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

[Rockin']

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?

so with nobody really seeing anything to speak of why is it John that you must go against historian after historian when they say that Burley and Williams were exceptional fighters by making a thread to discredit them? What proof do you hold that could make your opening statement even close to being credible?

you have great experience in the ring and read telepromters well on television but your debating skills suck and these Scully/Scooby-Doo Mysteries that you try to unearth are mostly just rediculous. Stick with the telepromter, your detective skills are limited yet somehow still entertaining............Rockin'

[ICEMAN JOHN SCULLY]

Charley Burley on Sugar Ray Robinson (from a message board)
"Ray ducked me. George Gainford (Ray's manager) admitted that much. But, I can't say I blame him. There wasn't no money in us fighting each other. All we would have done is knock each other off."

"You know, to me the most remarkable thing about Ray's career is that he didn't even get a shot at the welterweight title til he was 26- or the middleweight title til' he was 30! You think he was the greatest? What do you think he'd a been if he'd gotten his chances when he deserved them? You wanna know the truth? If I coulda' got my shot, I wouldn't have risked it fighting someone like Ray."

It's from the chapter "Robinson Ducks" in this book:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...gL._SS260_.jpg

[IronDanHamza]

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?

I come to the conclusion Holman Williams is a great fighter based off his resume and accomplishments.

I can't say much about his in-ring skills. Almost nothing to judge him on. Not like youself who say's 'basing on his fights i've seen I've seen thousands (Plenty) who are just as good'.

[NChristo]

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?

We came too the conclusion that he was great by the fact that he beat Charley Burley, Archie Moore, Bert Lytell, Lloyd Marshall, Eddie Booker etc, all great boxers who achieved plenty, judging him from 18 seconds of footage, which by the way is all we have too go on him at the moment, and ignoring the fact that he beat great opposition seems kind of a silly way of judging.

In fact it's kind of contradictory, you're saying that he isn't as good as people make out too be by people that actually saw him and wrote on him but here you're admitting that you have seen no footage of him nor his opponents so he can't be great, that doesn't make any sense.

What do you think of Harry Greb, John ?, is he great or should we just ignore his record and say he wasn't great despite the fact he had a ******ly amazing career because there's no footage of him. After all how do we know if there's no footage, same thing applies here.

Charley Burley on Sugar Ray Robinson (from a message board)
"Ray ducked me. George Gainford (Ray's manager) admitted that much. But, I can't say I blame him. There wasn't no money in us fighting each other. All we would have done is knock each other off."

"You know, to me the most remarkable thing about Ray's career is that he didn't even get a shot at the welterweight title til he was 26- or the middleweight title til' he was 30! You think he was the greatest? What do you think he'd a been if he'd gotten his chances when he deserved them? You wanna know the truth? If I coulda' got my shot, I wouldn't have risked it fighting someone like Ray."

It's from the chapter "Robinson Ducks" in this book:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...gL._SS260_.jpg

Not sure what you're point was in posting this, it has nothing to do with Burley's greatness or ability, if anything it proves you wrong for when you said that Ray Robinson ducking Burley was just an ''idea'' also Burley was an incredibly humble man who said plenty of nice things about Robinson and others.
It doesn't exactly excuse Ray for ducking him either.

[ICEMAN JOHN SCULLY]

dont lie or put words in my mouth...listen, I read a synopsis of a clip of him fighting...it was a 15 second clip and the writer went overboard talking about the skills and the speed, precision, etc...the greatness...so I expected to see something unreal...I watched it, though, and it didnt jump out at me in any way...Ive seen many many many fighters show much more over the years...what the writer was looking at I dont know and it happens a lot...many people see things that just arent there. Now maybe in other clips he looks GREAT AND AWESOME, I dont know, I havent seen them. But I watched one that was supposed to show these unreal skills never before seen but I didnt catch that at all. Now...

[ICEMAN JOHN SCULLY]

In fact it's kind of contradictory, you're saying that he isn't as good as people make out too be by people that actually saw him and wrote on him but here you're admitting that you have seen no footage of him nor his opponents so he can't be great, that doesn't make any sense.


.

Im seeing people on here regularly say Mayweather and Roy Jones SUCK...yet many many fighters and historians and writers say they are AWESOME...and I have 50 videos that show them doing superhuman things in boxing rings across this country...but u still debate it over and over...why dont u accept that these 2 are great as easily as u accept that some guy u NEVER SAW BEFORE from 65 years ago was a great fighter, too????

[Rockin']

dont lie or put words in my mouth...listen, I read a synopsis of a clip of him fighting...it was a 15 second clip and the writer went overboard talking about the skills and the speed, precision, etc...the greatness...so I expected to see something unreal...I watched it, though, and it didnt jump out at me in any way...Ive seen many many many fighters show much more over the years...what the writer was looking at I dont know and it happens a lot...many people see things that just arent there. Now maybe in other clips he looks GREAT AND AWESOME, I dont know, I havent seen them. But I watched one that was supposed to show these unreal skills never before seen but I didnt catch that at all. Now...

making mountains out of ant hills.....Rockin'

[NChristo]

Im seeing people on here regularly say Mayweather and Roy Jones SUCK...yet many many fighters and historians and writers say they are AWESOME...and I have 50 videos that show them doing superhuman things in boxing rings across this country...but u still debate it over and over...why dont u accept that these 2 are great as easily as u accept that some guy u NEVER SAW BEFORE from 65 years ago was a great fighter, too????

Do you want too find a post and quote me on where I said they suck ?, Floyd and Roy are great (The only people who say Floyd isn't great are hardcore Pac fans), as is Holman Williams.
They are all great based on their Resume, Achievements and Talent, not just talent and from what I've seen, you can quite clearly see they're great by what they have done on paper.

[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 those 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.

The ORIGINAL post...

[ICEMAN JOHN SCULLY]

Do you want too find a post and quote me on where I said they suck ?, Floyd and Roy are great (The only people who say Floyd isn't great are hardcore Pac fans), as is Holman Williams.
They are all great based on their Resume, Achievements and Talent, not just talent and from what I've seen, you can quite clearly see they're great by what they have done on paper.


I'll wait for that quotation by the way, I'll wait for it a long with the answers too other questions asked in the thread.

Im not talking YOU, I dont know u, have never saw u post that I even recall...when I say "you" I just mean people on boxing message boards in general...