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

This is what it boils down to.

No one thinks Ingo is a bad fighter, but I noticed many people on this board view anyone who wins a belt to be a level above someone who didn't while ignoring context and circumstances. They will often have a "tough luck, too bad" attitude whenever it's convenient.

You correctly pointed out that Cus D Amato used careful matchmaking and part of what got Ingo a shot did have to do with luck. It was the equivalent of winning the "Mayweather sweepstakes". Yes he did his part defeating Machen and getting in a position to fight for the title, but it wouldn't shock me at all if Cus saw a weakness in Ingo that made him confident enough to make the match while constantly ignoring all the other worthy contenders for years. Patterson himself called out his own trainer for this behavior and finally gave Liston a shot.

So making statements like "Williams just couldn't cut it" while ignoring the other contenders and the champion ignoring him, getting shot, etc is disingenuous at best and ignorant at worst. So to determine the winner of a head to head matchup based solely on accomplishments without context is simply flawed and a non sequitur.

It gets worse if you factor in Patterson's chin and pretending like no other contender with punching power could have pulled off the win and become champion if they traded places with Ingo. It isn't about taking credit from Ingo, it's simply being objective and looking at Patterson's LONG track record of getting dropped and stopped frequently by several boxers--some of whom didn't hit as hard as Williams. Again, very disingenuous to dismiss a hard hitting contender solely because they did not win a title and ignoring the actual head to head physical stats and intangibles.

Does anyone (besides Choklab and Janitor) believe that David Tua would have NO CHANCE of winning the title from Primo Carnera? Does anyone think there would be no way in hell Earnie Shavers could win a belt from Frank Bruno? No way on Earth Dillian Whyte could beat Leon Spinks? Just dismiss their chances because they "couldn't cut it" in their own era so there's no way they could beat a champion who "proved themselves" to be a notch above them?

 

Ultimately, Liston had more respect for Williams than Machen or Ali either. The only guy who could rival Williams in Liston's mind was Zora Folley.

 

Folley? Please elaborate.

 

It's the usual stupidity thread on Williams.

 

I agree with that. Of course, unlike London, Williams was not beaten one sidedly by Machen.

London did much better than Williams against Rischer. London won by one punch knockout in 40 seconds. You couldn’t do much better than that.

Are you going to disagree with that?

 

No its actually quite easy to do if you dont look at Williams through rose colored glasses. Make a list of the men who were rated when he fought them and then compare how he did against them. Its a pretty simple practice. If you comically want to throw in men like Johnny Holman and Roger Rischer in order to prop up your argument I will consider the matter closed. Ive asked it a million times and nobody seems to be willing to answer who all of these rated contenders were that Williams stopped much less beat to give him this great reputation? The silence is deafening and we all know why. His record is ridiculous padded and he has few wins over quality opponents. When Johnny Holman is trotted out as one of his best wins, even when its Holman's last fight, he was coming off a stoppage loss a month earlier and had won one of his his last six fights its pretty indicative of the level of Williams competition. When people have to contend that going on 31 and having been a pro well over a decade his prime was cut short its laughable. Ive seen the argument that "What if all fighters stopped fighting at 31" Well you are doing the same thing for Williams that people do for a guy like Tyson or a guy like Ketchel. Its no different. You are magically assuming that if his prime hadnt supposedly been cut short he would have gone on to have this great career. Unlike guys like Tyson and Ketchel Williams didnt have the career (over his first 13 years LOL) that illustrated that he was suddenly going to be some kind of monster past 31.

 

You wonder why people accuse you of dishonesty. Also, you seem to have left out another common opponents of theirs'. Dick Richardson. Unfortunately, I'm getting older and have trouble remembering things sometimes. Can you please refresh my memory on their respective performances against him? Thank you!

