Why didn't Holman Williams get a title shot ?

[goose 5]

Burley has been discussed at length here but what about Holman Williams? Was he held back by a boring style: was it bad management; was he ducked ?

[Chuck1052]

Burley has been discussed at length here but what about Holman Williams? Was he held back by a boring style: was it bad management; was he ducked ?

Like Charley Burley, Holman Williams wasn't a large enough gate attraction to get a world title shot. Unlike Burley, Williams appears to have had at least one lucrative bout, one with Jake LaMotta in Williams' hometown of Detroit that drew a large gate. It may be that Williams received a good payday fighting Marcel Cerdan in Paris. Both Burley and Williams were admired for their boxing skills, but unlike Burley, Williams didn't have that much punching power. Burley definitely had a boxing style that was boring much of the time. Williams probably wasn't an exciting fighter with his boxing style.

Williams did have 189 recorded bouts during his career while Burley had 98. In addition, Williams did fight in far more cities and major boxing venues than Burley did. But Williams usually had relatively minor bouts in the major boxing venues. It may be that Williams wasn't making a great living in boxing, but I don't know if he held down a job during his career, something that Burley did at times.

- Chuck Johnston

[klompton]

Williams best years as a pro coincided directly with WW2. Very soon after the war he got two fights back to back with two of the leading contenders in the MW division and lost both. That was the end of his ability to call for a title shot.

[goose 5]

How about as a welterweight during Armstrong's reign ? Was Williams worthy of a shot ? Would the fight have sold ?

[Cojimar 1946]

Williams best years as a pro coincided directly with WW2. Very soon after the war he got two fights back to back with two of the leading contenders in the MW division and lost both. That was the end of his ability to call for a title shot.

I would think a title shot in 1939, 1940, or 1941 would have made sense. Those were among Williams best years and the U.S. was not at war until December 1941 so nearly a 3 year period.

[klompton]

Difficult to call for a title shot in 39-41 when youve allowed yourself to be shown to the world as a 6 round prelim fighter on Joe Louis undercards. Nevermind that when you separate the wheat from the chaff of his record during those years he fought three guys who were anywhere near contenders at the time and split series with all of them. I.e. he wasnt showing himself as the standout contender. The bottom line in all of this crap about Williams, Burley, Cocoa etc being ducked is that a bunch of hipsters have seized upon the words of guys like Eddie Futch and Archie Moore, took it as gospel, and ran with it. Could they have been given shots? Maybe. Were they better than some who got shots? Maybe. But they all lost fights to guys who lost to the stars of the divisions they were fighting in and by and large none of them emerged as top contenders until during the war when the title was frozen (and the sport had been bled of a lot of talent). Even then they werent big enough draws and didnt have suitable enough representation to garner the kind of attention necessary that made people beg to see them. Its why they were largely forgotten until people started seizing on the old stories about them in 1990s. When you have 8 divisions and one champion per division champions can only defend so many times a year against so many fighters. The sport shouldnt be about giving every single guy who has an ounce of class a title shot. For christ sakes its like little league now where every kid gets an opportunity at bat. Some of these contenders serve no more purpose than to sharpen the tools of the other guys on the way up. That may not sound fair but life isnt fair and boxing isnt exactly a forgiving sport.

[goose 5]

Klompton : You and Springs Toledo would be a heck of a debate !

[Cojimar 1946]

Difficult to call for a title shot in 39-41 when youve allowed yourself to be shown to the world as a 6 round prelim fighter on Joe Louis undercards. Nevermind that when you separate the wheat from the chaff of his record during those years he fought three guys who were anywhere near contenders at the time and split series with all of them. I.e. he wasnt showing himself as the standout contender. The bottom line in all of this crap about Williams, Burley, Cocoa etc being ducked is that a bunch of hipsters have seized upon the words of guys like Eddie Futch and Archie Moore, took it as gospel, and ran with it. Could they have been given shots? Maybe. Were they better than some who got shots? Maybe. But they all lost fights to guys who lost to the stars of the divisions they were fighting in and by and large none of them emerged as top contenders until during the war when the title was frozen (and the sport had been bled of a lot of talent). Even then they werent big enough draws and didnt have suitable enough representation to garner the kind of attention necessary that made people beg to see them. Its why they were largely forgotten until people started seizing on the old stories about them in 1990s. When you have 8 divisions and one champion per division champions can only defend so many times a year against so many fighters. The sport shouldnt be about giving every single guy who has an ounce of class a title shot. For christ sakes its like little league now where every kid gets an opportunity at bat. Some of these contenders serve no more purpose than to sharpen the tools of the other guys on the way up. That may not sound fair but life isnt fair and boxing isnt exactly a forgiving sport.

