phone any time a fact is being debated.

You've been proven wrong so you're resorting to petty insults, no googling I just remember the fights involving the guy who got me into the sport, you on the other hand are trying to discredit him any way you can. Besides which isn't the point of the internet as this is an online forum to check what you're talking about and to prove you wrong again he was on Sky Sports for each and every on of his world title fights. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

He moved to Sky. He fought Belcastro on ITV for the European title. It is the fight I made my mind up that Hamed was a horrible little cretin that needed teaching a lesson.  The manner in which Barrera completely humiliated him by lifting him up and bouncing off a turnbuckle was complete catharsis.

The point I made is that Hamed made his big money in the States where he received HBO and Sky PPV.  You countered that by pulling out a Forbes article from 1997.  Did you remember reading that magazine article 17 years ago????..........

................................Of course you didn't, you did what you always do and started googling to inform yourself. I don't need to google to know what Hamed did. I was there watching it, I'm older than Naz.

You don't help yourself as it's clear you know very little and any information you offer is based what you have just googled in the last 2 mins.  

I don't need to insult you..........I pity you.

What you're saying is it's better to make up a load of crap than double check yourself?

It's not as if Hamed was hidden away from public view, i'd assume almost everyone on here is old enough to have seen his fights live so you're not exactly providing insight that nobody knows, you're just spouting a load of BS.

I didn't make up a load of crap. I said Hamed made his big money in America which he did.

You then started googling quicker than a prostitutes knickers going down to try and discredit me.

The fact is my point still stands and all you have done is create a load of spin.  Pure straw man tactics.

You really are a sad man. You get called out on your Boxrec'ing by practically everybody on the site as it's clear you have no detailed knowledge and just use the internet to try and make yourself look informed. It is patently obvious you know fu*k all about whatever the subject is.

Do you have a problem with your ego, or can you not stand to be wrong? Whatever it is you come across as a weirdo.

Dude just give it a rest.

You always sound so angry.

And you're full of contradictions. Stop cluttering the board with your self serving crap. None of it makes any sense. You're a fabricator.



emancipator

I probably fudged my point earlier. If Gatti belongs due to the excitement he brought then Naz belongs (Hamed was a better fighter than Gatti also).

My gripe was Hamed's inclusion as a direct response to an internet movement claiming he should be in there. Most of the voters - your Cliff Rolds of the world - know their sport, however, a good number of BWAA members only came to the sport a few years back.

In addition, the voting system is flawed.

emancipator wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You said he was fighting on ITV prior to Kelley which was false and you also said it was his first UK PPV fight which was false, for an apparent genius you're a bit slow.

That had nothing to do the discussion. As I said a classic straw man.

I never said he only fought on ITV but it is a fact that he fought on ITV.  I will never forget the dislike Reg Gutteridge had for him.

I am also using my memory of the time whereas you are googling your little heart out.  You're the type of guy who ruins pub banter by pulling out his smart phone any time a fact is being debated.

You've been proven wrong so you're resorting to petty insults, no googling I just remember the fights involving the guy who got me into the sport, you on the other hand are trying to discredit him any way you can. Besides which isn't the point of the internet as this is an online forum to check what you're talking about and to prove you wrong again he was on Sky Sports for each and every on of his world title fights. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

He moved to Sky. He fought Belcastro on ITV for the European title. It is the fight I made my mind up that Hamed was a horrible little cretin that needed teaching a lesson.  The manner in which Barrera completely humiliated him by lifting him up and bouncing off a turnbuckle was complete catharsis.

The point I made is that Hamed made his big money in the States where he received HBO and Sky PPV.  You countered that by pulling out a Forbes article from 1997.  Did you remember reading that magazine article 17 years ago????..........

................................Of course you didn't, you did what you always do and started googling to inform yourself. I don't need to google to know what Hamed did. I was there watching it, I'm older than Naz.

You don't help yourself as it's clear you know very little and any information you offer is based what you have just googled in the last 2 mins.  

I don't need to insult you..........I pity you.

What you're saying is it's better to make up a load of crap than double check yourself?

It's not as if Hamed was hidden away from public view, i'd assume almost everyone on here is old enough to have seen his fights live so you're not exactly providing insight that nobody knows, you're just spouting a load of BS.

I didn't make up a load of crap. I said Hamed made his big money in America which he did.

You then started googling quicker than a prostitutes knickers going down to try and discredit me.

The fact is my point still stands and all you have done is create a load of spin.  Pure straw man tactics.

You really are a sad man. You get called out on your Boxrec'ing by practically everybody on the site as it's clear you have no detailed knowledge and just use the internet to try and make yourself look informed. It is patently obvious you know fu*k all about whatever the subject is.

Do you have a problem with your ego, or can you not stand to be wrong? Whatever it is you come across as a weirdo.

Dude just give it a rest.

You always sound so angry.

And you're full of contradictions. Stop cluttering the board with your self serving crap. None of it makes any sense. You're a fabricator.



emancipator

I can't remember chatting to you ever so take your self righteous drivel and dribble it in somebody else's direction.

I don't think Hamed is all that, I spotted Hearn for what he is on day one,a rich kid being given the keys to the Ferrari and it seems everybody always knew Haye was a chancer who couldn't lie straight in bed.

They are/were unpopular opinions but they are as valid as anybody else's.

As to being angry, give me a break. I come on here to relax and have a few laughs. Some can see that some can't.

The reason Hamed was excluded for so long was that the Americans didnt really rate him. As a result Hamed has increasingly had his reputation grow increasingly over the years. It was inneviteable he would get in at some point but being kept out for so long has lead people to overrate him and he developed a very vocal backing who represent him as much better than he was. Now tht he is in he probably wont get half the attention anymore.

