Holman and Hearns.... who was greater?

Good stuff.

Marshall and Burley from don't use the left-hand in anything like the same way though, Marshall especially seemed to use it more like a Toney.It's that hearns jab i'd see being the issue, with the way he uses it to compliment his handsped and ranginess, it's tough to see anyone engaging in some nice polite boxing with and coming out on top unless they have at least as good handspeed.

And that upright stance, tendency to lean away and use his footwork for defence is very effective against someone without a big punch, especially if they are looking to move around him, giving a lot of angles and drawing counters.It became a weakness for him later and would be gainst bigger punchers at Welter, but someone looking to just box is going to have a tough time getting to him.

i guess for me the thing is, i picture all of the fighters i'd consider great light-hitting pure boxers and defensive maestros against Hearns...and with all their varying styles i don't see any single one getting the better in a series.Unless williams turns out to really be the best ever(and he is up there almost certainly)by some margin it's tough to imagine him faring much better.

Who do you think Wiliams is most likely to resemble incidentally, from stylists we have more footage of?.

 

I've never seen Holman Williams on film so I cannot rate him in all those categories.

But he was clearly greater than Hearns. Just look at his record.

 

I dont believe Ive seen any Holman footage, is there any of him? Hearns is a once in a life time type fighter, I'm not sure Williams is

It boils down to I pretty much rate Hearns over Burley, who certainly rates over Holman Williams

 

I think hearns is underrated sometimes. He has some of the greatest perfomances of all time,even in losing.
Wins over duran,benitez,hill,cuevas and leonard. (thats right,second fight.) are great wins AND perfomances.
The losses to leonard and hagler are still great perfomances.
Head to head from 147-154 hes fantastic.
For pure boxing,hes one of the best ever. For offense hes one of the best ever. Hes also a true warrior,with all the intangibles.
Its just the slight issues with durability and maybe ring strategy that stop him being talked of in the robinson class.

 

Both great fighters. Holman Williams fought from 1932-1948 so he fought in a much different era. Williams fought more often, he sometimes fought the same fighter several times, and he probably fought when he wasn't 100%.

Look at his record and you will see that it is not uncommon for a fighter in those days to have wins, losses, and draws to the same fighter.

First of all Williams was only stopped 3 times in 188 fights. He went 146-30-11 (36) 1NC overall.

Williams fought Cocoa Kid 13 times and went 3-8-2 vs. him. Neither man scored a KO over the other.

He fought Charley Burley 6 times and went 2-3 1 NC vs. him. He was stopped by Burley once (LKOby9).

He went-

2-1 vs. Lloyd Marshall

1-1 vs. Archie Moore and was stopped by him once (LKOby11)

3-1 vs. Kid Tunero

2-3-1 vs. Jose Basora and was stopped by him once (LKOby4)

He lost to Lamotta and Cerdan

He beat Bob Satterfield W10.

Damn good fighter but I'll take Hearns by decision.

 

Done my reasearch on Mr Williams. And I must say me and McGrain have similar ideas about him judging by his post.

Reading the reports of Williams, I did think this guy sounds like a more defensivly orientated Archie Moore. However, I read an excellant description in Rosenfelds book on Burley which said.

'Mr Williams was a cutie, a master of every defensive trick, ... He danced nimbly from side to side, flicked long defensive jabs, cleverly slipped into clinches, and persistently refused to stand in front of his opponent, used every manuever known to boxing to deprive Burley of a clean hard shot. At this style Williams is probably the best man in his class.'

This was the review of his second bout with Burley, in his further bouts it was remarked he was very adept at tieing up Burleys right hand. He was also described as a bobbing and weaving fighter.

To me he sounds like a figher who used lots of head movement to dart inside his opponents punches and land flurries of his own whilst stepping away to the side, or spinning, his opponents. His offence was often remarked as being 'two fisted' but 'lacking in power' so it is definitly clear he wasnt a big puncher but he had a good offensive arsenal, he also worked the body well. To me I definitly see the comparisons with Archie Moore in the way he would slip into range and land his combinations before stepping off to the side, but to me it sounds eerily similar to Ralph Dupas.

Both men lacked power but looked to land combinations whilst spinning their opponents, although Holman had the much better jab, anyone else see the similarities?

To me Hearns is more of your boxer-puncher, he would get up on his toes keep the range long and look to set up his combinations with hard, long jabs and movement to the side.

To me Burley is more of a technician in the way he would stand at a longer distance and look for oppertunities to counter, this is why I think Holmans was able to give him problems as he was able to out feint Burley.

I agree with the compairson to Gavilan, although maybe not as much as a whipping puncher. I mean different punch delivery.

For a match up with Hearns.

I just think Hearns long jab could keep Williams at distance early on. But Williams mental fortitude and craftsmenship would start to let him close the distance and nullify Hearns arsenal as he gets in the pocket and spins Hearns whilst working the body, I can see this having an effect on Hearns who would maybe go abit gunshy as he was getting countered and Holman would win a very close decision.

 

Thanks

Really interesting fighter Williams, would have been amazing to watch. I know Futch rated him very highly.

I agree here, like you say I think Williams could wait too much, however in at least some of the Burley bouts Williams did take his hand at pressing and with some sucess.

I think he would have had amazing footspeed, to pull off a style like that you need an perfect blend of fast feet and superb footwork.

I just see a jab like Hearns is near impossible to outjab due to the reach of it. But Hearns was also pretty quick and accurate. I like your fog-light and mist comparison. Hearns may be popping that jab and hitting nothing, but I just dont feel Williams could constantly get in his range during a long range battle. Hearns would be pressing whilst Williams would be making him miss but doing very little offensive work himself.

I agree about the part with the craft, I think that i where Holman trumps him completly. But I am interested in Burley's so called 'unorthodox aggresion' how would you define it?

 

I think Williams is the greater fighter, too many fights and wins against great fighters to be rated belowe. I would probably rate him alongside Burley but I dont think he has the power to beat Hearns in a H2H match up, Hearns close decision for me. Brilliant fighter but it's a bad stylistic match up. Williams vs Hagler on the other hand.... that is a match up to ponder.

 

Got it, I know exactly what you are getting at. Its a type of attack my trainer has been working on with me, almost like Pacquiaos, although more technical.

I agree I dont think Hearns could do it either.

 

Afew reports suggest that these 'periods of passivity' was where Williams was fairly negative in his approach as he moved, and tied up Burley. Although, I think Williams feints and counter punching ability got Burleys respect and maybe Williams was one of those guys who could be doing nothing but still alert and ready to counter.