Although at his physical prime Cleveland was still only 0-1 against actual contenders when he faced Liston. He was therefore unproven at elite level regardless of being a big puncher against lower level guys. In those days a win over a noted contender was required for a world ranking. Williams was more proven by 1963. It's perhaps like Mike Weaver was a better fighter after losing to both the Bobick brothers. It was like Weaver needed to beat Mercado to become "Mike Weaver". For Williams Miteff was his Mercado moment.
Bottom line is all five were top 10 contenders during the 59-61 time span which was the time span Liston fought them. All should be considered key victories.
Absolutely, key victories that helped develop Sonny. I accept that. But in terms of value Harris, Folley, Machen and Clark are a level above Valdes, DeJohn, Bethea and WIlliams. As a spectacle, Williams was a great win. Looks good on film. Ticked boxes for Sonny. But in terms of value It's like Larry Gains beat Max Schmeling before he was Max Schmeling.
All five were rated in the top ten within the 59-61 time period which was the period Liston beat them.
No Bethea was only rated in 1957. For the others you are correct in a round about kind of way. An "At the time rated" guy is always a better win than a guy just out of the ratings who loses half the fights he has that year.
Professionals tend not to feel this way. Professionals tend to rate fighters based upon how good/dangerous/strong/fast/whatever they think a given opponent is, not where the man in question was ranked by a magazine.
Professionals regard the same guy as being better once he is proven at a better level. Antony Joshua would be regarded as a dangerous fighter even now by professionals just like Williams was. But the same professionals will regard Jishua as a better more dangerous proposition once he wins a more competative fight against a more proven guy than he has fought up until now. And that's how professionals regard that situation. Then as now.
No, that is NOT what a professional does. A professional, after fighitng a fighter once or twice, will judge that fighter in relation to the other professionals he has met and judge him accordingly. He doesn't need to wait for him to beat a contender to judge him, are you kidding me? He was in the ring with the guy. Liston considered Williams one of his most important fights, and one of his most important tests. You now have to decide if Liston was a) lying or b) telling the truth. And that's that really.
Yes Liston was telling the truth. Williams hit him hard, gave him a good fight. It was important to him. Brought the best out of him. But Williams was proberbly Beter when he had beat good fighters. Say 1963. Joe Louis once said Charlie Retzlaff hit him hardest and it never elevated Retzlaff did it? Most professionals regard Joshua dangerous now but even more dangerous when he proves himself at the next level.
Your logic is so flawed it makes me want to pull my hair out. One Fact I will correct you on..Billy Daniels march 9 1963 and Alex miteff were both rated in top 10 by ring magazine at the time they fought Williams. This is a fact. So your 1-8-1 record is wrong
No it's not. Larry Gains beat max schmeling 4 years before before schmeling cracked the ring magazine top 10. Sonny Liston beat Williams the 2nd time when Williams was already present in the ring magazine top 10 being rated 10th in the world. A few months later Williams would become ranked in the top 5 How is this so hard to grasp for you?
Don't listen to him. Bethea WAS ranked in the top 10 when Liston beat him. I have the rankings in front of me.
Keep in mind that because Sonny was made to wait so long for his shot at Patterson, that many of those fights against contenders would've been title defenses if he had been able to rub out Floyd a couple of years before.