Also, not only being beaten but effectively retired from the sport by Barrera is hugely significant. Not the mark of HoF material at all. Say what you will about Gatti, his heart and courage was unquestionable.

To be fair, Hamed always fought back. He must have been dropped/buzzed umpteen times and always kept trying.

I get your point, though. Barrera went back in with Jones and Pacquiao after shocking kayo defeats.

Naz article here:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2014/dec/07/prince-naseem-hamed-international-hall-of-fame

Barerra did go back in with jones and pac, it's to his credit, but he did lose the returns as well. So he didn't learn much. I think to most british boxing fans, naz feels like a guy who despite his success never fulfilled his talent, and we feel cheated that he didn't take the Barrera fight as a wake up call, knuckle down to some serious training and try and take his belt back. Let's face it, that's what we want our boxing heroes to do. Whether it was shattered confidence, a love of pies, we'll never know for sure.

Not a bad read that article haz, cheers for posting.

Barerra came back from tough defeats and rebuilt himself. Hamed threw in the towel. I think that has huge significance. As others have said though, the hysteria surrounding him getting voted in was growing with each passing year. It was inneviteable they would crack. Especially as they are letting everyone and anyone else in.

Yeah, Barrera showed real character to go back in with those two - especially Pac (and improved both times on his first showing).

Not many fighters go from all out offensive wrecking machine to consummate boxer mid-career. Underrated fighter Barrera.

I'm aware of the difference catchy, and I've complimented Barrera for his mid career reinvention before haz.

The fact naz wasn't able/bothered to comeback counts against him, of course it does. My Barrera point was its ok to credit him for taking the rematches, but let's not forget he still lost twice to junior jones... Pac is probably more acceptable. If hamed had come back and lost to Barrera again, would everyone have given him credit for trying? No of course they wouldn't, they'd say it just proves the cocky git was a flat track bully and found his level. Like everyone, I wish he had comeback and had a go, and I'm not defending the guy, he's a jerk, but he was hugely talented in my view, he just lost his way like many before and since.

It's not that big a leap of faith to suggest that hamed mullers the Barrera that lost to jones had they fought at that time. In fact I think that's the most likely result. When they did meet one had improved and one had regressed.

There is a school of thought that hamed got found out by the first great fighter he fought. Another that the ingle hamed, puts Barrera in his place. People are entitled to their opinion but to me, it's fairly obvious that a) he was cutting corners and getting worse, and b) that the higher level of fighters he met, exaggerated it. How much of one and how much of the other? Its hard to say.

Does the best naz beat the best Barrera? I don't know, I'm inclined to think he does, but its supposition. I'm confident,  though, he puts up a better fight than he did when they actually fought.

Hamed was at his best as a super bantam (must have been early 20s?). At that point, when fights were mooted against the likes of Barrera, Acero Sanchez and possibly Espinosa (need to check that) I'd have given him the edge.

I maintain he peaked against Robinson.

He regressed once the family became involved and Ingle - while still in the corner - started bring ignored (before being ditched).

Naz's defence wasn't good enough once he reached world class and his conversion from boxer to bomber was his undoing.

milkyboy wrote:I'm aware of the difference catchy, and I've complimented Barrera for his mid career reinvention before haz.

The fact naz wasn't able/bothered to comeback counts against him, of course it does. My Barrera point was its ok to credit him for taking the rematches, but let's not forget he still lost twice to junior jones... Pac is probably more acceptable. If hamed had come back and lost to Barrera again, would everyone have given him credit for trying? No of course they wouldn't, they'd say it just proves the cocky git was a flat track bully and found his level. Like everyone, I wish he had comeback and had a go, and I'm not defending the guy, he's a jerk, but he was hugely talented in my view, he just lost his way like many before and since.

It's not that big a leap of faith to suggest that hamed mullers the Barrera that lost to jones had they fought at that time. In fact I think that's the most likely result. When they did meet one had improved and one had regressed.

There is a school of thought that hamed got found out by the first great fighter he fought. Another that the ingle hamed, puts Barrera in his place. People are entitled to their opinion but to me, it's fairly obvious that a) he was cutting corners and getting worse, and b) that the higher level of fighters he met, exaggerated it. How much of one and how much of the other? Its hard to say.

Does the best naz beat the best Barrera? I don't know, I'm inclined to think he does, but its supposition. I'm confident,  though, he puts up a better fight than he did when they actually fought.

Barrera didnt just take on rematches, which itself shows guts. But after his defeats he bounced back to recapture world titles and win big fights. He didnt pack it in after the Jones defeats. Or even after Pacquiao beat him. He bounced back and claimed some huge wins and was involved in some classic fights. I think the manner with which Hamed was beaten and retired by Barrera is as good a reason as any for any being excluded from a Hall of Fame. It cast a shadow over his whole career. You can speculate if he coulda/woulda/shoulda beat Barrera, Morales, Pacquiao or Marquez. I dont think that matters at all in terms of deserving to be included. The fact is he only fought one of them, was well beaten and was pretty much retired by him. I say this as someone who loved watching Hamed fight. His exclusion from the Hall of Fame has lead to a generous re-appraising of his career.

Why is Hamed any different to Pedroza and to a lesser extent Saldivar? All of them retired having arguably lost the biggest fights of their careers, Saldivar was retiring left, right and centre.

Saldivar is for me the most accomplished of the three, Winstone had him right where he wanted him on more than occassion only for the championship round specialist to snatch victory out of the claws of defeat.

Haz, pretty much agree with that... If it wasn't downhill from Robinson it was from Johnson.

Although it's the thread title, Catchy, I'm not arguing for inclusion or otherwise. They make it up as they go along anyway. I'm merely debating if he was any good as a fighter or not.

Get all three in. All have provided some of the biggest fights in their respective eras...what more can you ask for?