Prince Naseem: hall of fame!

But it's there to prove a point, :lol1: Yeah it shows the "embarassing beating" Barrera gave Naz which "forced him into retirement". :lol1:

LOL @ Rbgnwo's signature .gif showing Barrera not landing clean punches on Hamed. Could have at least made a .gif of some of Barrera's good, scoring blows in the fight. :lol1: :lol1: Barrera landed fuk all in that gif.

All I will say is anyone who thinks it was a prime Hamed who faced Barrera that night, does not know too much about his career. There were signs long before the Barrera fight of Hamed starting to lose his love for the sport. There are many other top fighters who lose fights past their best and those defeats get completely ignored. But, due to the dislike of Hamed by many on here, the Barrera fight is always held against him with the rest of his impressive victories totally disregarded.

If Kostya Tszyu can make it on the first ballot,Naseem Hamed most certainly deserves serious consideration or a spot.Hamed's accomplishments,at the very least,are on par with Tszyu's.Considering Tszyu failed to avenge his loss to Phillips and retired after his loss to Hatton,Hamed pretty much quitting the sport shouldn't be held against him. Hamed does get consideration - he has been in the poll every time since he became eligible. He'll almost certainly get in eventually. But you can't compare the quality of opposition Tszyu faced during his defining run with the opposition Hamed faced - Tszyu's was much better. And it's silly to compare retiring at the age of 35 when well past his prime with retiring at the age of 28.

you must be lonely Is that why you just gave two short responses to my one post? And the two responses coming within eleven minutes of one another.:lol1: Your pitiful responses are an acknowledgment on your part that your knowledge of this sport is limited.You're a newb that is not only incapable,but also simply has no business discussing such advanced topics as this.You can't dispute anything I said because you lack the knowledge of the topic at hand to do so. Now f^ck off and stick to posting in Pacquiao topics with the rest of your kind in future.

If Jermaine Taylor, Jeff Lacy, Paul Williams etc only fought the type of fighters hamed fought, then they should be in the hall of fame too. Problem is,you don't know "the type of fighters hamed fought".And this isn't the fault of the fighters themselves;you simply don't possess knowledge of the featherweight division of the 1990's.If you did,your type wouldn't be so hasty to question Hamed's opposition. And you sure as hell wouldn't be throwing Lacy,who was given an easy ride throughout his rise and beat just one single credible opponent his entire career,in there,either

If Kostya Tszyu can make it on the first ballot,Naseem Hamed most certainly deserves serious consideration or a spot.Hamed's accomplishments,at the very least,are on par with Tszyu's.Considering Tszyu failed to avenge his loss to Phillips and retired after his loss to Hatton,Hamed pretty much quitting the sport shouldn't be held against him.

If anything, the impatient, negative reaction to his comeback fight and rebranding contributed as much to his disappearance from the game. Not to mention that that fight was only a few months after 9/11 and all the anti-Muslim feeling that followed from it, which I'm sure screwed him up, given the way he had promoted his religion previously.

You obviously didn't read the articles I linked to (e.g. Cliff Rold: "Verdict on Mike Tyson: Easy Hall of Famer but Just Shy of the All-Time Heavyweight Pantheon"). And in any case I was replying to a post which said that he is regarded as a top 10 ATG heavyweight. Most boxing historians disagree. Ah fair enough, and I tend to see him beign outside the top 10 aswell.

Larry Holmes was past his best and Spinks was a great fighter....at light heavyweight. I guess they're better names than anyone on Naz's, but i dont think its enough to say theres a huge gulf between the two careers as some have tried to claim. I think hes as deserving to be in the HOF as Tyson. Holmes was a bit past his best but was a long way from being shot. Holmes beat an undefeated Mercer four years after losing to Tyson, and he beat him more impressively than Lewis did; and in his next fight after that, he was very competitive with Holyfield. No one other than Tyson ever stopped him, although he fought on for another 14 years. And Spinks had recently beaten a previously undefeated Holmes twice. Both were much better opponents than anyone Hamed beat, not just better names - especially given the way in which he completely destroyed them. Holmes was no further from his prime when he lost to Tyson than Hopkins was when he lost to Calzaghe. And Tyson won far more convincingly than Calzaghe did.

