BoxRec

While Robinson is considered the better fighter, can anyone really argue that he beat better fighters than Williams did? Williams' victories over Burley, Moore, Cocoa Kid, Lloyd Marshall, Basora, Kid tunero and Eddie Booker are fantastic. I'd rank Sugar Ray's best wins to be against Lamotta and Gavilan, but still consider those less impressive compared with Williams' best.

goose 5 wrote: ↑08 Dec 2018, 15:31 While Robinson is considered the better fighter, can anyone really argue that he beat better fighters than Williams did? Williams' victories over Burley, Moore, Cocoa Kid, Lloyd Marshall, Basora, Kid tunero and Eddie Booker are fantastic. I'd rank Sugar Ray's best wins to be against Lamotta and Gavilan, but still consider those less impressive compared with Williams' best.

um are you related to Holman Williams?

Fritzie Zivic
Rocky Graziano
Jake Lamata (multiple times)
Gene Fullmer
Kid Gavilan (multiple times)
Bobo Olson
Way ahead on points when the heat got to him v. Joey Maxim
Camen Basilio

goose 5 wrote: ↑08 Dec 2018, 15:31 While Robinson is considered the better fighter, can anyone really argue that he beat better fighters than Williams did? Williams' victories over Burley, Moore, Cocoa Kid, Lloyd Marshall, Basora, Kid tunero and Eddie Booker are fantastic. I'd rank Sugar Ray's best wins to be against Lamotta and Gavilan, but still consider those less impressive compared with Williams' best.

Tunero and Cocoa Kid failed to win 117 fights between them. If their scalp is so great then I guess the mediocre fighters that beat them were as good as Williams? Williams himself failed to get the win more than 42 times. Id be curious how many of the hipsters who think Tunero was so great have actually seen him fight? I have. Robinson beat better fighters. You list Basora as one of Williams best scalps but leave him off of Robinsons tally despite the fact that he beat Williams multiple times, more than he lost to him in fact when indeed LaMotta and Robinson faired better against Basora than Williams did. In fact, of all the scalps you name for Williams he never really proved superior to most of them. He fought all multiple times and came up about 50/50 (at best) against most. The law of averages would naturally dictate that if you fight a guy multiple times your chances increase of being able to get a win.

Williams fought on well past his prime. I don't think his losses post 1945 should impact his legacy.

Additionally, many of his losses were to guys at light heavyweight like Lloyd Marshall and Archie Moore whereas Williams was a great welterweight and middleweight he was not great at this weight.

All but one of Basora's wins over Williams were when he was past his prime and the sole win he scored when Williams was still prime seems to have been a controversial decision. I don't think the later fights are of much relevence.

Holman is very underrated, but not at Robinson's level. I do rate him ever so slightly over burley.

I didn't include Basora as being one of Robinson's best wins because he was well past his prime when they had their rematch. As for their first bout, it's possible Robinson wasn't fully recovered from an illness that had him in a hospital prior to it, but he still waited several years to get in the ring with Basora again.

I wonder how good was Holman Williams' left jab? Also, he fought both Marcel Cerdan and "The Raging Bull" Jake LaMotta at the end of his career.

oogiebe wrote: ↑08 Dec 2018, 17:06 Fritzie Zivic
Rocky Graziano
Jake Lamata (multiple times)
Gene Fullmer
Kid Gavilan (multiple times)
Bobo Olson
Way ahead on points when the heat got to him v. Joey Maxim
Camen Basilio

As if that's not enough, he also had wins over:
Sammy Angott (multiple times)
Henry Armstrong, (past his best but still very good)
Randy Turpin

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑10 Dec 2018, 15:12

oogiebe wrote: ↑08 Dec 2018, 17:06 Fritzie Zivic
Rocky Graziano
Jake Lamata (multiple times)
Gene Fullmer
Kid Gavilan (multiple times)
Bobo Olson
Way ahead on points when the heat got to him v. Joey Maxim
Camen Basilio

As if that's not enough, he also had wins over:
Sammy Angott (multiple times)
Henry Armstrong, (past his best but still very good)
Randy Turpin

How did I leave off Turpin??? Agree on Armstrong but left him off for same reason, past his prime.

I don't think Robinson's victims are as good on a H2H basis. Marshall and Moore would probably be favored over anyone Robinson beat even if some guys like Gavilan were better lb for lb.

Thanks for your valuable input.

So which of the guys Robinson beat do you see beating Archie Moore? Or Lloyd Marshall?

