Hamed not likely to make it into Hall of Fame in 2009

Had I known this, I would have voted yes instead of no.

 

Shouldn't things like exciting styles, entertainment, dominance, and increasing boxing's exposure to the world be qualifications too?

 

It depends entirely on whether fighters are inducted on the basis of fame quite literally, or whether they are inducted on the basis of quality/greatness.

If, as I believe it should be, the latter then I say no, none of the things you mentioned should count one bit.

I refute your third and fourth things anyway.

I don't understand what you mean by 'dominance'. Naz never fought all of the best fighters in his division, he never became undisputed champion and ruled a division like Hopkins did at 160, or was even a strong and clear division no.1 for a prolonged period like Jones at 175 or Calzaghe eventually became for a short period at 168 before moving up. Naz never cleaned house in that division, the Norwoods and the Espinosas and the Gainers and the JM Marquez's were always there and never fought. Don't get me wrong, Naz fought some decent opposition (Kelley, Bungu, McCullough), but these were vastly outnumbered by the washed-up and the mediocre (Ingle, Vasquez, Badillo, Cabrera, Hardy, Johnson, Molina, Alicea, Lawal, Robinson...). He could easily have gone on and improved his resume after Barrera (as Barrera did after losing to Jones and Morales, as Marquez eventually did after losing to Norwood). But he didn't.

Increasing boxing's exposure? Again, I'm unsure what you mean. Boxing was huge in the mid-1990s in Britain thanks to Eubank, Benn and Lewis, and the rise of Joe Calzaghe. Naz came along at the right time to capitalize on that and benefit from it, he didn't create it or improve/widen it. Naz became well-known, but he never became wildly popular enough to be said to increase exposure on the sport. He never had any fights at football stadiums like Eubank, Benn, Lewis, Bruno, and later Calzaghe and Hatton did. And he didn't put much of a dent in the US market, despite fighting there more often than any other British fighter of recent times. The Kelley fight was big news, and rightfully so, but the only other time the world was watching was against Barrera, and there his flaws were exposed even more cruelly than against Kelley. Again, primarily this was because the guys he was fighting did not bring a lot of media interest. I remember in particular Larry Merchant criticizing Naz for fighting and making very hard work of Augie Sanchez in Connecticut when he could have been fighting Erik Morales in Las Vegas.


Exciting styles and entertainment? Again, if it is literally a Hall of Fame then maybe these things should be/will be considered, but IMO Hall of Fame entry is because of quality and greatness, not showy dominations of clearly lesser fighters. It should also be noted that a fight between two drunks in a pub car-park can be very exciting and entertaining, but is a world away from a boxing match, which at the top level is as skilled a sport as there is.

Should jumping over the top rope, wearing a leopard-skin skirt with streamers hanging off of it, dancing around, sticking your tongue out, talking a lot of BS, and then brutally knocking someone out when every single person in the arena expects you to do so, should that excitement and entertainment gain you entry into the Boxing Hall of Fame? It's not up to me, but I say no.

Had Naz had more fights against guys like Bungu and Kelley then maybe. Had he rematched Barrera, been better prepared and showed more heart, and went on whether he won or lost and had a longer career, then maybe.

But he didn't, so I say no.

But hey, that's only my opinion and in reality, that matters not a jot. Good luck to him, he was 'born to thrill' :good

 

On significance alone, yes. On accomplishments, no. Overall, for some of the people that they have in there, yes.

 

Yea, he made a noticeable imprint on boxing. Regardless what you think of his career, I think that's worth of being HOF worthy.

 

I think he deserves to be inducted.

 

this.

though i voted no, because i hate the piece of ****.

 

Yep I would give it to him just because he drew massive attention to the FW division and made it possible for all the guys that came after him to get the paydays they deserved. That alone is worthwhile. I think the IBHOF has to take into account the impact that an individual makes on the sport as well as simply how good he was at his job.

 

Hamed was an overrated hype job. Even by the Hall of Fame's lax standards he should not get in.