Hamed, Bowe, Mancini Elected To HOF

First topic message reminder :

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

Good summation......The best make it look easy like in all sports

Hammersmith harrier wrote:For as long as Monzon and Tyson are in the hall of fame, Hamed being a bit of a berk doesn't really come into.

Coxy, that evaluation of his opposition is so far away from the truth it barely deserves a response. Hamed was never the underdog because he was that good and when was Tyson ever an underdog during his reign.

Strongy for all intents and purposes Hamed was the fully unified lineal champion.

Tyson and Monzon are in for their achievements in the ring.

As to Hamed being unified champ all I'll say is...............could'a would'a should'a. Never happened though.

He was the best fighter in his division end of..

Stop being pedantic..

Ricky Hatton was lineal and a p4p'er............was he a great?

Hamed beat the current champion of all four major governing bodies so it's not a case of could have, he did as well as beating the lineal champion. That is in an unequivocal truth.

As for the assertion that Johnson and Kelley were just past journeymen level is fanciful.

Who did Johnson or Kevin Kelley beat then?

That makes them journeymen then does it because they didn't beat any great fighters?

It means they're not elite fighters having not got a resume to speak of.

Strongback wrote:Ricky Hatton was lineal and a p4p'er............was he a great?

Maybe not, but I would put a reasonably healthy bet on the fact he will make it into Canastota first ballot.

Did Naz actively avoid anybody?

I am really at a loss here. Are people genuinely arguing Naz does not deserve to be in a hall of fame where Tommy Burns, Jess Willard, Max Baer, Ingemar Johansson, Arturo Gatti and Barry McGuigan are already inducted? Is that really what we are debating?

In 1995 how highly regarded was the WBO belt, not that highly is my memory but I stand to be corrected on that. When I see Billy Hardy, who was a good guy, fighting for the title it does make me wonder about its merits at the time.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Hamed beat the current champion of all four major governing bodies so it's not a case of could have, he did as well as beating the lineal champion. That is in an unequivocal truth.

As for the assertion that Johnson and Kelley were just past journeymen level is fanciful.

Hamed never held the WBA strap.

Rowley wrote:

Strongback wrote:Ricky Hatton was lineal and a p4p'er............was he a great?

Maybe not, but I would put a reasonably healthy bet on the fact he will make it into Canastota first ballot.

Well then again Hatton did beat a great to become lineal and unified.

Rowley wrote:I am really at a loss here. Are people genuinely arguing Naz does not deserve to be in a hall of fame where Tommy Burns, Jess Willard, Max Baer, Ingemar Johansson, Arturo Gatti and Barry McGuigan are already inducted? Is that really what we are debating?

I'm just saying that Naz is a bit overrated in my eyes. Somewhere in this thread, amongst my many other wonderfully articulate posts, I did say it wasn't about whether Naz should be in there as there's lesser fighters than him who are in there.

So what are we arguing about? As I said earlier if your point is Canastota puts in people who don't deserve it, everyone agrees, if you're saying Naz does not deserve to get in the current Hall we disagree vehemently, however your last post would suggest even you don't believe that.

Rowley wrote:So what are we arguing about?

I've said Naz is overrated. Some other people are disagreeing? I would've thought it's obvious old boy!?

And it's debating, not arguing Jefferz.

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Hamed beat the current champion of all four major governing bodies so it's not a case of could have, he did as well as beating the lineal champion. That is in an unequivocal truth.

As for the assertion that Johnson and Kelley were just past journeymen level is fanciful.

Hamed never held the WBA strap.

He beat the then WBA champion Vasquez who was stripped after the fight was signed for so better luck next time.

Strongback wrote:In 1995 how highly regarded was the WBO belt, not that highly is my memory but I stand to be corrected on that. When I see Billy Hardy, who was a good guy, fighting for the title it does make me wonder about its merits at the time.

I suppose you'd have to ask Steve Collins that question.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Hamed beat the current champion of all four major governing bodies so it's not a case of could have, he did as well as beating the lineal champion. That is in an unequivocal truth.

As for the assertion that Johnson and Kelley were just past journeymen level is fanciful.

Hamed never held the WBA strap.

He beat the then WBA champion Vasquez who was stripped after the fight was signed for so better luck next time.

Was Vasquez the regular, diamond, pink, super, platinum or tinkywinky version holder?

