So let's talk about Paul Williams and the Hall of Fame

[badass316]

I don't care.

Of course you wouldn't.

[-Kev-]

Laszlo Pappi doesn't belong there in my opinion. He's in based on being a two time Olympic gold medalist and the fact his country wouldn't let him fight professionally any more. Probably WOULD have been outstanding, but his professional achievements don't warrant induction in my opinion. Jess Willard is another who stands out and doesn't belong. Would have to come over their list to come up with more.

Thanks. Yes, please do come back if you find more undeserving HOF'ers. Also, if you can, compare them to Paul Williams career and give your take on who is better. It could be interesting.

What is your opinion on those saying Gatti should be in, but Williams should "absolutely" not, and not even close.

[Atreyu Khalil]

without a question in my opinion. this guy accomplished a boat load of success considering many fighters refused to fight him. i still remember seeing an interview with sugar shane mosley saying that paul williams would be the last guy he would like to face. this guy wanted all the big fights but always had a hard time getting them into the ring.

Lol....

[Atreyu Khalil]

He isn't a hall of famer by any stretch of imagination

[-Kev-]

He isn't a hall of famer by any stretch of imagination

Probably the best non-HOF'er out there. Ducked by Cotto, Mosley, Mayweather, Margarito[2009]. Was forced to move up to 154/160 because none of these other 1st ballot HOF'ers wanted any part of him. Pretty funny if you ask me.

And there's no way working around that, he simply got ducked at 147 No excuses.

[badass316]

Ummm..Despite being a relatively unknown fighter at the time, just seen as a very good fighter, a top guy, one of the best in the division[just like Martinez] with on a long win streak, it is arguable that Bernard Hopkins was Roy Jones best win. Arguable. Because, of what he went on to do in his whole career.

I say arguable of course because there's also James Toney. but that's a different subject.

So what Martinez went on to do in his career, really makes him stand out in Paul Williams resume. What Margarito went on to do after losing to Williams, he beat Cotto and that's about it. Martinez has become The Ring champion.

If you don't think circumstances play a significant part in ranking Ws then you and I are not on the same page. It's not who you fight but when you fight them. At the time Paul beat Margs, Margs was at or near the top of the division. He was highly regarded and was known as the most avoided fighter in boxing. Martinez was for the most part still a relative unknown. His first real exposure was the bogus draw he had against Cintron.

Martinez may have very well been better than Margs at the time Paul fought them, we don't know and we certainly didn't know at the time. Margs was highly regarded and was favored to win against Williams. Martinez was for the most part a question mark, and a significant underdog to Williams. Couple this with the fact that the conclusion of the Martinez fight was extremely controversial slightly diminishes that W in my opinion. So for me, given the circumstances, the Margs fight was his biggest win.

[-Kev-]

IMO wins can grow with time and what the loser does. IMO some wins can outshine other previous great wins with time.


What a win can't do is decrease in value. But it can be outshined with time. Margarito is a very good win because of who he was at the time, yes. But IMO Martinez has outshined Margarito, therefore Williams win over Martinez who was also a highly avoided fighter at the time Williams fought him, is better than Margarito. Let's not forget, the late Vernon Forrest ducked Martinez. The only reason Williams could only fight Winky Wright and Sergio Martinez was because all three fighters had something in common and that was that they were low risk high reward fighters.

For me personally, I rank 2009 Winky Wright over 2007 Antonio Margarito. Martinez, Winky, Margarito. In that order.

[-Kev-]

Edit: High risk, low reward.

[badass316]

IMO wins can grow with time and what the loser does. IMO some wins can outshine other previous great wins with time.


What a win can't do is decrease in value. But it can be outshined with time. Margarito is a very good win because of who he was at the time, yes. But IMO Martinez has outshined Margarito, therefore Williams win over Martinez who was also a highly avoided fighter at the time Williams fought him, is better than Margarito. Let's not forget, the late Vernon Forrest ducked Martinez. The only reason Williams could only fight Winky Wright and Sergio Martinez was because all three fighters had something in common and that was that they were low risk high reward fighters.

For me personally, I rank 2009 Winky Wright over 2007 Antonio Margarito. Martinez, Winky, Margarito. In that order.

You'd rate the Winky win, when Winky was coming of a 2 year layoff and was for the most part on his last legs higher than the Margaritto win, when Margs was at the top of the division and widely regarded as the most avoided fighter in boxing? Interesting.

And I disagree with the notion that wins can never lose their value over time. If a particular win can gain value over time then the same can be said about the opposite. A common example would be a W over a previously unbeaten fighter. At the time it may seem like a good W, but if that fighter goes absolutely south then that W look far less appealing than what it initially was.

[JAB5239]

Thanks. Yes, please do come back if you find more undeserving HOF'ers. Also, if you can, compare them to Paul Williams career and give your take on who is better. It could be interesting.

What is your opinion on those saying Gatti should be in, but Williams should "absolutely" not, and not even close.

Gatti doesn't belong there either. People are confusing excitement with greatness, but there have been dozens of Gattis throughout boxing history. They're also not getting the fact that beating a titlist today is the same as a fighter beating a top contender in earlier era's when there was only one belt.

Jerry Quarry is a perfect example. He beat loads of top contenders from his era and was admittedly ducked by George Foreman and was an exciting fighter with a huge fan base. Does he belong in the hall? Maybe, maybe not depending on who you talk to. But the fact is he could never get over the hump and BE the best. Today though, if there was a guy doing the same thing, and undoubtedly he'd be beating guys with some kind of paper title, people would be saying he should be in the hall of fame.

Cornelius Boza-Edwards is another fighter who was exciting with a huge following and some excellent wins. It just isn't enough though and people need to differentiate through actual research instead of basing their respective opinions in boxrec and and their passion for the here and now. Just my two cents. When I get more time I'll go through the IBHOF roster to see who else I think may not belong. Peace!