BoxRec

goose 5 wrote: ↑06 Sep 2019, 22:17 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 ?

klompton wrote: ↑09 Sep 2019, 10:53 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.

klompton wrote: ↑11 Sep 2019, 17:27 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.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑12 Sep 2019, 19:19

klompton wrote: ↑11 Sep 2019, 17:27 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?

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑16 Sep 2019, 11:09 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.

Chuck1052 wrote: ↑16 Sep 2019, 12:09 Lloyd Marshall was inconsistent during his career, losing 25 times, drawing 4 times and being stopped 11 times in 99 bouts.

Controversial wrote: ↑16 Sep 2019, 17:23

Chuck1052 wrote: ↑16 Sep 2019, 12:09 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 wrote: ↑16 Sep 2019, 18:39

Controversial wrote: ↑16 Sep 2019, 17:23

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

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑18 Sep 2019, 10:53 You never know. Maybe one of the WBS will declare one of them the champion retroactively. They have done things that strange before.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑16 Sep 2019, 11:09 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.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑20 Sep 2019, 12:18 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 wrote: ↑22 Sep 2019, 08:35

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑20 Sep 2019, 12:18 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.