Where do you rank Naseem Hamed all-time?

[Tsukiyomi]

I think top 20 is fair. He was a dangerous guy and had the talent for being more respected than he is.

I think there was too much style, and not enough substance in his game, though. His reluctance to fight the best opposition available, and his quitting after getting badly beaten by the best guy he fought takes the wind from his sails.

[CarlosG815]

Nah... These guys don't always agree with me, and visa versa..
If they did, I'd probably get bored & stop contributing..
You're right about it all being down to opinion, but the majority of boxing historians are of the opinion, that he was an exceptional talent..

I fully understand that he is'nt everyone's cup of tea, and for the boxing purist, he'd be pretty painful to watch, what with so many 'text book' flaws on display.. But in truth, he impressively KO'd 32 out of 36, mainly from angles that have'nt been attempted before..
It's just incredibly annoying, that he threw it all away.. Can you imagine what Chris Byrd would have done with George Foreman's power?, because, until the ego took over, that's exactly what Hamed equated to as a FW.. A strong chinned, unorthodox fighter who relied heavily on reflexes..

You have'nt overlooked him, you've undervalued him instead.. I mean how can you overlook or undervalue a fighter who spent 5 years of a boxing fans life, completely obliterrating everyone in Great Britain, Europe and the Commonwealth (only Vincenzo Belcastro lasting 12, but losing nearly every round) Then, off to pick up 3 world titles and KO six world champions while remaining active and unbeaten for a further 5 years.. A lot of these fighters had very experienced heads on their shoulders, but they all had one thing in common when it came to Hamed.. They did'nt have the foggiest idea on how to beat him, or a cat in hell's chance of actually doing it..
Even on the odd occasion when it did go the DC, it'd be a landslide majority, so to say he had a **** boxing style is 'one track' delusional..
Here's his record as a multiple titlist: 16-1-0 (14KO's).. These are the facts, and the reasons why you're a bit out numbered here, cos these lads will soon pull me up if the old heart starts ruling the head (again lol)..

As I said earlier quoting a guys record is bull****.

Before every fight, at every pre fight conference, during every interview, and after every fight, everybody that talked to Prince asked the same question: "When are you going to fight Morales and Barrera?" and "Why are you fighting so and so?" and "Do you honestly believe that so and so belongs in the ring with you?"

When you're constantly being asked those questions it goes to show that the mass majority of people out there that know boxing want to see those fights, and want an answer as to why you're not taking them.

I could win a lot of fights myself if I picked out a bunch of Glass Joe's.

The fact is that when it came to fighting big fights, Naseem did everything in his power to stay out of the ring with them.

[mickey malone]

As I said earlier quoting a guys record is bull****.

Before every fight, at every pre fight conference, during every interview, and after every fight, everybody that talked to Prince asked the same question: "When are you going to fight Morales and Barrera?" and "Why are you fighting so and so?" and "Do you honestly believe that so and so belongs in the ring with you?"

When you're constantly being asked those questions it goes to show that the mass majority of people out there that know boxing want to see those fights, and want an answer as to why you're not taking them.

I could win a lot of fights myself if I picked out a bunch of Glass Joe's.

The fact is that when it came to fighting big fights, Naseem did everything in his power to stay out of the ring with them.

If quoting records is BS then that in effect disqualifies you from the history section..

No further comment..

[CarlosG815]

If quoting records is BS then that in effect disqualifies you from the history section..

No further comment..

There's a reason why Floyd's true greatness is in question. Because nobody cares about a 0 on your record when you don't fight the big fights.

[Smokin'J]

There's a reason why Floyd's true greatness is in question. Because nobody cares about a 0 on your record when you don't fight the big fights.

Marquez must be a no one either since he lost to Mayweather.

[Sugarj]

Hamed wanted the big fights! He wanted Barrera in like 95/96.....but Barrera lost to Junior Jones. he wanted Junior Jones......but Junior jones lost to McKinney. He wanted McKinney but McKinney moved up in weight! He also called out Azumah Nelson, who lost to Hernandez.

These were not Naz's fault!!! These were the guys in the mid to late 90s that everyone wanted to see him in with at the time.

Now Moralles was campaigning a division below Hamed. He should have come up to challenge Naz! It wasn't Naz's fault that Eric was in a different division. Neither he or Naz did a better job against a common opponent McCullough. When Moralles did come up it was late 2000 (September), and it was only April 2001 that Hamed stepped in with Barrera. Hardly grounds for criticism there! Barrera was clearly at the top of his game.......and he was the clear underdog, thats the esteem Hamed was held at that time.

Moralles wouldn't have been a favorite either with the bookies. He took seven rounds to dispose of the Kevin Kelly, who Naz had knocked out in four, three years previous. Then Moralles nearly lost to Guty Espades in February 2001!!! Even the Naz that fought Barrera may have beaten that Moralles!!!! The vast majority of boxing writers felt that Moralles's punch hadn't come up with him.

As for the fight with Marquez that didn't materialise, Marquez wasn't the star he is today, he hadn't beaten anyone really of note on the world scene before Freddie Norwood in 1999.

For all the criticism of Hamed's opponents, it wasn't his fault the big boys kept losing!

[lyrical]

Interesting.. Why would he want to do that?

not too sure, I guess it sounded good.

Hamed said it in a book called 'Naseem Hamed and those he left behind" its a really, really boring book but the last chapter is great.

[BritishBoxing92]

Where do you rank him among all the other featherweights? Do you think he's a P4P all-time great?

i would rate him top 10-20...he was a good fighter and had style

[Ningy]

What'cha think of Naseem saying he'll be back later this year, or next year?

[True Guru]

Vuyani Bungu (Naz KO4) -- Bungu prior to this bout was reigning IBF champion and had made 13 title defenses of that IBF crown with wins over Romero, Salud and McKinney twice to mention only a few. No defeats 8 years prior.
Cesar Soto (Naz WUD12) -- Soto was reigning WBC champion coming off a win over Luisito Espinosa (who at the time was still making waves.)
Paul Ingle (Naz TKO11) -- This is probably the weakest of former champions Naz defeated. However, prior to this Ingle was undefeated and after the Naz fight, Ingle went on to beat Manuel Medina and Junior Jones.
Wayne McCullough (Naz WUD12) -- Only one man had beaten McCullough prior to Naz and that was Zaragoza. Former WBC champion with an iron chin. I don't expect anyone to knock out a prime McCullough.
Wilfredo Vazquez (Naz TKO7) -- Vazquez prior to this bout was the reigning WBA champion with 3 successful defenses.
Kevin Kelley (Naz KO4) -- Former WBC champ. Not a prime Kevin Kelley but a Kevin Kelley who still had a big spark left.
Tom Johnson (Naz TKO8) -- Reigning IBF champion with 11 defenses under his belt.
Manuel Medina (Naz TKO11) -- What is this guy, a 4 time champion? I don't need to say too much more about Medina.

He beat all the other champs at his weight - by KO.
He held the WBO,IBF,WBC and then Knocked out the WBA champion but Naz was robbed of that title because of boxing politics.

CHECK THE SIG BIATCHES!!!