Floyd Patterson avoiding Cleveland Williams

Again, you were the one who said Williams was a better challenger than LaStarza. Not me. We arent talking about who would have done what in their primes and frankly I dont know that Williams would have beaten LaStarza because LaStarza turned in a better performance against the great fighter he fought than Williams ever did against even the contenders he faced.

 

Oh, Terrell won a world title did he?? Interesting.

Jesus, Ive never met anyone who is so willing to just be blind to what he sees in order to stick to his agenda. Yeah, Terrell fought exactly the same in 1963 as he did in 1967... Thats why at that point he was known, just like in the amateurs, as a come forward slugger who gave up his height and by the time he fought Ali he was being called the octopus because he tried to keep his distance and clutched whenever his opponent got near. But you wouldnt know any of that because Ring magazine didnt tell you what to think... Or that issue didnt have a big strong black man on the cover so you ignored it...

 

A tough three fight series that took over 3 years,ie one fight a year, how's that tough?

They are not my precious ratings what the f*cks wrong with you?
Cant you have a debate without coming on as Nat Fleischer and Bert Sugar rolled into one?

Is yours the only opinion that is worthy of consideration?

I never said Williams was unlucky, but in so far as Magnum bullet in your guts affects your ability to do our job yes I think he was.

 

"Patterson and Johansson tied up the title for 3 years"

That might matter to Folley or Liston, and possibly Machen, who were top-rated contenders.

But was Williams even rated prior to 1961?

and was he one of the top-rated contenders prior to 1962?

I think London and McNeeley were poor choices for defenses, but there were guys who were higher rated than Williams out there in 1961 who didn't get the shot, like Cleroux and Lavorante,

as well as Machen and Folley.

 

Sylvester Jones beat him and dropped him twice at the time in question. I think the guy who went life and death Marciano could do a little better...

 

This needs to be addressed. I don't think anyone pro Williams has a logical explanation on why Terrell is considered prime losing at the exact same point as Williams was supposedly green.:huh

 

What you and SuzieQ dont seem to understand is that the Ring ratings didnt count for anything. Fighters did not have to defend against who Nat Fleischer thought was a contender. Those ratings had absolutely no bearing on title contention whatsoever. It is entirely immaterial what Ring rated Williams and its even more laughable that he was never rated higher than #4 at any of the times you guys are *****ing about yet you act like he had some great claim to a title shot. You just keep parroting the same absolutely incorrect horse**** over and over and over and that doesnt make it true. You can pretend Williams deserved a shot over London but the question begs to be asked WHY??? Based on what??? Whether YOU think Williams was better (And thats based on 50 years of hindsight mind you) doesnt matter. London had at least as good wins and was higher rated. So explain to me where Williams claim even comes into. Same with Valdez. Suzie wants the NBA ratings and Ive already given them to him. When Patterson fought London Williams wasnt even rated and Valdez was rated below London. Valdez' upset loss to Charlie Powell tumbled him down the ratings and bumped London up. And for all the faith you put in Ring magazine as soon as London signed to fight Patterson he arbitrarily bumped up in their ratings from 9th to 8th. As for those bullets, again, if you can prove that Patterson was the trigger man then you have a beef. Otherwise you have done nothing to illustrate your case.