'The Truth'?

Fine skill but his durability let him down imo.

 

:fire

 

I've heard that Williams outjabbed Holmes during their fight???

 

Carl Williams' biggest weakness was the left hook. He was floored quite frequently and almost all of his knockdowns were the result of sharp lefts from his opponents. He also had an issue with activity and staying in good shape. An aging Williams who nearly took a prime Tommy Morrison apart gave us a glimpse of what he might have been had his career been handled differently. The problem is, no one could ever correct his soft spot for getting tagged with the left.

 

Superbly conditioned , great power, fabulous jab and brave as hell.. Maybee too brave and held that chin up there like a ****ing lantern..

He had an OK chin but he wasn't elusive as he could have been..

He always got up and was stopped on his feet.. Too brave for his own good.

I agree with the ring magazine .. around the 1991 mark they voted him the best heavyweight never to win the world title.. If you think about it that might be a great assesment.. later on (Ruddock ) could have had a shout at that place.. But Carl was a star.. very respected heavyweight..

 

I purchased the Ring mag fairly regularly between say 1988-1993, and I don't recall anything about Williams being voted as the best guy to never win a title. i'm not saying that it didn't happen, I believe you. But frankly, I'm surprised that they didn't give that title to Quarry. Think about it. Williams best wins were decisions over a shot Tillis and aging Berbick. How does this size up to Quarry's wins over Patterson, Mathis, Foster, Shavers and Lyle-most of whom were at their best?

 

Much better, tho personally on talent alone i think he tops the lot. Unfortunately he'd sit last on your list for making use of it.

 

Williams had a good overall skills, good size, good speed, and fine stamina. Williams looked the part, but he lacked toughness and durability when the going got rough. Williams was much better vs boxer than punchers.

I think Holmes, Tyson, Witherpsoon, Thomas, and Cooney were better. Chalk Carl Williams up as a solid top 4-7 type of contender who fell short in his most important fights.

 

Williams and Witherspoon actually met in the ring around 1991. I can remember wanting to see the fight, but for whatever the reason, it was on the undercard of some pay per view card. From what I read, Spoon took a decision in what was not a particularly exciting fight. Soon after, Witherspoon was elevated to like #5 by the WBC, #7 by the WBA and like #8 by the IBF or something. He was cruising along and seemed like he was heading back to the top of the division, until he lost a horrible decision to Big foot Martin in 1992. Meanwhile, Carl Williams never really regained standing in the division. He fought a string of mediocrities resulting in a mixed bag of outcomes. At one point, I saw him lose a decision to Journeyman Jerry Jones on ESPN tuesday night fights. He was dropped either once or twice in that fight, and of course by left hooks. His last great moment, was when he rose off the canvas to drop Tommy Morrison twice before being pounded to submission in the later rounds. That fight basically put the cap on William's chances at ever being a contender again, and at the same time leaving a lot of doubt as to the quality of Tommy Morrison as a true force in the heavyweight division.

 

The thing i think was the clincher for Carl in that instance .. I think they looked at the championship fights each man took part in and looked at who came the closest.. Carl took a decent Larry Holmes to the wire not long before that article.. It may have swung it for him, Which championship fight did Jerry come as close to winning really.. I think that was the criteria they used for the vote..