Re: Holman Williams vs Luis Manuel Rodriguez: Greater Fighter
Most will go with Williams. His era has that special shine to it of course. Cocoa Kid got the better of their series, Cokes the better of the trilogy with LMR.
Rodriguez obviously the better hitter, Holman's hands were ****ed for years.
Rodriguez looked ace against Mims, and took the fight on what, 9 days notice? He was pretty f'n old school himself. He also looked brilliant against Olympic gold medalist Wilbur McClure, a tall undefeated middleweight brought up the hard way that Rodriguez nigh on sparked in their first fight (and won both IMO) cut up Bahama very quick, got the better of the series with Griffith IMO. Stopped Mundine quicker than Monzon (no footage sadly)
This of course, is why it's easier to plump for LMR. Footage. I'd likely find Williams equally spellbinding if I saw him spotting weight to top quality middleweight contenders and making them look, at times, foolish. I'm mesmerised by Lytell, Chase and especially Eddie Booker so I'm sure of feel more comfortable ranking these guys in the 20-30, 60-70, 90-100 brackets if I'd seen 'em, but as it stands there's all sorts of guys that got the better of other Murderers Row members, so it's really hard to discern which one of them should be ranked higher in some cases.
Both should be in the top 50 fighters of all time. I rank Rodriguez higher, but as I say I find it hard not to having also grown fond of his skill and attributes watching quite a bit of him where he looks ****ing brilliant. Rodriguez shouldn't be far off Gavilan, Napoles, Griffith and Williams shouldn't be far off Burley either IMO.
It could go either way. I can see why Williams might even be considered far superior given the fact he fought in the golden age and Rodriguez's middleweight era doesn't always receive the acclaim that ,IMO, it should. But I think anything other than a close call here is unfair. Both are greats of a very high calibre indeed.
Last edited by Flea Man; 11-02-2012 at 01:22 PM.