Cleveland Williams

This is a fight between two guys of the same level because it looks like it on film.

In the great scheme of things both guys were rated for a short time during the 1960s. There really s not much between them it's just Williams is better known.

You could even argue whilst Daniels lost twice to Williams on points he actually gave Ali a better fight than Williams did. He beat better guys than Williams did too. How many of Williams actual KO victims would beat Doug Jones, Tony Alongi or Mike Dejohn?

Williams by all accounts had an edge over the second half of this fight When Billy was cut. It's still only half of the fight. The first half was still won by 21lb lighter Daniels as agreed by those who took the time to view the film. Taking two halves together that makes a close fight in my book.

Williams won. I accept that. but then they were the same level since Daniels won rounds against the big Cat whilst giving away so much weight. Also Williams could never knock Daniels out and he always knocked out guys of a lower level.

And they fought twice. presumably because their first fight was so competitive.

 

Daniels did not win all the first 5 rounds against Williams in their first fight ,where did you get that idea from?
Their second fight was not competitive ,Williams won it easily knocking Daniels down in the first round.Daniels was fresh off a win over Doug Jones.Ali was comfortably in front against Daniels at the time of the stoppage 4-2,4-2,4-1.
Daniels was in his prime when he fought Ali, 25 and undefeated.Wiliams was 33 and not the same man he had been prior to the shooting.

 

Daniels was clearly ahead after five rounds against Williams. I cannot comment on the rematch because I have not seen it but the fact remains that for all his power and weight advantage (within his prime) Williams did not stop Billy Daniels. That puts Williams -in his prime- at a lower level than other contenders. Daniels was a good opponent but the better contenders (especialy with a weight advantage against a guy who has been stopped before) can stop good opponents.

 

The underlined is just nonsense.I can't be bothered to name the thousands of fighters that have survived against good opponents only to be stopped by inferior ones.

 

Maybe just put Williams in with Mildenberg and see what happens!

 

Mildenberger was dropped twice by Dave Bailey.Williams ko'd him in 5 rds.Wonder what Choclab makes of that?

 

I love Williams triple Left Hook ; )
Would put many heavyweights to sleep :thumbsup

https://imgflip.com/gif/s8dl

 

This is correct but I doubt a prime joe Louis ever fought a 21 pound lighter guy (who had been stopped before) and not stopped him out of two times.

He had power but only up to a level. Nothing wrong with this. It just needs putting into the correct context.

Williams is often painted as a would be champion but it just is not so. Williams was what he was. An exciting looking but limited short time contender who despite an interesting story made no greater impact with actual wins than Charlie Powell or John Holman. Or Brian London for that matter.

 

Williams was no short-term contender. He entered the NBA top 10 after his victory over John Holman in 1957 and didn't drop out of the ratings for good until he retired following his loss to Muhammad Ali 9 years later.

During that time he lost clearly to no one but a prime Sonny Liston, and was matched only by his fellow elite contenders Ernie Terrell and Eddie Machen. The fact that he wasn't rated all that time was nothing to do with poor results. First he got dropped by the NBA for failing to go through with a rematch against D!ck Richardson, then he was the victim of his own courage in not only facing Liston but going back for more the following year, and then he got shot just as he was lining up to face Terrell for the vacant WBA title.

 

The Maurice Harris of his time.

 

Ive never said Williams was a would be champion.

What I say is he was a better fighter than.
London
Mildenberger
Erskine
Richardson
Bodell
Logan
Lavorante
Rischer
Cooper
Cleroux

And the fact that he did not ko Daniels in2 fights means absolutely jacksh*t.
Ted Lowry twice went the distance with Rocky Marciano not only went the distance but some felt he won the 1st fight and Marciano couldn't floor him in 2 fights.

179lbs Harry Mathews kod Lowry.
That's how worthless your comparison is.atsch

 

The first "at the time rated" fighter Williams fought was Satterfeild. He lost. The second "at that time" rated fighter Williams fought was Liston who beat him twice. The third "at the time" rated fighter was proberbly Alex Miteff who was 1-3 over the previous 12 months. The fourth "at the time" rated fighter Williams fought was Billy Daniels then came machen (a draw) then whilst he was rated, Terrell, another loss. The next decent guy was Ali another bad loss comparable to how Brian London fared. I make that 2 wins from just eight relevent fights between 1954 -1966 against either rated or elite contenders.

Now Williams was a decent contender between the Miteff and Terrell fights (a spell of just under two years) where he met and beat decent to fair guys on the "half decent" opponent circuit -that most contenders could also beat -and he drew with Machen- but that's it. Before that time Williams was staying busy with hand picked pay days or losing to Sonny Liston.

In the whole scheme of things the closest Williams got to being "elite" was with a draw and a close loss against two guys (who were never at any time regarded the world's best) during that 23 months or so before he got shot.

 

I counted 5.

 

The 20 years old Williams was a very late substitute for the Satterfield fight.
Here is Boxrec's take on it .

"Overmatched early in his career and suffered a brutal knockout loss to Bob Satterfield on Miami Beach."


How many more times are you going to trot this out?atsch

 

where is the evidence that Williams was better fighter than all of these guys? They each individually recorded better wins than Williams ever notched up. Maybe he beats one or two on a good night but there is not enough evidence on paper is there?