HOLMAN WILLIAMS in action, on film.

just outta curiosity, is there a reason why ray leonard isnt mentioned in your hagler list?

 

Look closer mate. Hagler didn't beat Leonard as much as we wish he did. These lists are compiled of recorded wins only.

 

You irritate me more than you used to.

Anyway. Argue Burley over Napoles. Please.

 

Manassa it frightens me how close our lists are!

 

OK, Burley's best wins of Holman (arguably 5 times), Cocoa Kid, Moore and going to an MD against Marshall are better imo than Griffith, Cokes etc. Burley operated from 147-175, Napoles from 135-147, so he covered more weight and probably gave up more size, although Napoles did give up size himself. Burley fought in a better era and would have more big names on his resume like Armstrong, Robinson, Lamotta, Zale, Cerdan, Graziano, Billy Conn if he wasn't avoided like the plague.

I wouldn't necessarily rate Burley over Napoles but it's close

 

This is it.

Pretty much, we just take Napoles' utter dominance both as reigning champion and phenomenon-bubbling-under and throw it out of the window on behalf of Burley as though it counts for **** all. Burley was avoided so naturally he gets the benefit of the doubt. Doesn't matter that Napoles escaped Castro to continue his early boxing career after racking up ridiculous numbers as an amateur, or that he was also avoided as he terrorised whoever had the bollocks to fight him. He avenged every defeat worth avenging and sat as the main man at the top of a strong pile for a number of years. Perkins, Cokes and Griffith, by the way - must at least equal Williams, Moore and Zivic (or whoever).

What is a major thing for me is that unlike Burley, Napoles fought well outside his comfort zone at times; Mexico, France, Canada, UK, USA and Cuba are all places Napoles fought, each with their own set of fans. Not only this, but also unlike Burley (to no discredit of his own), Napoles proved he was a dominant champion. Burley of course fought heavier opponents, but the fact that Napoles was small for his weight class just adds to his standing.

 

It's not just being avoided, but in truth Langford gets plus points for being avoided himself because if he got shots at Johnson, Willard and Dempsey and lost to them all his ranking would diminish.

The main point is that the fact in my and many people's views Burley beat and fought better competition. You can't just use The Ring magazine as gospel.

Napoles was more dominant and that holds weight for me, although it didn't seem to hold weight in you rating Holman over Burley, because Burley was the more dominant Coloured Champion/Contender. Personally I don't factor in where someone fought as a factor, I'm sure Burley would have happily gone to other places if the money was there but it wasn't

 

I meant in terms of him as a fighter, I'm pouring over this stuff trying to glean everything from it.

 

The outcome of a fight can depend on where it takes place. A fighter surrounded by thousands of well-wishers and familiar surroundings will generally perform better than one who doesn't feel comfortable where he is, made much worse by the fact everyone there is against him. I think that unless by experience, nobody could imagine what a difference this would make - so for me, champions like Napoles or Monzon receive a few more points for taking their title abroad.

Like I said before, Williams was more active than Burley and beat more rated fighters. People act as though their careers were identical apart from the fact Burley was better. Not really, as each had wins that the other one didn't. I mean, Williams beat both Lloyd Marshall and Eddie Booker. Jose Basora, Kid Tunero... ****ing hell, these men weren't throwaways.

 

His Lolyd Marshall wins may have been as close/controversial as Burley's loss to Marshall. Burley beat men who beat Booker

 

I'm not saying it was a robbery, I'm saying if there was a general forum and everyone scored the fight a decent percentage would score it for Burley as it was close.

I'm not stripping Williams of his wins, just think Marquez's 2nd or 3rd fight with Pacquaio isn't necessarily a worse performance by him than Morales first fight with Pacquaio. I'm not sure if that's the best example, given Marshall may well have won cleaner against Burley, but it was the first that came to mind

Was the Lamotta loss questionable? I've heard it said both ways in the past. Have you read any fight reports? I just had a quick look for that and the Cerdan report to no avail