1952 Rocky Marciano vs 1960 Cleveland Williams

I thought that was called ad hoc or something like that.

 

You might be referring to Ad Hominem which means attacking the poster at hand (usually when one is on the losing end of an argument) as opposed to the position said poster is holding.

 

FWIW, from what I understand Merritt never knocked Terrell down.

1952 Marciano takes this one. 1960 Williams was 3-1. 3 victories against unranked fighters at the end of the year, and the loss to Liston in March. So Williams was largely inactive the first 3/4 of the year. Although he appeared in some rankings as early as 1958, he fell out after losing to Liston the first time and didn't really start working at a higher level until 1961 and the win over Miteff.

 

Well, it was a mistake on my part. I figured since Merritt TKO'd him that he might have floored him. I didn't know for sure.

 

Nailed it my man. People usually want to talk about how Williams lost to Satterfield and Jones but like to omit facts such as that Williams was 20 years old, green, untested, a last minute sub, making a huge jump in class, etc. They also refer to his losses to Foster, Ali, Lewis, as proof he was never all that but fail to mention he had been shot by a police officer, died 6 times on the operating table and was a shell of his former self. They like to dismiss Williams' win over a 22 year old "green Terrell" who hadn't lost in 2 years (an SD which could've just as easily gone his way) (and go on unbeaten for five years until he met a peak Muhammad Ali), while simultaneously holding Williams' loss as a 20 year old to Satterfield as the most damaging and crucial loss in the world. They say when Terrell got better, Williams couldn't beat but leave out that Terrell only got an SD which many people including the AP scored for Williams. Terrell in his next fight would widely outpoint and beat Folley much more decisively than he did Williams. Of course you won't ever heat that. And lastly, they love to say Williams could only manage a draw against Machen but omit the fact Machen was the highest ranked heavyweight at the time not named Sonny Liston and that, the majority of the crowd, the AP, as well as one judge (the other two had it a draw) had Williams a clear winner. They also like to ignore this quote "In a way he's tougher to fight than Liston because he has the speed the other doesn't have. You can't walk around Cleveland like you can Liston." -Eddie Machen
They also like to say that Williams resume is thin but omit the fact that contenders weren't exactly all that keen to step in the ring with him. Ali himself is said to have steered clear of him early on in his career as well as Patterson.

Very shallow, selective and one-sided way to look at things.

 

Great, we are reduced to the triangle theory to prove a dumb proposition. What even is the proposition? Williams stopped Terrell so he is better than Marciano? The ****?

Williams was more of a power puncher than Ali, and a better fighter than Ramos and Spencer. Bert Cooper was able to drop Holyfield...it doesn't mean that he was better than Mike Tyson. This is dumb.

Read carefully...Williams does not have the quality wins to be compared to Marciano. Johannson's record shits all over his. Clevland William's record does not stand up to Ron Lyle, Jerry Quarry, or an other number of good contenders who never made it. THE WINS AREN'T THERE.

 

Now you're kicking them around, not me. Another plus of Williams is he's in the very small group with over 50 KOs. And like you've alluded to, everyone who fought Williams had lots of respect for him. Terrell called Williams his toughest opponent, and George Chuvalo and George Foreman called him one of the hardest punchers of all time. The Chuvalo commendation especially sticks out to me, considering he had faced so many big punchers already, and knew what a hard puncher was, and Williams had long been past it, and was still giving heck to a top contender.

 

Actually I never said Williams was better than Marciano. I do think he was more skilled. To me, the reason Marciano was successful was due to his power, stamina, and toughness. Williams was an awesome puncher, had decent stamina, and was kind of tough. Marciano was a clear victor in the third category, and edges out Williams in power and stamina as well. That's how I see it.

 

This post is more foolish than your others. The title of the thread is asking about Williams fighting Marciano, and THEY SHOULD NOT BE MENTIONED IN THE SAME BREATH, IF NOT FOR THE MYTH OF WILLIAMS AS SOME KIND OF SUPER CONTENDER.

And he wasn't. And citing wins over Mitef and Richardson does not change that. If anything, it is embarrassing and makes my case, as these were not impressive wins. It would be like saying that Derrick Chisora is a guy who could be mentioned with Lennox Lewis because he beat Takam and Szpilka. It is just dumb.

Marciano is one of the five greatest heavyweights ever in my opinion. No case can be made for him being outside the top ten. Williams was a can crusher who beat a few fringe contenders.

 

The thread is about Marciano VS Williams. Based on demonstrated wins and losses, they do not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath.

Some other thread thread ideas:

Derrick Chisora VS Lennox Lewis
Bernie Reynolds VS Joe Louis
Brett Lally VS Roberto Duran
Andrew Maynard VS Archie Moore

And on and on.

 

In terms of skills, Marciano would not rank that high. He could punch, take a punch, last a long time, and had a good bob and weave. Nothing more than that.

 

I personally don't think those are fair comparisons. I agree that Marciano achieved much more than Williams, but what about LaStarza? LaStarza was probably no better than Williams. His only good win was over Rex Layne, yet he gave Marciano two very tough fights. In fact, were it not for the knockdown in the first fight, LaStarza would've earned a draw, and he was slightly ahead in the second fight when Marciano stopped him. I would never pick Williams to beat Marciano. But with all the trouble LaStarza gave Marciano, Williams would be even tougher for Marciano.

 

None of which is relevent, but it is also not true. You actually know nothing about Marciano, so I will help you.

Marciano had the shortest reach of any heavyweight champ, and knew it. He could not win with a classic jab and move style, so he developed his own thing. He trained himself to have tremendous stamina, came in low, underneath the opponent's jab, and, when on the inside, landed punches in bunches. It was brutally effective, and some of his most famous opponents talked about how hard to hit he was:

Joe Louis

"I had a bad weakness kept hid through out my career. I didn't like to be crowded, and Marciano always crowded his opponents. That's why I say I could never beat him."

"He's a good fighter. Better than most people realize. He's strong and young and hard to hit."

"Rocky was a very deceiving guy. He was not easy to hit."


Charlie Goldman

"He ain't as easy to hit as they say. Rocky rolls under punches and he weaves under punches ... He protects his belly by blocking with his elbows.

Roland LaStarza

"In defense. It was harder to get at him ... Rocky fools you. He doesn't take as much punishment as it seems. He looks easy to hit inside but he isn't."


Angelo Dundee

"Rocky was a very deceiving guy. He was not easy to hit."

There is a Youtube Video of Marciano talking about his style, but I will let you find it yourself. The fact is, he was tremendously skilled.

 

Yes, but he beat Lastarza, as well as half a dozen guys who were better. So where are William's wins that we are making a comparison? How is this a thread?

 

my point was that if LaStarza could give Rocky such a hard time, then Williams would