Paul Williams vs Kermit Cintron: Looking Back To See Forward

[Tam Tam]

This is the pre-fight analysis of this weekends fight, written for NoBSBoxing by yours truly.

Paul Williams vs Kermit Cintron: Looking Back To See Forward.
By Craig Medaris

Paul Williams returns to the ring this weekend and will no doubt be looking to make a resounding statement with an impressive victory. The opponent is Kermit Cintron, a man who's ledger features just two losses, yet he has come into this fight as a serious underdog and for good reason. This writer truly believes that the class of Williams will show itself in this fight as he attempts to remind everybody of the threat he poses to any fighter from 154 to 160 pounds.

The two men have taken different paths to success, but along the way have ran into a number of common opponents. I believe the answer to this fight lies in no small part in how each man performed in these fights. While I spend no small amount telling my peers that "Just because A beats B, B beats C, it doesn't mean that A beats C", the evidence in these fights is quite hard to ignore.

Read the rest here http://www.nobsboxing.com/news_details.php?id=42 and discuss.

[*Z*]

Nice plug for another site.

[Tam Tam]

Thanks. We're committed to putting out fresh content and getting involved with the fans to talk about it.

[*Z*]

Thanks. We're committed to putting out fresh content and getting involved with the fans to talk about it.

fresh content? What a concept. I'll check it out.

[*Z*]

After reading it, it's a nice break down of the fight, nicely done Tam. I especially like the fact that you said PW was a threat to anyone from 154-160. I'm tired of people talking about PW at 147, he's never making that weight again.

[Tam Tam]

Yeah, Williams is long gone from 147. He won't see that again and I don't think he really would even entertain thoughts of it.

At the moment he seems content to be a two weight fighter, which isn't such a bad thing at all.

And yes: fresh content. Nice concept, no? :P

[Xplosive]

Good post Tam. I agree with your pick... even down to the round.

[lb 4 lb]

Very good read.

Is that your site Tam or are you just involved with it in a certain capacity? How did you hook up with it anyway? What's the story behind it if you don't mind telling?

[Tam Tam]

It's something a mate and I created a few months back and are only just recently launching.

I've been running Boxing Without Bullshit for like minded boxing fans for over half a decade now and this was the next progression. We're no longer just a forum of boxing nerds, but a full news site with site staff and writers.

I only post this stuff here because Im still tight with most of you guys, even though the site has kinda fallen in a whole. I'd love to have you guys read what we put out and enjoy it.

[lb 4 lb]

It's something a mate and I created a few months back and are only just recently launching.

I've been running Boxing Without Bullshit for like minded boxing fans for over half a decade now and this was the next progression. We're no longer just a forum of boxing nerds, but a full news site with site staff and writers.

I only post this stuff here because Im still tight with most of you guys, even though the site has kinda fallen in a whole. I'd love to have you guys read what we put out and enjoy it.

That's cool, you never even mentioned you were doing it that I can recall. Anyway would I be welcome to post on your forum, or would you deny my application as a member?

[Tam Tam]

It's not a private site, mate. Boxing Without Bullshit was an invite only forum, but NoBS has replaced that and we're opening up to everybody now.

Being private was bullshit in itself, so it was kind of counter productive.

[Quo Vadimus]

While I spend no small amount telling my peers that "Just because A beats B, B beats C, it doesn't mean that A beats C",

I was just talking about this on another board. Floyd Sr. was talking about how Floyd would obviously beat Margo because Floyd beat Shane and Shane beat Margo. I just roll my eyes at that stupidity.

Tell that to Kelly Pavlik. Pavlik beat Jermaine Taylor twice and Taylor got two wins over Hopkins, so by that logic, Pavlik shouldn't have even fought Hopkins because it's obvious who would win, right? lol.

Doesn't always work out that way, but I always kinda chuckle when people want to use that logic.