Cleveland Williams is nowhere near even Ingemar Johansson in any OBJECTIVE metric.

I admit I am quick to pick any champion over Williams, but it is not through any hatred of the man. More a question of perspective. I just think in every case it can be proven that Champions always beat better fighters than Cleveland did. Using all the evidence, I genuinely can’t think of a champion Cleveland Williams might have beat.

And It is not personal against Williams to say so. I can’t think of a champion Tex Cobb might have beat. Lovely guy. Same with Henry Cooper. I can’t think of a champion he might have beaten either.

Every other great puncher has a defining knockout win. An example where he knocked out highly regarded opponents. Although a feared puncher, Williams lacks examples of this.

 

London beat a 36 years old Folley on points.

 

I never suggested Williams was better than Marciano or Frazier, You're a real ****do you know that.Join Choc Drop and the rest of the Williams haters.

 

I think this post sums up this thread with one exception - and perhaps we can then put it to bed. Let's change Janitor's first sentence to 'being a more successful fighter' rather than 'a better fighter'. Success can be rated on who gets the title shot and what he does with it. The stars aligned right for Ingo. He got the shot and made the best of it. All he needed was the win over Machen to get there. Conversely, Machen, Folley, Williams and Liston could rot on the vine - and did - if it was up to Cus D"Amato. So I grant you that Ingo was the more successful of the two. However, in a head to head scheduled 15 round fight, I'm wondering how many Ingo supporters here would actually bet the house on Ingo over Big Cat.

 

Any one with half a brain would factor in that Williams was a 20 year s old late sub for the Satterfield fight,and also 20 when he lost to Jones whom he kod in 6rds 9 months later.
Being shot when you're ranked contender kind of puts paid to your tally of scalps at top level
I said anyone with half a brain, so that lets you out!
You don't qualify!

 

Does anyone seriously think Ahlquist would have let Ingo enter the ring against Williams?

 

I wonder if lots of hate for Ingemar Johansson is being dressed up here as defending Williams from "Williams haters". I have trouble following the petty partisan squabbling on this forum, so it's probably not worth wondering too much.

Neither of them were GREAT fighters, and have limited combined achievements when we compare to the ATGs.
But it's clear as day that Johansson is a level above Williams.
Better wins.
Better achievements.
Better.
End of.

 

Absolutely.

 

There’s no Williams haters here. Don’t go using that tactic.

 

You can say exactly the same for Williams. All he needed was the win over Machen to get there. He couldn’t beat Machen.

 

Williams drew with Machen. London was beaten by Machen in one-sided fashion.

You've defined both those results as "neither of them beat Machen" to support the idea that "against common opponents Brian London is quite comparable to Williams".

Which is not true, because Williams did much better against Machen than London did.

Are you going to disagree with that?

 

That's simply not true. D'Amato would never have let Patterson defend against Williams. It wouldn't have mattered who he beat. Nor would Cus have let him defend against Folley or Machen. Liston was the absolute top dog of the entire era having beaten Folley, Machen, Williams (twice), Valdes, Harris and DeJohn and no title shot. It was 2 years after the Machen fight he finally got his crack at the whip and that was because Patterson had to defy D'Amato to do it. The stars aligned just right for Ingo to get his title shot. With really only Machen on his record, there was less risk and more money to be made with marketing this good-looking, white fighter from Sweden with the 'Toonder' in his right hand, his beautiful fiancée by his side with no ties to the IBC. Oh, man, it was a marketing dream.

 

So he was in his prime was he?lol