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

[NChristo]

You read what u read and I read what I read apparently...I read that it was a clear win for Cerdan...IN ANY EVENT, my only issue is that history continues to treat these guys as if they could do no wrong...
I saw the same short videos everyone else saw of them and, listen, if u look at them objectively there is NOTHING in them to suggest super greatness as described in the synopsis of the same video...

History treats them as they could do no wrong because they were treated like crap and never got their just dues, we are giving them the respect that they didn't get in their own time.
Burley at times gets over rated but there's no doubting he was an ATG, the rest of their careers Williams, Booker, Kid, Chase etcs were phenomenal given how they were treated. I'd say they are ranked as they should be.

Agreed on the last part although if you can't see the talent that Burley had then I don't know what too say.

Let me clarify my statement.

What was meant is I agree with TS in saying that a lot of times old school fighters are made out to be more than they really were; especially when compared to the newer generational fighters.

When I said IronDan is biased and how that tied in with this thread is he's probably going to advocate what the TS was going against.

My bad.

[Danny Gunz]

This last statement couldn't be more wrong.

I actually don't mind learning from the Old School Boxing fans, as long as they don't come across as elitist pricks. I enjoy having the old schoolers around.

I haven't learned one thing from some of these hardcore pac fans.

Some guys have genuine knowledge on old school fighters and they are fine with me.

Its the ones who act like Sugar Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Joe Louis, or whoever else were leagues better then the fighters we have now.

[IronDanHamza]

You read what u read and I read what I read apparently...I read that it was a clear win for Cerdan...IN ANY EVENT, my only issue is that history continues to treat these guys as if they could do no wrong...
I saw the same short videos everyone else saw of them and, listen, if u look at them objectively there is NOTHING in them to suggest super greatness as described in the synopsis of the same video...

Still doesn't changet that Holman Williams never got a Title shot.

And who is suggesting Super greatness?

I, for one, have never seen anyone rank Holman Williams in their Top 20 ATG lit apart from one person who posts on this forum.

I have also never, ever seen anyone rank Burley nor Williams anywhere close to Ray Robinson.

And you saying "You've seen thousands of fighters who look better than Burley and Williams from the fight's I've seen" in your opening post is as ignorant as someone suggesting they are better than Robinson from what they have seen of both Burley and Williams.

[BoxingGenius27]

The TS is going against people saying that Burley and Williams are greater than Ray Robinson because they didn't get their shot. So you're saying that my 'bias' is going to cause me to say that Holman Williams and Charley Burley are greater than Ray Robinson?

1. I don't think that.

2. Wouldn't that be conflicting considered Robinson is as old as both of those fighters?

I'm getting ready to head to the gym, so I'll give you a quick response.

What I said, was I think you're biased for older fighters. I was agreeing with the TS's general statement on older fighters vs newer fighters.

Show me where I said anything about Burley, Robinson, or Williams.

Can I generally agree with the TS on his stance on older vs newer fighters without getting specific in this thread?

If we really wanted to get specific I would've bumped the other threads that you commented in that gave me the opinion I have about your stance now. But I wasn't getting specific, just generally agreeing.

[IronDanHamza]

I'm getting ready to head to the gym, so I'll give you a quick response.

What I said, was I think you're biased for older fighters. I was agreeing with the TS's general statement on older fighters vs newer fighters.

Show me where I said anything about Burley, Robinson, or Williams.

Can I generally agree with the TS on his stance on older vs newer fighters without getting specific in this thread?

If we really wanted to get specific I would've bumped the other threads that you commented in that gave me the opinion I have about your stance now. But I wasn't getting specific, just generally agreeing.

Ok, cool.

Let's leave it at that.

[ICEMAN JOHN SCULLY]

Cerdan didn't have a lot of trouble winning ?, John I hate too talk to you like this but where exactly are you getting this from ?, most sources I've read say a past it Williams gave Cerdan all he could handle and the Associated Press scored the fight a draw. Also there's 0 footage of the fight and you're wrong he didn't get his ''shot'' at Cerdan, it wasn't a title fight.

How people tout the ability, skills and greatness of someone they have admittedly seen none or very little of is AMAZING to me...anyway u slice it CERDAN BEAT HIM...and Cerdan was a good fighter like a lot of guys were good fighters...the things Ive read about Williams, though, would have me believing he would beat Cerdan even if he had just one working eye and one arm...

[ICEMAN JOHN SCULLY]

And you saying "You've seen thousands of fighters who look better than Burley and Williams from the fight's I've seen" in your opening post is as ignorant as someone suggesting they are better than Robinson from what they have seen of both Burley and Williams.

So I cant watch a clip of a boxer in action and then compare him and his output in that clip to other fighters Ive seen, I cant make a decision based on the action Ive seen? You implying that I cannot or shouldnt is the ignorant statement here, my man. Also, surely you underdtand saying "thousands" is like saying "gazillions"...its to make a point...so relax because at the end of the day I REALLY DONT GIVE A ***** HOW GOOD THE GUY WAS OR WASNT...its a boxing message board and I figured I would bring up a point...I like message boards and all but some people discuss boxing and they lose their minds, its like they are somehow taking criticism or opoinions that difer from theirs as personal attacks...relax...its a boxing message board and from what I see I stand by statements and you can stand by yours. I dont want to argue over my OPINION.

[Rockin']

its like they are somehow taking criticism or opoinions that difer from theirs as personal attacks...relax...its a boxing message board

oxymoron post of 2011, lmao............Rockin' "The Stalker"

[IronDanHamza]

So I cant watch a clip of a boxer in action and then compare him and his output in that clip to other fighters Ive seen, I cant make a decision based on the action Ive seen? You implying that I cannot or shouldnt is the ignorant statement here, my man. Also, surely you underdtand saying "thousands" is like saying "gazillions"...its to make a point...so relax because at the end of the day I REALLY DONT GIVE A ***** HOW GOOD THE GUY WAS OR WASNT...its a boxing message board and I figured I would bring up a point...I like message boards and all but some people discuss boxing and they lose their minds, its like they are somehow taking criticism or opoinions that difer from theirs as personal attacks...relax...its a boxing message board and from what I see I stand by statements and you can stand by yours. I dont want to argue over my OPINION.

I'm not saying you can or can't say something. You can say whatever you like, despite how smart or ****** it is.

I'd just argue that basing how Holman Williams is in the ring as a fighter and his skills off less than 30 seconds of footage is just plain ******.

All I, and most are asking and questioning if your statment that all these people claim that Holman Williams and Charley Burley are these Top 5 ATG's who would beat Robnson from pillar to post. No one is saying that.

All anyone is saying is both Holman Williams and Charley Burley are great fighters. Or are you denying that aswell?

[ICEMAN JOHN SCULLY]

I'm not saying you can or can't say something. You can say whatever you like, despite how smart or ****** it is.

I'd just argue that basing how Holman Williams is in the ring as a fighter and his skills off less than 30 seconds of footage is just plain ******.

All I, and most are asking and questioning if your statment that all these people claim that Holman Williams and Charley Burley are these Top 5 ATG's who would beat Robnson from pillar to post. No one is saying that.

All anyone is saying is both Holman Williams and Charley Burley are great fighters. Or are you denying that aswell?

So...hmmm.... arguing how Holman is in the ring after only 30 seconds is ******...OK, so how do u come to the conclusion that he is great? By what u HEARD? Come on, they may or may not be great fighters...you havent seen them, u are taking others words for it...on their records how many of the fighters they fought have u seen, to compare them to?