Quintana-Williams I was not a fluke, Quintana-Williams II was

I got one question for all these anti paul posters?

How could you not like Paul Williams? he is a f-ing throw back that fights every body

thats why i like Cotto win or loose he fights the best, same thing for Pacquiao

these are fighters that you just cant knock, why all the hate?

 

Martinez probably but he's also bigger than Quintana. Still Quintana beat Williams even better. I don't believe Williams has improved THAT much anyway. They both exploited Williams flaws in similar ways. Thus the comparison.

That's not the point though. The KO1 was the fluke. I'm not saying Quitana would have won the second btw. But him losing in a blow out like that was more of a fluke than the decision he got in the first. Which could have been a great performance he might not be able to repeat but not really a fluke.

 

Let them tell it...Its the so-called fans...but when asked to post an outlandish post that his fans have said...they dont post jack ****...Constantly saying the exact same **** without no proof!atsch

 

Sergio is a much better fighter, and I felt that after watching the fight several times, he defeated Paul more decisively than Quintana...this is why I don't understand the decision.

 

Quintana schooled Williams much more efficiently than Martinez so that means Quintana would also school the Argentinian just as bad as he schooled Williams.hi:

 

i think most boxing scribes have immense respect for paul Williams, love him or hate him...that's what's most important.

 

I don't hate Williams. I won't miss a fight with the guy, he's exciting to watch and has gained my respect. I just think he's overrated a little. I think he lost to Martinez.

 

:rofl:rofl This is the **** that gets me...How can you pick and choose which fight was a fluke...So just because he lost to the better man that night doesnt makes it a fluke but when he comes back to avenge his loss in dramamtic fashion...Its considered a fluke? How do you even know? Thats the thing that gets me about some of you guys...Just because you feel like its right doesnt soldify your opinion.atsch

 

I disagree...Sergio hurt him more than Quintana did and won just as many rounds.

 

A lot of it has to do with the Margarito fight...

Then he calls out Shane constantly.. who is everyone's Anti-Floyd hero.

And then his episode with Pavlik hasn't come across very well with the Midwestern Meth Dudes...

And a lot of people don't like Goosen.

Plus, his style makes him seem more vulnerable than what he really is.

Plus he doesn't have a huge fanbase, and some people foolishly equate this with being worthy of fighting top champions at 147.

 

Clearly if someone beats you the majority of 12 rounds, that is no fluke.

But, If you are knocked out in the first round by the very exact same boxer you just beat over the course of 12 rds....that sounds more like a lucky punch (fluke). Simple logic there.

 

Who cares about who hit who harder or what not...At the end of the day, Williams holds victories over both fighters...So whats the point of bringing up who did what?:huh

 

The possibility of it being a fluke is a higher. Look Quintana beat Williams over 12 rounds, while getting hit but hitting Williams a lot more and more cleanly. Then in the second he just gets KTFO in one by a solid shot (and it looked like has going to land the same shots on Williams again). And then all of a sudden the first fight is a fluke. That's bs. The possibility of the second one being the fluke is much more believable.

 

Given what you just said...Would you call Lewis Rahman I or Lewis Rahman II a fluke?:huh

 

fair enough.

I don't think either one was that much of a fluke. I do think that if they fought, the greater likelihood is that he overwhelm Quintana and puts him out of there. Quintana doesn't have the pop Martinez has, and he doesn't have the chin... Meaning he doesn't keep Williams off of him nearly as effectively, and once Williams catches up, he can put him out.