You mean back in the 90's when they only had the one title Coxy?

Coxy?

And yes HH, I was being sarcastic as the whole 89389238923 belts thing wasn't around back then. Still, no-one gave to monkey turds about the WBO then and with the likes of Clinton Woods getting title shots not many people cared much for the belts like now... albeit now they're even more diluted with said 89389238923 across the few hundred weight classes we have now.

Clinton Woods was deserving of his title shots, you are talking so much crap just to have a dig at Hamed and Jones.

So who did Naz actively avoid then?

Not sure I've mentioned RJJ in this thread.

And regarding Woods haven't "earnt" it - not really. Apologies for not remembering his 3 opponents record so had to dig them out (remember them being nobodies though):

Won: 64
Lost: 58
Drew: 9

That's not exactly going up against "earning the right" material in my eyes.

Derbymanc wrote:So who did Naz actively avoid then?

Nobody, Marquez was his mandatory for a while, but Marquez was little known then and in the time he was his mandatory Naz was either injured or lining up the fight with Barrera, and at that time nobody, and I do mean nobody considered that taking the easier option.

The only other guy who made any noise about fighting Naz was Derek Gainer, who was pretty much the model of inconsistency, every time he looked a threat to Naz he would either lose or stink the place out.

Would've been fun to see Naz vs Pacquiao. Marquez would've countered him to death in my opinion, stylistically all horribly wrong for him.

Cheers again Rowley,

So really, based on other people inducted, Naz should definitely be in there.

Think Naz could have done a lot better but he seemed unmotivated and more interested in stupid stuff (like arguing over goat fur gloves or other crap.)

Derbymanc wrote:like arguing over goat fur gloves

Have. Totally. Lost. Me.

There's a documentary knocking about on youtube somewhere, Naz spent a while arguing about the type of gloves he was using then proceeded to act like a twit when Barrerra was allowed to pick first so ended up with the bog standard red gloves.

Captain Kirk wrote:Not sure I've mentioned RJJ in this thread.

And regarding Woods haven't "earnt" it - not really. Apologies for not remembering his 3 opponents record so had to dig them out (remember them being nobodies though):

Won: 64
Lost: 58
Drew: 9

That's not exactly going up against "earning the right" material in my eyes.

Predictably you failed to mention one of those fights was a title eliminator against the European champion.

Woods tended to fight eliminators, reaonable enough to question whether the fights deserved to be eliminators, but the governing bodies deemed them so, so eliminators they were. Should hardly need saying on here, but winning eliminators is how you are meant to earn title shots.

As I believe annoying young people have a penchant for saying "don't hate the player, hate the game"

Rowley wrote:Woods tended to fight eliminators, reaonable enough to question whether the fights deserved to be eliminators, but the governing bodies deemed them so, so eliminators they were. Should hardly need saying on here, but winning eliminators is how you are meant to earn title shots.

As I believe annoying young people have a penchant for saying "don't hate the player, hate the game"

It's "tha" or "da", Rowley, not "the".... for the sake of a f*ck!

Meet me halfway Dave, knowing the phrase is remarkable, getting it right was never on the table as a possibility.

Apart from Hameds notable achievements which have already been mentioned, we also must not forget just what Hamed did for the lower weight divisions!. Hamed changed the whole landscape of the lesser weight classes for the better. He got much needed exposure, brought a new excitement and razzmatazz to the lower divisions. Love him or Hate him, nobody can really deny what a huge influence he was on the sport.

From these shores only Calzaghe & Lewis can compete resume wise with Hamed from recent years. non of these changed the sport the way Naz did. He deserves to be in.

He wasn't a huge influence on the sport Haiti..

Great to see you but come on.

He brought a new level of exposure and excitement to the lower weight classes so I stand by what I said.

At his peak Wayne McCullough was the highest paid bantamweight in history. He was more well known in the States than Hamed who really only arrived when he fought Kelley.

The WBO belt in the 1990's was the equivalent of today's IBO belt.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Hamed beat the current champion of all four major governing bodies so it's not a case of could have, he did as well as beating the lineal champion. That is in an unequivocal truth.

As for the assertion that Johnson and Kelley were just past journeymen level is fanciful.

Hamed never held the WBA strap.

He beat the then WBA champion Vasquez who was stripped after the fight was signed for so better luck next time.