They absolutely were better than many guys who got title shots. Their records as is bear this out pretty clearly.

Lloyd Marshall for example beat something like 5 champions, not just guys who got title shots but guys who actually became champions like Joey Maxim. If Marshall is nothing special why did Joey Maxim and Jake LaMotta lose to him?

[Controversial]

Difficult to call for a title shot in 39-41 when youve allowed yourself to be shown to the world as a 6 round prelim fighter on Joe Louis undercards. Nevermind that when you separate the wheat from the chaff of his record during those years he fought three guys who were anywhere near contenders at the time and split series with all of them. I.e. he wasnt showing himself as the standout contender. The bottom line in all of this crap about Williams, Burley, Cocoa etc being ducked is that a bunch of hipsters have seized upon the words of guys like Eddie Futch and Archie Moore, took it as gospel, and ran with it. Could they have been given shots? Maybe. Were they better than some who got shots? Maybe. But they all lost fights to guys who lost to the stars of the divisions they were fighting in and by and large none of them emerged as top contenders until during the war when the title was frozen (and the sport had been bled of a lot of talent). Even then they werent big enough draws and didnt have suitable enough representation to garner the kind of attention necessary that made people beg to see them. Its why they were largely forgotten until people started seizing on the old stories about them in 1990s. When you have 8 divisions and one champion per division champions can only defend so many times a year against so many fighters. The sport shouldnt be about giving every single guy who has an ounce of class a title shot. For christ sakes its like little league now where every kid gets an opportunity at bat. Some of these contenders serve no more purpose than to sharpen the tools of the other guys on the way up. That may not sound fair but life isnt fair and boxing isnt exactly a forgiving sport.

They absolutely were better than many guys who got title shots. Their records as is bear this out pretty clearly.

Lloyd Marshall for example beat something like 5 champions, not just guys who got title shots but guys who actually became champions like Joey Maxim. If Marshall is nothing special why did Joey Maxim and Jake LaMotta lose to him?

Marshall was the first person to ever stop Ezzard Charles, winning every round and knocking Charles down 8 times in the process. Marshall also beat Burley, Holman Williams, LaMotta, Maxim and several other world champs or top contenders. No title shot either.

[Ambling Alp II]

These had were great fighters and had some big wins, no doubt. They also lost several fights during their careers. The champion is only obliged to fight the #1 contender. Other title defenses aren't usually going to be against the #2 or #3 contender. Sometimes it's just who is available.

I think people are just looking at their all time standing, and saying they should have got a title shot and someone else (that they beat got one). It simply doesn't work that way.

[Controversial]

These had were great fighters and had some big wins, no doubt. They also lost several fights during their careers. The champion is only obliged to fight the #1 contender. Other title defenses aren't usually going to be against the #2 or #3 contender. Sometimes it's just who is available.

I think people are just looking at their all time standing, and saying they should have got a title shot and someone else (that they beat got one). It simply doesn't work that way.

That era was very corrupt too and that does play a part, not only the colour line but the mob had an influence. Marshall's career was certainly held back by the people involved in his career. Sometimes there is more going on behind a loss than it looks on paper.

[Chuck1052]

Lloyd Marshall was inconsistent during his career, losing 25 times, drawing 4 times and being stopped 11 times in 99 bouts. While Charley Burley wasn't the most consistent fighter of his era, he lost 12 times, had 2 draws and was never stopped in 98 bouts during his career. Meanwhile Holman Williams lost 31 times, had 11 draws and was stopped 3 times in 189 bouts.

- Chuck Johnston

[Controversial]

Lloyd Marshall was inconsistent during his career, losing 25 times, drawing 4 times and being stopped 11 times in 99 bouts.

Marshall was said to be heavily linked to the mob, I imagine that explains a lot of the "losses"

[Chuck1052]

Lloyd Marshall was inconsistent during his career, losing 25 times, drawing 4 times and being stopped 11 times in 99 bouts.

Marshall was said to be heavily linked to the mob, I imagine that explains a lot of the "losses"

If Lloyd Marshall was linked to the mob, wouldn't that have enhanced his chances of getting a title shot?:

- Chuck Johnston

[Controversial]

Marshall was said to be heavily linked to the mob, I imagine that explains a lot of the "losses"

If Lloyd Marshall was linked to the mob, wouldn't that have enhanced his chances of getting a title shot?:

- Chuck Johnston

Not necessarily, depends on how well connected they were and if fighters are told to fall over in certain rounds where the money was bet on. It was a corrupt era, lots of dodgy things went on.

