Jermall Charlo vs. Julian Williams Scorecard by SalTnutZ1


scorecard by SALTNUTZ1
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
JERMALL CHARLO
9
10
9
10
38
JULIAN WILLIAMS
10
8
10
9
37

Fight:



More:

Jermall Charlo

Julian Williams



We do need help growing, please share:

Comments

Champion97's picture

How highly do you rate the Charlos?

SalTnutZ1's picture

They are both very good fighters. I think Jermell is the more cerebral fighter, and I think his style will lead him to greater heights and longevity( as long as he stays at 154, which I think is perfect for him) compared to Jermall, who is a banger, and I think will have some very good fights, but takes some chances that will cost him when he starts fighting the true top guys at 160. I think Jermell, as of now, is the best at 154, followed just by Munguia and Hurd, by my estimate at least, with me also thinking Munguia has the best upside of those guys, just likely when he hits the middleweight, or super middleweight division. Jermall, I think is not as good as GGG, Canelo, SD, Jacobs, or Murata. I put him in that tier below with BJS, Andrade. You?

Champion97's picture

I think they will be the best in their divisions in a couple of years if they aren't already. Is Jermall necessarily the puncher?, I think he is, but Jermell showed us against Hatley and Lubin that he can punch. The Charlos are phenomenal one punch finishers, when you look at that right uppercut, mell vs Lubin, mall vs Williams, that's power, timing, accuracy. I think both are very good boxers as well.

I think Charlo is much better than Munguia at this point, but I think Munguia will be evey bkt as yood as Charlo, future tense, he looks like one of the best talents out there, experience and maturity is the issue. I think Charlo and Hurd are top 2, but I agree that Munguia might already be good enough that only those two would beat him.

I don't agree on that at all. It is interesting that our opinions differ so much on 160, shows what a competitive division it is. I think Charlo might already be the best, up there with Andrade, I think he is still better than Derev, better than Jacobs, Saunders, but no way in my opinion is Murata and Derevyanchenko above Saunders, Andrade, Charlo, but it has to be said, they are all very good fighters.

My ranking

Andrade
Canelo
Charlo
Golovkin
Saunders
Derevyanchenko
Jacobs
Murata

I think all 8 are good world level fighters!

Gold's picture

Just curious, why do you believe Andrade and Charlo to be the best Middleweights in the world?

Champion97's picture

Because I believe that if they fought Golovkin or Canelo now, they would win.

I think they are both special fighters, Andrade is a slick boxer, versatile, has the output, you can just see the pedigree, and his boxing ability, I am simply more impressed by. Charlo is a phenomenal puncher, not just the power, the way he sets you up, times his shots, walks you down, I think is more impressive based on the timing, precision, power, and I think is enough to beat those other fighters.

It is not all about resume, you can believe a fighter is better because you are impressed by them at a certain level, and they simply haven't had the opportunity to prove themselves which is why they don't have the resume, and anyway, they have good resumes, Julian Williams, Austin Trout, Willie Nelson, Vanes Martirosyan, better resumes than Derevyanchenko and Murata.

Gold's picture

Okay, you are entitled to your opinion.

Champion97's picture

Respect!
I will gladly eat humble pie if I'm proven wrong.

Do you still think Golovkin is the best at 160?

Gold's picture

I think Billy Joe Saunders vs. Andrade is close to a 50/50, I am looking forward to that fight.

Yeah I'd still rate him as the #1 Middleweight. He has accomplished the most at Middleweight and has beat a top-level guy in Jacobs and should have won versus the second best Middleweight. I think whoever wins between Golovkin and Canelo is the clear cut number one, they will have beat the other best Middleweight in the division so I see no reason to doubt them.

If I had to rank them in terms of head to head I'd say:

1. Golovkin
2. Canelo
3. Jacobs
4. Charlo
5. Saunders
6. Derevyanchenko
7. Andrade
8. Murata

Champion97's picture

Me too, it is a 50/50 fight, can't argue with Saunders even being a slight favourite (if he is).

He has the achievements, resume, evidence, in terms of who has earned what, it is definitely Golovkin above the others, but it's the timing aspect for me, at 36, he is past his best, simple as that, I don't think he is declining quickly, and I can still see a strong case for him still having too much for everyone in the division, I just think he's been overtaken by a few fighters on the rise. Well in terms of who gets an official ranking, yes, but I think Canelo, although he is good, I'm not sure he is better than everyone else at 160, he could be, but meh, I could see Andrade beating him.

Your list is a better reflection of what the fighters have achieved, but mine is a lost that keeps up with how the fighters imorove or decline. I thinj Jacobs is dipping now, he peaked against Golovkin, and I think at this point, Charlo knocks him out, but he is still very good, gives anyone problems.

SalTnutZ1's picture

If I had to rank direct, here's how I have it. I think I am somewhere in between the resume vs. projection scale.

