Holman Williams vs Luis Manuel Rodriguez: Greater Fighter

Painful.

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.

 

I say Rodriguez but I have to qualify that. I think Williams had the better resume by a whisker but Rodriguez was closely but clearly the better fighter.

Rodriguez was one of the ultimate naturals. The guy was born for the ring.

 

LMR, though admittedly film plays a significant role in it.

 

On a smaller scale, yeah. That's pinnacle material. Beginning to wonder if that's worthy of a thread/poll by now too. I don't know that Robinson is the overwhelming consensus pick here these days.

 

Well I'll get the first one on the tube for ya' shortly then.

All competitive. It's been a while but you can score at least two of 'em for Griffith (but I didn't) although admittedly I only have select rounds of their second fight. But looking at the ebb and flow of the series I'd say it's just more a case of Rodriguez coming off as the better of the two, and not in a good styles clash sorta' way, this is a top-notch Griffith.

What about LMR and The Cuban Hawk's respective middleweight ledgers?

 

The thing about all these murderer's row guys fighting each other countless times, well ofcourse the best and most consistent of them are going to have wins over the rest of them, because they are the best of that time.

Competition and resume overrates boxers abilities sometimes. Maybe Holman was that amazing and he had to be good, but you know maybe he was just very good and the best at that time, like Rodriguez was for a bit

I do think Holman probably was better than Rodriguez, maybe not, impossible to say without footage

 

I'll take Greb and Armstrong over Robinson when that thread comes up.

 

When you see it you might well have it:

Gavilan
Rodriguez
Napoles

 

Too bad he wasn't successful in his bid for the title. Looks as though Olson did a good number on him in that encounter. Makes me wonder if Gavilan would've been added to Robinson's stoppage list if he hadn't retired and instead fought Gavilan a third time at MW circa 53-54.