They arent all necessarily AWESOME just because they DIDNT get a shot...

[ICEMAN JOHN SCULLY]

people talk about Holman Williams, Charley Burley etc etc etc like they are these vicious killing machines with unfathomable technique and skills...they lead u to believe that Ray Robinson practically ran for his life rather than face guys like this....but I watch vids and dont see anything I havent seen from 1000 other fighters...I dont see anything so "different" than u can see in other greats...I watched a video of Holman today AFTER reading someone's glowing review of his skills...I thought I was going to see this unreal display of magical nastiness....but the vid I watched didnt jump out at me at all...I mean, not that these guys werent top fighters, etc etc...just saying, its kind of like when an actor dies young (James Dean) and years later, despite the fact that he only made 3 or 4 films, they claim if he had gotten the chance to make more films he would have been the greatest actor of all time, etc...but thats a huge IF, the same way IF Holman and thsoe guys got chances at titles back then they would have won with no doubts...Holman eventually got a shot at Cerdan didnt he? And he lost fair and square.

[Brockton Lip]

lol.

Ive only seen a few seconds of Holman Williams, Im not sure any more than that exists. It was difficult to tell how good he was but he was clearly a good fighter, its just hard to judge how good.

[IronDanHamza]

Which fights of Holman Williams have you seen? There is barely much footage of him.

You only need to look at Holman William's resume to indentify he was a great fighter.

As for Charley Burley, you think you've seen 1,000's of fighters like him? You're wrong.

And Robinson did outright duck him.

[ICEMAN JOHN SCULLY]

Well, let me ask you something...if we havent seen vids of him then how can u determine just how good he was?? I mean, do you look at his resume and actually believe it is more impressive than Robinson's????

[ICEMAN JOHN SCULLY]

Take Jack Johnson as another example...you read accounts of him and imagine this flawless brilliant guy...but film exists of him and, I dont know, I see Joe Frazier all over him, etc etc

[AntonTheMeh]

Take Jack Johnson as another example...you read accounts of him and imagine this flawless brilliant guy...but film exists of him and, I dont know, I see Joe Frazier all over him, etc etc

well, that isn't necessarily a slight now is it john?

this is the first i hear of holman williams, and it makes me feel like a noob.

as far as ray ducking burley, I'd think it had alot more to do with money than anything else. that would have been pretty cool.

[raskat]

I agree with you, Ice. Some pple just think its "cool" to say Charley Burley is the greatest. Cause that kinda makes them look soooo knowledgeable. know what I mean?
But I gotta say that there are certain cases where there is truth in those things. for example when Jack Johnson back in the day didnt face black top guys like Sam Langford, Sam McVey, Joe Jeannette and Harry Wills, once he had the title.
He ducked those guys cause he knew how good and tough they were, and since there was a color line in the heavyweight division back then, it all worked out for Johnson.
but lots of pple dont know jack***** about boxing history and then they hear somebody say "Charley Burley would have done this and that", and they come on a forum and repeat what they heard somebody else say. They think it makes them look super-knowledgeable.
btw Iceman, I heard you on ATG radio recently. you did pretty good in the boxing trivia.

[ICEMAN JOHN SCULLY]

YES, thats a very good point...A LOT goes into making fights and just because a guy doesnt fight another guy it doesnt always mean he is scared or believes he will lose...its BUSINESS first, sad to say...by the same token, Ezzard Charles, with only a handfull of gights at the time, took a one day notice fight with Burley and dropped him and beat him convincingly...so by the percpetion of that result, can we just go ahead and say that with 5 weeks advance notice that Charles beats him even worse???? The idea that SRR ducked these guys because he was afriad he would lose has REALLY been blowen out of proportion over the years...and, again, Marcel Cerdan didnt have a ton of trouble winning when he matched up...

[IronDanHamza]

Well, let me ask you something...if we havent seen vids of him then how can u determine just how good he was?? I mean, do you look at his resume and actually believe it is more impressive than Robinson's????

But didn't you just say in your OP you've seen is fights? So, which fights have you seen of Williams then? I'd like to see them myself.

The only footage I've ever been lucky enough to see is a short clip.

Who has ever said that Holman Williams has a better resume than Robinson?

No legit Historian has ever said as such. Robinson is argubally the #1 fighter of all time to anybody worth a damn.

No one has ever said the same about Holman Williams.

But, Holman Williams is a great fighter. Just look at his resume, it speaks for itself.

Not sure what the point of this thread is.

[raskat]

Take Jack Johnson as another example...you read accounts of him and imagine this flawless brilliant guy...but film exists of him and, I dont know, I see Joe Frazier all over him, etc etc

Johnson may not look great on footage, but we gotta admit he was good FOR HIS TIME. Everybody from the Ali era would beat the **** out of Jack Johnson, because there are over 40 years of boxing evolution between those 2 eras.
But johnson was the first big guy who had good defence. But its all relative. Same with Jack Dempsey- he doesnt look very good to me in the footage. The only heavyweight who looks great from the old days is Gene Tunney. You can see his technical skills and boxing brain.