1. GGG
2. Canelo
3. Jacobs
4. Derevyanchenko
5a. Murata
5b. Charlo
7. Andrade
8. BJS

Gold's picture

I think mine reflects how good they are at the moment. For someone to prove without a doubt they are good, they have to get in the ring versus other good opponents. Jacobs may be dipping, but he beat top 20 Arias easily and bottom of the top 10 Sulecki after losing to Golovkin. He is still a top Middleweight. It is much easier to look good as Andrade facing a no name in Alantez Fox than it is to look good versus Golovkin or Canelo. At some point resume and eye test intersect because of this. Charlo is a great boxer but he is not a proven Middleweight yet despite looking good in the eye test. Charlo lost five rounds versus Trout not that long ago, it is possible the larger, faster, more powerful Jacobs could box him better than Trout did. Andrade is an unproven fighter in general, not just as a Middleweight, and it is arguably his fault as well. The one good opponent Andrade has faced was Martirosyan in 2013 at Super Welterweight, he has beat some okay level opposition since than but he hasn't blown me away personally with eye test either. He had the opportunity to fight Lara (who beat him in the amateurs) and he didn't, so I can't really respect that. The thing is that guys like Canelo and Golovkin should be given credit for facing tough opposition. Like we saw when Golovkin faced Martirosyan, it was easy work for him and he looked great, but that proves nothing compared to fighting a pound for pound elite like Canelo which is a totally different ball game. Therefore I almost always give the benefit of the doubt to the more experienced, proven fighter which usually works out for me.

I thought about it a little bit more, I think I would actually favor Billy Joe Saunders 60/40. He is a very good outside boxer and I don't know if Andrade can or will pressure him enough to see if he still has stamina issues.

Gold's picture

Just for comparison, if I were to rank them by resume it would look like this:

1. Canelo
2. Golovkin
3. Charlo
4. Jacobs
5. Saunders
6. Andrade
7. Murata
8. Derevyanchenko

Champion97's picture

It may do, we will have to find out, but ultimately, that's what the question is, our opinions on who is better than who now, you could be right. I know, I think he is very slowly declining fight by fight, but he was so good at his best, he will take a bad loss or a long time for him to not be easily top 8 at 160. I know, and my opinion is, Fox is better than Arias, would do better against Jacobs than he did against Arias, and Andrade would beat Sulecki slightly better than Jacobs, speculation?, ok, well why is not speculation that Andrade wouldn't beat Arias and Sulecki better?, both are speculation, he is unporven as great and not great. Same situ, Charlo is unproven as great, unproven as not great. He beat Trout, who beat Cotto, all but beat Canelo, that was a learning fight for Charlo, he impressed, I think Jacobs is better than Trout, but Jacobs is declining, Charlo is improving, and Jacobs clearly beat Trout I think for what it's worth, could have been 8-4. Andrade beat Martirosyan as you said, and you have have to consider how impressive, dominant he is against fighters you'd think he'd struggle with a little bit, did you see his performance against Nelson? I'm not going to discuss that, the fact is, the fight didn't happen, Andrade's fault?, Lara's fault?, nobody's fault?, meh. Andrade gets his chance now, takes on a challenge now, we'll see who is right. I know, and in terms of who I believe would beat everyone else, who is actually the best, I believe Andrade and Charlo would beat Canelo and Golovkin. Problem is with that, fighters have to have that first real world level win at some point, could be a question of when and not if, and the timing, Jacobs and definitely Golovkin are fading.

I understand why. Saunders is a brilliant boxer.

My opinion on the best heavyweights of all time.
1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Rocky Marciano
4. Lennox Lewis

Gold's picture

Well, you wouldn't have a lot to go off of if you think Fox is better than Arias, Fox only fought one regional level opponent other than Andrade. Arias beat some known regional level opponents, had a decent amateur career and was ranked in the top 15 by all of the sanctioning bodies. Fox is just a gimmick in my opinion, 6'4 79 inch reach Middleweight with less than 50% KO ratio, essentially unknown before he faced Andrade. Sulecki honestly might be Andrade's second-best opponent which really says a lot. You can make an educated guess based on resume and eye test combined to say one way or the other. I would definitely say at this point Jacobs is a better Middleweight than Andrade, even if he is slipping he still looked good versus Sulecki. Trout was also considerably older and wasn't the same fighter as when he faced Charlo than when he faced Cotto, Canelo and Lara in sequence. Jacobs is not that old and doesn't have that many miles on him really even though it will be a near 50/50 fight versus Derevyanchenko given they were sparring partners for such a long time. Andrade's eye test has not really impressed me. You have to consider that Andrade was the person without a platform fighting guys like Nelson, Cuclay, Fox without a legitimate title on the line. I think if he really believed he could have won he would have taken the fight versus Lara. Just comparatively, I would be absolutely shocked if Jack Culcay made it the distance versus Golovkin or Canelo. Andrade is 30 years old, he's not a prospect anymore.