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑08 Dec 2018, 17:45 Williams fought on well past his prime. I don't think his losses post 1945 should impact his legacy.

Additionally, many of his losses were to guys at light heavyweight like Lloyd Marshall and Archie Moore whereas Williams was a great welterweight and middleweight he was not great at this weight.

So I guess I should wait for the excuses for losses and draws against guys like Michele Palermo, Tony Rock, Johnny Lucas, Richie Fontaine, Izzy Jannazzo (who Robinson beat twice, once by stoppage but who Williams notched one win in 3 fights against),

Youll make excuses for Williams saying his loss to Basora when he was prime was controversial but ignore that most thought he lost to Moore even with two rounds deducted from Moore. and that Williams first bout with Marshall was controversial as well. If you want to nitpick then it cuts both ways. The bottom line is three guys you are puffing up have nearly 200 losses between them for a reason. Its vogue to go back and pretend these guys were unbeatable but they weren't and when you match like opponents and performances Robinson always comes out ahead which is why he was a star and these guys weren't.

Lloyd Marshall has wins over Jake LaMotta, Freddie Mills, Ezzard Charles, and Joey Maxim. His record speaks for itself and doesn't require puffing up.

Also, bringing up 200 losses when many of these losses are past prime seems pretty ridiculous and doesn't prove much. It's okay to have biases but harping on losses fighters have when they are not in their prime doesn't really make you look objective. Robinson has way more losses than Mayweather by your logic this proves Floyd is by far the superior fighter.
Most of the losses you mention for Williams happened early in his career before he reached his prime which I consider 1939 to 1945.

Anyway, we can play that game for other fighters as well. Henry Armstrong lost to Al Lovino, Eddie Trujillo, Al Greenfield, Baby Manuel, Davy Abad, and Rodolfo Casanova for example. These are not losses people generally expect of a great fighter. Moreover, some of these losses occurred when Armstrong had more than 40 fights.

Abad and Casanova were good fighters. Carry on record scanner.

They are not the sort of fighters you expect to beat someone of the caliber of Henry Armstrong.

Good, sure, legends they were not.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑10 Dec 2018, 23:23 They are not the sort of fighters you expect to beat someone of the caliber of Henry Armstrong.

Good, sure, legends they were not.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑10 Dec 2018, 21:16 Lloyd Marshall has wins over Jake LaMotta, Freddie Mills, Ezzard Charles, and Joey Maxim. His record speaks for itself and doesn't require puffing up.

Also, bringing up 200 losses when many of these losses are past prime seems pretty ridiculous and doesn't prove much. It's okay to have biases but harping on losses fighters have when they are not in their prime doesn't really make you look objective. Robinson has way more losses than Mayweather by your logic this proves Floyd is by far the superior fighter.
Most of the losses you mention for Williams happened early in his career before he reached his prime which I consider 1939 to 1945.

Anyway, we can play that game for other fighters as well. Henry Armstrong lost to Al Lovino, Eddie Trujillo, Al Greenfield, Baby Manuel, Davy Abad, and Rodolfo Casanova for example. These are not losses people generally expect of a great fighter. Moreover, some of these losses occurred when Armstrong had more than 40 fights.

Lol. This is how desperate and biased you are. I picked losses and draws in the arbitrary “prime” period you set out for Williams. To compare you chose Al Iovino, Armstrongs very first fight, there is no equivalence there. So yes, you are simply trying to puff up several fighters for the sake of your argument. The point is that fighters like Williams and Cocoa Kid have this newly found revisionist popularity despite all of those losses because of their round robins with each other. Its a circular argument. Williams was great because he beat Cocoa, Cocoa was great because he beat Williams and so on. From there the argument is extrapolated that because Williams and Cocoa didnt get every opportunity they must have been ducked and they must have been ducked because they were so great. Meanwhile lets ignore that in his prime Cocoa lost three back to back fights against leading white contenders of the day: Abrams, Jannazzo (who also beat and drew with Williams), and Leto. That might upset the narrative that. The following year he loses again to Jannazzo in a showcase fight in Ebbetts field. Sandwiched around these fights hes fighting on even terms with Williams, beating him on occasion. So again, if a guy fights these fighters multiple times, loses most of the fights, several of the best wins are close and disputed, and the law of averages states your odds of getting a win increase the more you fight a guy, are his “wins” really more impressive than Robinsons? Im going with no.

This comparison gets more ridiculous to me the more I think about it. The list of Robinson wins I posted earlier is enough to put this to rest.