Holmes, even at that stage of his career, and Spinks, were better scalps than anyone Hamed beat, especially given the way he totally destroyed them both. Plus Tyson didn't retire as soon as he was beaten for the first time, and he remained a top 5 Heavyweight for a long time after that. I do think Hamed should be in the HoF though, and I am sure it's only a matter of time before he gets in. Larry Holmes was past his best and Spinks was a great fighter....at light heavyweight. I guess they're better names than anyone on Naz's, but i dont think its enough to say theres a huge gulf between the two careers as some have tried to claim. I think hes as deserving to be in the HOF as Tyson.

Hamed is one of the most overrated boxer of all time. his resume is shallow and when he stepped his competition he got exposed badly. he lost one fight and he was past it then the day he walked out of brendan ingles gym his career went downhill he was better than gatti

Hamed is one of the most overrated boxer of all time. his resume is shallow and when he stepped his competition he got exposed badly.

I dont think Ive ever said either was greater. I said there was nothing Tyson did at HW that Naz didnt do at FW. Holmes, even at that stage of his career, and Spinks, were better scalps than anyone Hamed beat, especially given the way he totally destroyed them both. Plus Tyson didn't retire as soon as he was beaten for the first time, and he remained a top 5 Heavyweight for a long time after that. I do think Hamed should be in the HoF though, and I am sure it's only a matter of time before he gets in.

Not being in the top 10 doesn't stop you from being a great. You obviously didn't read the articles I linked to (e.g. Cliff Rold: "Verdict on Mike Tyson: Easy Hall of Famer but Just Shy of the All-Time Heavyweight Pantheon"). And in any case I was replying to a post which said that he is regarded as a top 10 ATG heavyweight. Most boxing historians disagree.

Of course you could, because you wouldn't know greatness if it was staring you in the face. The fact that you believe Hamed to be greater than Tyson is proof of this, so what you've said above is not surprising at all to me. I dont think Ive ever said either was greater. I said there was nothing Tyson did at HW that Naz didnt do at FW. I think their prime careers were quite similar. You have not said why Tyson is so great, you've just.....said hes great....over and over.

By fans maybe. By certainly not by boxing historians. They mostly rate him as an almost great, but not quite an actual great, and they mostly rank him just outside the top 10. See here and here for example (Cliff Rold, who ranks him 13). The International Boxing Research Organisation also ranks him at 13 - see here - and their rankings are a concensus list from around 30 of the world's most respected boxing historians. He just makes Monte Cox's top 10 but only just. Not being in the top 10 doesn't stop you from being a great.

I didnt make a list....lol. I just said 10 names off the top of my head that would be above Tyson. If I really thought about it, I could probably go for 15+ :bottle: Of course you could, because you wouldn't know greatness if it was staring you in the face. The fact that you believe Hamed to be greater than Tyson is proof of this, so what you've said above is not surprising at all to me.

Tyson is regarded as one of the greatest of all time, and a top 10 ATG heavyweight. By fans maybe. But certainly not by boxing historians. They mostly rate him as an almost great, but not quite an actual great, and they mostly rank him just outside the top 10. See here and here for example (Cliff Rold, who ranks him 13). The International Boxing Research Organisation also ranks him at 13 - see here - and their rankings are a concensus list from around 30 of the world's most respected boxing historians. He just makes Monte Cox's top 10 but only just. Bert Sugar ranks him at 14 or 15 - see here. So despite your scathing attitude to his posts, Dirk Diggler is much more in line with the leading boxing historians than you are.

Just as I thought Dirks list is a laughable joke and for him to purposely go out of his way to leave Tyson out just to make a point is more laughable. Stick to not making lists because you can't. I didnt make a list....lol. I just said 10 names off the top of my head that would be above Tyson. If I really thought about it, I could probably go for 15+ :bottle: