It makes no sense why Naseem Hamed(36-1 32KOs) is not in the hall of fame. He was the best and most exciting featherweight of the last 20 years. In the era of 4 belts per weight class he would have had a complete monopoly on the division if it wasn't for boxing politics (he did defeat titleholders Steve Robinson (TKO8.), Tom Johnson (TKO8.),Cesar Soto (W12) and Wilfredo Vasquez (TKO7) to claim belts.) He also beat notable opponents and former titleholders Wayne McCullough, Paul Ingle, Vuyani Bungu and Manuel Medina. The flashy southpaw defended his WBO title 15 times and held the lineal title for 3 years. He brought an unprecedented amount of excitement,fame and money into the smaller weight classes. His fight with Kevin Kelley on December 19th 1997 (KO4) was one of the most exciting fights of the decade. He made over £40 million in his career and should be credited with changing the economic model for the lighter weight classes. He gets unfairly criticized for the one loss at the end to Barrera when he was at the tail end of career. During this time he had suffered several serious injuries to his hands that severely diminished his legendary punching power and he was undertrained being 2 stone overweight 8 weeks before the fight. He then losses a competitive 115-112 decision to a Prime Barrera. I have no doubt in my mind if Naz was healthy and trained hard he would have beaten Barrera. If Barry McGuigan is in the hall of fame, Naseem Hamed should be in as well.
McGuigan for one was very liked on a personal level, i reckon a lot of the reason Barry is in the HOF is because of all the political and cultural significance i mean if he wasn't a massive cultural icon in Ireland i doubt McGuigan would get in. I like McGuigan btw a very good fighter and man but personally i wouldn't have him in the HOF. With Hamed the reality is despite his record and victories he is most known for his one sided defeat a bit like Haye.
I agree with this. It would have been difficult to beat Barrera that night as he was on top form and fought perfectly, but a fit Naz, well prepared and focussed, would have overcome Barrera. Naz should be a HOF'er on merit. He had a cracking career. I wish it could have gone on longer as he was fun to follow, but shifting trainers and, possibly, arrogance did it for him. I don't think he recovered from the Barrera defeat.
He's on the ballot, and the main reasons he hasn't been inducted yet are that he has only been eligible for a few years and there has been some very strong classes recently. They only induct three Modern fighters per year, so it's a bit tricky if you're up against the likes of Hearns, De La Hoya and Trinidad. The next couple of years are pretty weak, and it's likely that he will get inducted during this time. The (valid) reasons why he will get in eventually rather than on the first ballot: No career defining win or victories over HOF fighters Clear loss to only HOF fighter he faced Single weight champion in a relatively weak division Most of the fighters who get in first time have victories over other HOF fighters, titles in multiple weight classes, or set title defence records. Hamed has a worthy claim based on effectively unifying the title, beating a host of good/very good titlists, and ticking all of the boxes in terms of excitement and charisma. However, it isn't an overwhelming claim for the reasons highlighted above. As others have pointed out, being British and a lighter-weight fighter doesn't exactly help matters either in the eyes of the US-centric voters. People always bring up Gatti and McGuigan to justify why their favourite should be inducted, but they are anomalies rather than the measuring stick.