Assuming you mean best in terms of head to head, I don't think Rocky Marciano belongs on any head to head Heavyweight list and Joe Louis would have to be farther down. Prime Joe Louis could do well I think versus some pre-Super Heavyweight era champions, but Louis could be outboxed and slow feet would be really bad versus prime Ali. Rocky Marciano I wouldn't put on the list at all. He'd be a Light Heavyweight if he fought today. He couldn't compete with legitimate modern Heavyweights at 5'10, 185-190 lbs with a measly 68 inch reach, Pacquiao has a 67 inch reach for comparison. I would favor some contemporary Light Heavyweight champions versus Marciano, let alone all-time great Light Heavyweights or Heavyweights.

Champion97's picture

You wouldn't have a lot to go off either way, two unbeaten fighters, neither had fought anyone, Arias might be slightly better, might gave fought at the slightly higher level. Now that is something to take into consideration, Andrade beat a guy who was at a size advantage and significant one. Well Arias was unknown, Arias vs Fox would be more or less a 50/50 fight in my opinion. He did, and how much of that was about Sulecki being underrated? I'm going to argue against that, because first off, he was what?, 30?, not old, second, the Lara fight was an off night, simple as that, also, Trout was active, winning regularly, stopping guys as well, he was on form, he had momentum, he was there to win, ge was experienced, no, that was a brilliant victory! Trout, at that point, was only slightly less good than against Alvarez. Doesn't mean it is a 50/50 fight just because they used to spar, definitely something to consider though. Jacobs has been in hard fights, the Golovkin fight in particular, he is slowly but surely declining I think, I'm not sure he can quite force out the effrt again from the Golovkin fight. What did he have to do?, look at the Fox, Rose, Nelson wins, you can't say he isn't dominant. I can't speak for Andrade, because I am not Andrade, but let's not make too big a deal out of that. I wouldn't be, Culcay is very tough, very good fighter, but in all honesty, if I had to say, I think Canelo and Alvarez would stop Culcay, but Andrade is capable of stopping him in my opinion. Good point, that is very true, but promotional issues keep fighters out of action, better late than never, let's see how he does against Saunders.

Gold's picture

Arias fought three times at a regional title level, had some notable amateur victories over Dominic Wade, Shawn Porter, Jesse Hart. Alantez only had one regional title fight. I am confident in saying Arias is a more known quantity and I would favor him versus Alantez. Alantez was so big it is a negative, no viable Middleweight should be 6'4 with a 79 inch reach. Arias was a known prospect. If Sulecki is underrated, then that gives credibility to Jacobs as a top Middleweight. Trout is Charlo's best victory, it is a good one but I think current Jacobs is a much better fighter than Trout was on that night. Conversely, Charlo is likely quite a bit better as well. By the time Charlo faced Trout it was two and a half years since his last relevant opponent when he was destroyed by Lara. I don't think it was an off night, Lara was just that good and the style matchup was bad for Trout. Trout peaked early in his career, he had some good wins but he was past it even at 30 years old versus Jermall Charlo. I think the version of Trout that faced Cotto, Canelo, and Lara beats Jermall and Jermell Charlo honestly. It is just one factor that they have been sparring partners for some time, Jacobs is better in my opinion but Derevyanchenko is fresher and a bad style matchup. Interestingly, Derevyanchenko is actually older than Jacobs. What does Andrade have to do? Face good opposition? He is doing that versus Saunders for the first time in five years so we'll see how he is. As I said, it is easier to look good at lower levels versus guys like Fox, Rose and Nelson than it is to beat top world level contenders and champions. I don't think Culcay is a good world level contender, he is probably top 15 but he lost to Sulecki as well so he can't be that high up. Andrade didn't stop him or come close to it, so I don't think he can.

Champion97's picture

No question Trout had an off night against Lara, absolutely no question. He faced decent opponents at a certain level, goid enough you keep him busy, didn't take any damage, didnroundsm stopped guys, no he was not far past his best against Charlo if even reeally past it at all.

I don't think being tall is ever more of a negative than a positive, tall fighters usually have that output and stamina because they don't carry muscle mass, height is the best metric for natural size in my opinion, and because it is natural size, in the late rounds, when it becomes less about muscle, when both fighters ar tired, the taller fighter is often stornger. You might be right about Fox and Arias to be honest, but I still don't think there is much in it and I don't take much from those points, take something, not much.

I don't see anything else to say, we've given our opinions, let's leave it at that.

Gold's picture

What do you mean no question? He fought like Austin Trout when he faced Lara from what I remember, it is just a completely different fight than Cotto or Canelo. He tried to box Lara in the center of the ring which didn't work because Lara was way too fast and skilled for Trout. Trout wasn't facing world contender level guys after he beat Lara even though he was staying busy. Trout definitely took some damage in the Canelo and Lara fights, not really bad but it still adds up.

It is a negative when it is such an extreme, 6'4 is too much for Middleweight. Height isn't a good metric for size because there are so many different builds, in the case of Fox it was too extreme, I don't know if any 6'4 person could be a viable Middleweight. Almost all great modern era Middleweights are at the shortest 5'9 and at the tallest 6'1.

SalTnutZ1's picture

Well, we get to see how at least 6 of them rate against each other this year, and see how both our rankings shake out. Now Murata and Charlo just need to fight to complete the group, haha