Prince Naseem: hall of fame!

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Sure, youngest HW boxing champ of all time.

Truly unified undisputed champion.

Damn near cleaned out a division...

His dismantling of Michael Spinks is better than any win in Hamed career.

Also had wins over solid foes like Berbick, undefeated Tucker, and top contenders like Ruddock(2x), Tubbs, and Briggs.

Considering what Holmes, Kelly, and Vazquez did after. Tyson win over an old Holmes>>>>>>>Hamed wins over an old Kelly and Vazquez.

Hamed has good wins, with the likes of Harrison, Kelly, Vazquez, Medina, and Sanchez

Hamed beat title holders Johnson and Soto, Tyson beat title holders Bruno(2x), Smith, Seldon.

If you look at bot resumes, accomplishments, and achievements. Without question Tyson>>>>>Hamed.

People look at the Tyson post prison and think he was ehh....Forgetting just how completely dominating and everything he did pre Prison.

The only way I see anybody saying Hamed>>>>Tyson is if there on this Nationalistic nonsense.

Naz did the same at Featherweight. He lost to an ATG

Tyson lost to Buster Douglas.

[jrosales13]

Hamed is one of the greatest featherweights of all time. If Hamed wasn't a ****** he probably would have been inducted by now.

Are there no ******s in the HOF?

[jrosales13]

Naz did the same at Featherweight. He lost to an ATG

Tyson lost to Buster Douglas.

Is Douglas the best fighter that Tyson has face till that point?

Anyways, Tyson had better wins and no Hamed didn't do the same at featherweight.

Hamed was not a true undisputed unified champ, he was not the youngest champ in history of that weight-class. And, his wins are not better than Tyson wins.

So I fail to see where Hamed did the same.

But, again I'm not on some Nationalistic bias.

Because, instead of mentioning Tyson. Since Tyson has better, resume, accomplishments, and achievements. You should have mention McGuigan. Since there is no reason for McGuigan to be in and not Hamed. But, McGuigan is NOT American so it will kill your agenda.

[pacquia0]

Are there no ******s in the HOF?

They were inducted pre 9/11. Hamed is an arab which makes him more of a target for racism compared to black ****** fighters.

Naz should have been first ballot. His dominance at featherweight alone should do that. Then you factor in his impact on the sport and hes a definate.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Hamed was not a true undisputed unified champ, he was not the youngest champ in history of that weight-class. And, his wins are not better than Tyson wins.
.

Yes he was. He beat every champion. The only reason he never officially held all 4 belts at the same time was some political *****.

[jrosales13]

They were inducted pre 9/11. Hamed is an arab which makes him more of a target for racism compared to black ****** fighters.

Naz should have been first ballot. His dominance at featherweight alone should do that. Then you factor in his impact on the sport and hes a definate.

When Hamed was in the first ballot, who else was with him on that list?

I'm sorry does Hamed deserve to be in the HOF? Sure, more so than others that are in that's for sure. But, is he an ATG? Maybe ATG featherweight not an ATG fighter.

So it's hard for me to believe he should be first ballot. But, that's also depending on who was in the ballot on his first time.

For example this year. He was in there with Tyson, JCC, and Kostya. Only 3 can go in at a time. And, those 3 all deserve to be in more so than Hamed.

But, if Hamed is in the ballot with the likes of Cotto, Gatti, and Chicanito. Then Hamed should get in before all those 3.

You see what I'm saying.

[jrosales13]

Yes he was. He beat every champion. The only reason he never officially held all 4 belts at the same time was some political *****.

Because, he didn't fight the #1 contenders.

Again Tyson held all 3 belts at one time and then dominated the lineal champ.

And, he never won the WBA...Also didn't face other top featherweights of his era. But, it's fine cuz' it's hard to face everybody.

But, he didn't do what Tyson did. Tyson damn near cleaned out the division.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Because, he didn't fight the #1 contenders.

Again Tyson held all 3 belts at one time and then dominated the lineal champ.

And, he never won the WBA...Also didn't face other top featherweights of his era. But, it's fine cuz' it's hard to face everybody.

But, he didn't do what Tyson did. Tyson damn near cleaned out the division.

Wilfredo Vasquez was the WBA champion. The WBA didnt want to unify with the WBO.

Naz beat every champion. He cleaned out the division

[RubenSonny]

In what sense does Tyson have a better resume?

He beat better opposition, its pretty easy to determine who the greater fighter is, unless your a jingoistic fool.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

He beat better opposition, its pretty easy to determine who the greater fighter is, unless your a jingoistic fool.

Debatable.

Im not saying either is greater. I think Naz did just as much at featherweight as Tyson did at HW. Including the cultural impact.