I'll repeat what I said as it is a fact : "Hamed never held the WBA strap."

Does that somehow stop him being the lineal and undisputed champion then Strongy?

It could have been the WBU title but it still doesn't make your comment have any relevance in the slightest, he beat all four champions and faced the toughest opposition available.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/hamed-top-of-british-earners-1286471.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/15/sports/boxing-quieting-the-mouth-that-roars.html

What's that Prince Naseem Hamed was the highest earning boxer outside of the Heavyweight division not called De La Hoya and you should also be aware that he hadn't fought Kevin Kelley by that point. Strongy talking garbage again.

The WBA strap does seem rather elusive for unification

Hammersmith harrier wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/hamed-top-of-british-earners-1286471.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/15/sports/boxing-quieting-the-mouth-that-roars.html

What's that Prince Naseem Hamed was the highest earning boxer outside of the Heavyweight division not called De La Hoya and you should also be aware that he hadn't fought Kevin Kelley by that point. Strongy talking garbage again.

Kelley was the first time Hamed fought in a big fight in America. Americans at the time didn't care about what was happening in Britain for a WBO title they had never heard of.

I can clearly remember the Kelley fight and it was heavily promoted. It was billed as Naz coming to America. Up to Kelley Naz fought a lot on terrestrial TV in the bigger indoor arenas around the UK. Kelley was a PPV fight on HBO and it was the first time Naz went PPV in the UK with Sky. This is when the money really flowed. I definitely remember Hamed getting £5M for one of his American fights.

Even before the Kelley fight he was the highest paid Featherweight in history so enlighten me to what point you're trying to make.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Even before the Kelley fight he was the highest paid Featherweight in history so enlighten me to what point you're trying to make.

You're hanging your hat on an article written a couple of weeks before the Kelley fight. How do you know the article was not including the projected earnings Hamed would make in the fight a couple of weeks later? As the fight was signed and imminent it's hardly a reach that the earning from it would be included for 1997. This is also a Forbes article that would be based on a lot of conjecture. I have worked with property developers worth billions who have never appeared on a rich list.

Believe me the really big pay days started with Kelley. I followed Hamed closely at the time hoping he would get his comeuppance as all bullies do.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Even before the Kelley fight he was the highest paid Featherweight in history so enlighten me to what point you're trying to make.

You're hanging your hat on an article written a couple of weeks before the Kelley fight. How do you know the article was not including the projected earnings Hamed would make in the fight a couple of weeks later?  As the fight was signed and imminent it's hardly a reach that the earning from it would be included for 1997.  This is also a Forbes article that would be based on a lot of conjecture.  I have worked with property developers worth billions who have never appeared on a rich list.

Believe me the really big pay days started with Kelley.  I followed Hamed closely at the time hoping he would get his comeuppance as all bullies do.

Clutching at straws again I see, he obviously got paid more fighting in America but he was on big money before that and ive never known Forbes take into account projected earnings.

I forgot that you're a high roller and knowing a fictional Billionaire means sweet FA.

Where did you get your McCullough figures from because I can't find anything on it?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Clutching at straws again I see, he obviously got paid more fighting in America but he was on big money before that and ive never known Forbes take into account projected earnings.

I forgot that you're a high roller and knowing a fictional Billionaire means sweet FA.

Where did you get your McCullough figures from because I can't find anything on it?

The vast majority of Hamed's career earnings were made from the Kelly fight onwards.  Fighters don't get multi million pay days fighting in Sheffield on ITV.  Trust me the figures of Hamad making £10M a year relate to his time fighting in America.

Lists that the likes of Forbes put together involve a lot of conjecture.  They are fun but I take them with a pinch of salt.

Two points he got £2mil for the Kelley fight so you know and secondly he was fighting on SkySports box office not ITV, you really do need to get your facts straight before jumping in head first.

You must have followed his career really closely if you can't remember having to pay to watch his fights.

In this thread I posted at 7.53pm the following:


I can clearly remember the Kelley fight and it was heavily promoted. It was billed as Naz coming to America. Up to Kelley Naz fought a lot on terrestrial TV in the bigger indoor arenas around the UK. Kelley was a PPV fight on HBO and it was the first time Naz went PPV in the UK with Sky. This is when the money really flowed. I definitely remember Hamed getting £5M for one of his American fights.


Read it and weep.