Naseem Hamed - good...but not that good by James Slater May 21st 2008

Now that we can all pretty much take it for granted that Naseem Hamed's career is over (though only half-jokingly, Hamed recently told Sky Sports he was not retired), it is time to evaluate his achievements as a boxer. I vividly remember Emanuel Steward, who was training Hamed at the time, telling an interviewer that Hamed would, in time, go down in history as the greatest featherweight of all-time. I was shocked by those words, coming as they did from a highly knowledgeable and respected trainer. No way did I agree then (the statement was made by Emanuel just prior to the Barrera fight, back in 2001) and no way do I agree now - some seven years later. Just where then, does "The Prince" rank amongst the very best in featherweight history? Many will disagree, but to my mind he does not belong in a list of the top ten finest featherweights of all-time. In fact, when Steward made his amazing statement I fully believe the likes of Sandy Saddler, Henry Armstrong and Salvador Sanchez were turning over in their graves. Hamed was good, but not THAT good. Hamed was blessed with awesome punch power and early on in his career - when he trained with diligence- his speed and accuracy, as well as his work rate were very good indeed. It wasn't too long though, before Naseem began to rely on his KO power alone to pull out the victory. Men like Kevin Kelley, Augie Sanchez and of course Barrera, found massive holes in Hamed's style - with Kelley and Sanchez knocking him down and Barrera becoming the only man to defeat him. And while Hamed's overall record is impressive - what with one solitary loss- what he did after this loss speaks volumes regarding his true fighting heart. Instead of putting the rematch clause option he had for a return with the Mexican great into operation, Naseem let its year long validity expire - even though he could have met Barrera in his hometown in a second encounter. This is not how true champions, let alone all-time greats, react. As such, this behaviour has to go against Hamed when pondering his place in boxing history. Imagine someone like Willie Pep, for example, losing to Saddler for the first time and then never facing him again. No way would he have been able to live with himself without at least trying to get revenge. To have actually done so is the mark of a true champion. Hamed never showed this quality. To have virtually retired after his first ever defeat is a fact that really hurts his legacy. I just cannot in good conscience rate Hamed above fighters such as Pep and Saddler, Armstrong, Sanchez, Barrera, Morales, Pacquiao, Arguello, Nelson or even McGuigan. To repeat, Naseem Hamed was good, but he wasn't that good.

Go back Comment on this article | Send to a friend | Print

Please login before posting comments.

In response to Ed. May 23rd 2008, 04:35:38 by grinter1 It was not because I disagreed with the article i just felt a fighter who gave so much to the sport as a whole deserved a slightly more balanced and detailed evaluation. Yes he was a wasted talent and thats how he'll be remembered in terms of boxing skills but he still achieved a significant amount and had other attributes that deserved mention. (Aye, fair play - Ed.)   From a none Hamed lover. May 22nd 2008, 10:56:24 by aksel Agreed, an insult and very upsetting, but he's a smart man, retired happy, healthy and rich, will always be ragrded as one of the best featherwights to hail from the British Isle, if not the best by people wiht proper fighting knowledge Regards Folie   From a none Hamed lover. May 22nd 2008, 09:50:15 by A hastily written article with very little substance such as this one is certainly not what I've come to expect from this website, particular when 'evaluating' a fighter who gave so much to the sport. No Hamed will not go down as one of the greats, but to sum up the achievements of a fighter widely regarded as the hardest pound for pound puncher of that era, who sold out shows all over England and America, who beat 9 former or reigning world champions during a 5 year reign, a rare cross over star of the sport who attracted a new, younger generation of boxing fan and along the way picked up the IBO, WBO, IBF and WBC featherweight titles as simply 'good but not that good' is, love him or hate him, frankly an insult. Ed. responds - "A hastily written article with very little substance such as this one is certainly not what I've come to expect from this website". It's good that you expect high standards from the website - thanks. To say it has no substance simply because you disagree with it is harsh. Are you seriously trying to say that the likes of Kelley and Barrera DIDN'T expose Hamed? The bit about not taking the rematch is absolutely spot on too. Just because he was a star who sold out arenas doesn't mean he should be rated anymore highly if one is simply considering boxing skills. For me, (and I didn't write it), Naz will go down as a relative waste of talent. And know that sounds crazy with what he achieved but if he behaved himself he would have reigned for twice as long and beaten everyone put in front of him. Perhaps the most talented fighter I've ever seen in my lifetime. And he effectively blew the chance to be in the top few fighters - at any weight - of all time.   hamed still the best featherwight ever May 21st 2008, 10:20:47 by aksel in my opinion and in every other boxing fan I know (and I know a lot of boxers/fans etc) Hamed was the best europe has ever seen! and most people know it (why then an article every other week on him? surely he was speacial) never again will we see a gret fighter like Naz Regards