[Wee Tommy]

I have a funny feeling that nothing that anyone says or thinks is going to change the fact these guys never won a world title.

[Ambling Alp II]

You never know. Maybe one of the WBS will declare one of them the champion retroactively. They have done things that strange before.

[Chuck1052]

You never know. Maybe one of the WBS will declare one of them the champion retroactively. They have done things that strange before.

If the sanctioning bodies can find a way to make money by making fighters such as Charley Burley, Holman Williams or Lloyd Marshall champions retroactively, it is likely that they will do it.

- Chuck Johnston

[Cojimar 1946]

Many of Williams and Marshall's losses where when they were well past it. I don't see how their late losses have any bearing on how good they were in their primes.

[Cojimar 1946]

These had were great fighters and had some big wins, no doubt. They also lost several fights during their careers. The champion is only obliged to fight the #1 contender. Other title defenses aren't usually going to be against the #2 or #3 contender. Sometimes it's just who is available.

I think people are just looking at their all time standing, and saying they should have got a title shot and someone else (that they beat got one). It simply doesn't work that way.

But again and again we see the reigning champs defending against guys who were less deserving of title shots. It seems clear based on available evidence that many champions of that era simply weren't inclined to fight the best challengers.
They seemed determined to hold their titles as long as possible by trying to defend against guys they felt they could beat while not fighting anyone they felt would beat them. If they weren't confident they could beat a challenger they generally wouldn't fight them or only fight them if not fighting them would result in being stripped.

[Ambling Alp II]

If the #1 contender didn't get a title shot, he has a legitimate complaint. The others don't. If the champion defends the title against the #1 guy, he isn't ducking anyone.

[Cojimar 1946]

If the #1 contender didn't get a title shot, he has a legitimate complaint. The others don't. If the champion defends the title against the #1 guy, he isn't ducking anyone.

Number 1 according to who? I think Burley and Williams were clearly the best challengers at welterweight from 1939 until Robinson emerged as a top contender. Some of the ring magazine rankings seem pretty off.

If Burley or Williams had not gotten a title shot you might be able to argue they were simply unlucky but Charley Burley, Holman Williams, Lloyd Marshall, Eddie Booker, Jimmy Bivins, Jack Chase, and Cocoa Kid all not getting title shots seems really, really hard to justify.

[Cojimar 1946]

For the record Bert Lytell did reach a number 1 and number 2 ranking in consecutive years, no title shot for him either sadly

Ring Magazine did rate Jimmy Bivins and Holman Williams as high as number 1 at light heavyweight and middleweight.

[Chuck1052]

If the #1 contender didn't get a title shot, he has a legitimate complaint. The others don't. If the champion defends the title against the #1 guy, he isn't ducking anyone.

Number 1 according to who? I think Burley and Williams were clearly the best challengers at welterweight from 1939 until Robinson emerged as a top contender. Some of the ring magazine rankings seem pretty off.

If Burley or Williams had not gotten a title shot you might be able to argue they were simply unlucky but Charley Burley, Holman Williams, Lloyd Marshall, Eddie Booker, Jimmy Bivins, Jack Chase, and Cocoa Kid all not getting title shots seems really, really hard to justify.

A number of world titles were frozen during World War II because the reigning titleholders joined the service, including Joe Louis, the world heavyweight champion; Gus Lesnevich, the world light-heavyweight champion; Tony Zale, the world middleweight champion; and Freddie Cochrane, the world welterweight champion. After getting out of the service after the war, Lesnevich, Zale and Cochrane certainly were not facing the best fighters in their weight divisions, black or white. It was an odd era.

- Chuck Johnston

[Ambling Alp II]

Ring Magazine was far from perfect but was much better than the fake WBS rankings we have now.

Something that you have to consider in rankings is that whoever makes the rankings can only go with information that has happened up to that point. If you are in 1948, you don't have the benefit of what happens in 1949 or later.

Often, (certainly not always) one guy has established himself as the top contender by almost everyone interested.

It's not like Williams, Marshall, Burley etc. were just beating one highly ranked opponent after another and not losing to anyone.

We have to look at this from the champion's perspective as well . The champion can't fight the #1, #2, #3, and #4 guy each year. Even if he wanted to it would be almost impossible.