Justice!!! Naz goes into Hall of Fame. Fact.

[Dark Lord Al]

So you was 9, Adam. Which makes you around 16 when Naz retired? Nice. What an impact he had on you.

Steve Robinson beat Colin McMillan (ask Scrap about him he was his trainer), Paul Hodkinson (former WBC champ), Duke McKenzie (three division "world" champ) and Freddy Cruz (former "world" title challenger) during his eight fight unbeaten streak as WBO champ.

I thought Robinson was a very good fighter at the time, that had beaten good fighters.

What did you think of him at the time?

Jesus I feel old I was 24 when Hamed beat Robinson.

[AdamGB]

How old was you when Ali beat Liston? You can't tell Bill Paxton that he's full of shite unless you were 16+

[Fenster]

If you're going to claim a fighter from a certain era was more hype than substance then you at least need to back that up by having some knowledge about his opponents. If you claim the fighter wasn't much cop then what does that say about his opponents? And his opponents opponents? And the "great" fighters from that era that have shared common opponents.

You can be the greatest of your era without beating a "great" fighter. Wlad hasn't beat a single man that will go close to being regarded as "great" (HOF bound) but he himself will be regarded as an all-time great. The best heavyweight of his era (one of numerous examples).

Kirkland Laing was beat a dozen times (KO'd eight), never won a "world" title. Who was his best win? Roberto Duran - a man that is regarded by every credible boxing sage on the planet as one the greatest that ever lived. Does that make Laing an all-time great? No.

(although I personally thought he was the bollocks back in the day )

[TitoFan]

Naz had skills, drawing power, and personality. But the way he ended his career leaves a lot to be desired. The first time he's owned, he folds up his tent and goes home. Love him or hate him, those are undeniable..... what would you call them...... facts?

Whether or not this warrants entry into the HOF, is all a matter of opinion. Certainly there are guys in there that are not deserving... just like there's probably omissions that are deserving. Not a perfect process by any stretch.

[Fenster]

Naz had skills, drawing power, and personality. But the way he ended his career leaves a lot to be desired. The first time he's owned, he folds up his tent and goes home. Love him or hate him, those are undeniable..... what would you call them...... facts?

Whether or not this warrants entry into the HOF, is all a matter of opinion. Certainly there are guys in there that are not deserving... just like there's probably omissions that are deserving. Not a perfect process by any stretch.

I agree. Regardless of the numerous reasons, ultimately he slipped off with his tail between his legs, which is what distances him from genuine great fighters.

[Master]

Naz had skills, drawing power, and personality. But the way he ended his career leaves a lot to be desired. The first time he's owned, he folds up his tent and goes home. Love him or hate him, those are undeniable..... what would you call them...... facts?

Whether or not this warrants entry into the HOF, is all a matter of opinion. Certainly there are guys in there that are not deserving... just like there's probably omissions that are deserving. Not a perfect process by any stretch.

I agree. Regardless of the numerous reasons, ultimately he slipped off with his tail between his legs, which is what distances him from genuine great fighters.

At his peak he was the dogs bollocks. No one could touch him.

[Fenster]

Naz had skills, drawing power, and personality. But the way he ended his career leaves a lot to be desired. The first time he's owned, he folds up his tent and goes home. Love him or hate him, those are undeniable..... what would you call them...... facts?

Whether or not this warrants entry into the HOF, is all a matter of opinion. Certainly there are guys in there that are not deserving... just like there's probably omissions that are deserving. Not a perfect process by any stretch.

I agree. Regardless of the numerous reasons, ultimately he slipped off with his tail between his legs, which is what distances him from genuine great fighters.

At his peak he was the dogs bollocks. No one could touch him.

(well played)

[AdamGB]

If you're going to claim a fighter from a certain era was more hype than substance then you at least need to back that up by having some knowledge about his opponents. If you claim the fighter wasn't much cop then what does that say about his opponents? And his opponents opponents? And the "great" fighters from that era that have shared common opponents.

You can be the greatest of your era without beating a "great" fighter. Wlad hasn't beat a single man that will go close to being regarded as "great" (HOF bound) but he himself will be regarded as an all-time great. The best heavyweight of his era (one of numerous examples).

Kirkland Laing was beat a dozen times (KO'd eight), never won a "world" title. Who was his best win? Roberto Duran - a man that is regarded by every credible boxing sage on the planet as one the greatest that ever lived. Does that make Laing an all-time great? No.

(although I personally thought he was the bollocks back in the day )

I agree again Fenster, you can't just say 'he beat Duran' and leave it at that... You have to look at the circumstances - where was Duran at that point in his career etc.

The same goes for any fighter - Alfonso Gomez even beat Gatti, but so what?
The same can be said of lineal belts, you have guys like Carlos Baldomor hold them.

I'd rather not discuss the ins and outs of Kevin Kelley's career if that's ok.

Your point about Wlad is moot, Wlad has fought no greats, yes... But he's fought everybody of this era... That's why he's indisputably the best of this era. It's just not a great era.

Hamed fought in a better era for his weight than Wlad, but he only fought and lost to one of the top echelon of his era.

He still goes down as one of the best of his era, just not the best.
And the entertainment and hype that he brought cement him in the HOF fairly, let alone his title success. I think that's fair enough, he doesn't have to be utter shite in my eyes just because I don't believe he was the greatest of his era!

The fact that some people still think so long after the hype should have died is testement to the buzz he created I guess.

[Fenster]

If you're going to claim a fighter from a certain era was more hype than substance then you at least need to back that up by having some knowledge about his opponents. If you claim the fighter wasn't much cop then what does that say about his opponents? And his opponents opponents? And the "great" fighters from that era that have shared common opponents.

You can be the greatest of your era without beating a "great" fighter. Wlad hasn't beat a single man that will go close to being regarded as "great" (HOF bound) but he himself will be regarded as an all-time great. The best heavyweight of his era (one of numerous examples).

Kirkland Laing was beat a dozen times (KO'd eight), never won a "world" title. Who was his best win? Roberto Duran - a man that is regarded by every credible boxing sage on the planet as one the greatest that ever lived. Does that make Laing an all-time great? No.

(although I personally thought he was the bollocks back in the day )

Your point about Wlad is moot, Wlad has fought no greats, yes... But he's fought everybody of this era... That's why he's indisputably the best of this era. It's just not a great era.

Hamed fought in a better era for his weight than Wlad, but he only fought and lost to one of the top echelon of his era.

He still goes down as one of the best of his era, just not the best.
And the entertainment and hype that he brought cement him in the HOF fairly, let alone his title success. I think that's fair enough, he doesn't have to be utter shite in my eyes just because I don't believe he was the greatest of his era!

The fact that some people still think so long after the hype should have died is testement to the buzz he created I guess.

Featherweight. He was the no.1 featherweight in the world during his reign - 1995/6-2001. If he wasn't the best during this period then who was? It was Barrera's first fight at the weight.

I agree again Fenster, you can't just say 'he beat Duran' and leave it at that... You have to look at the circumstances - where was Duran at that point in his career etc.

Well that goes for Naz too. As Memphis (and many other good judges say the same) alluded to - Naz was already way past his pomp by time he fought Barrera.

((on a side note - Duran went on to win lightmiddle and middlweight titles and was in some of his most memorable fights after losing to Laing. That was great win regardless of circumstances. ))