 

Williams is not being compared to the champions. He's considered by experts to be the greatest hw never to win a title. As far as I'm concerned he's ONE of them. His skills were great. For me, he was great because of the potential he could have reached. He cannot be judged for performances in his green fights ('52-'55) or in his washed-up fights ('66-'72). Therefore, Williams' losses to Sylvester Jones, Bob Satterfield, Muhammad Ali, Al Jones, Mac Foster, Alvin Lewis, George Chuvalo, and Jack O' Halloran are stupid and unfair. The only big name fights in Williams' prime that are fair to analyze would be the two Liston fights, the two Terrell fights, and the fight with Machen. True, he went 3-1-1. But not of the fights were embarassing for Cleve. He fought all those guys, great fighters, in their primes, and troubled them all, and won their respect. People talk like Williams had no skills. Not true by any means. He could hit, he was fast, and moved well. He was a good combination puncher and a good body puncher. He had good stamina for a 1-round contest and was a pretty tough guy. He had a great jab. Any attack on Williams' skill is largely based on prejudice. The sole reason Williams' is under attack is because of his number of losses to nobodies, which I have already noted to be faulty reasoning. Williams had no personal demons that we know of. He was not a drinker, a drugee, or a pervert. He didn't have eating or relationship problems that we know of. What was great about Williams was his skills clearly demonstrated in the fights against Liston and Terrell and the knowledge that he probably could have beaten many of the fighters of the 50s and 60s. Although he was getting older, there always remains the belief that Williams could have accomplished something impressive if he had not been shot up. Williams fought from '52 to '72. In that time frame his prime probably should have been around '56 to '65 or something like that. But it was really around the '60-'65 period when Williams racked up his best wins. But he was getting older, and was shot up, and we all know the rest.

 

London was stopped, Williams won by DQ which he was winning easily anyway. Williams was beating Richardson up, who decided to foul, and was DQ'd by the ref. Williams was banned from the UK for beating up one of their best fighters.

 

Was Williams a rated contender prior to 1961? I suppose D'Amato might well have ducked him, but he didn't have to. Williams had a very imposing stat record, but hadn't done much against top opposition. His big wins would have been over Agramonte and Holman, both at the end of the road, and a DQ over Richardson. This isn't in the same league as Machen or Folley, or Nino Valdes. I think Roy Harris had far more impressive wins. And also Mike DeJohn.

It was only in 1961 that he started to move, ending the year ranked #7. But discounting the obvious #1 contender, Liston, and the old stand byes Folley and Machen, there were still a couple of other contenders who arguably had better cases for the December, 1961 title shot against Patterson which McNeeley undeservedly got.

1961---Cleveland Williams
Wayne Bethea---Won Decision
Alex Miteff-=-KO

1961---Alejandro Lavorante (among other fights prior to Decemeber, 1961)
Zora Folley---KO
Willi Besmanoff--KO
Alonzo Johnson--W

Was rated #4 for the year, but lost ground with a disputed loss to George Logan in December. If he had been chosen to fight Patterson, he would have been the #3 contender going into the fight. The KO of Folley is the most impressive win of any of these contenders to this point.

1961---Bob Cleroux
Harold Carter---KO
Roy Harris---KO
Alex Miteff---KO
George Chuvalo---W

Cleroux was rated #5, and had beaten everyone he had fought. His best wins were better than Williams' to this point.

So, to me, the Patterson ducked Williams argument just isn't very good.

In 1962 Williams really began to move, with the one round KO of Alonzo Johnson, the KO of Terrell, and the draw with Machen. But Patterson defended against Liston, and lost, so now Williams was a contender in a division headed by a man who had already KO'd him twice.

I don't know why Williams puddled around so long padding his record against second-raters. Everyone was afraid of him? But many jumped into the ring against Liston, and Valdes. It remains a mystery to me why this exciting fighter spent so many years out in the boondocks rather than on TV in the major venues.

 

Machen had the #1 rating, then promptly got obliterated by Johansson. What was Patterson meant to do, fight the loser instead? Machen and Folley were hardly terrors of the division or a stylistic nightmare for Patterson. One of their fights was so boring it was felt they'd counted each other out of contention. Them not getting a title shot was more because D'Amato didn't want anything to do with IBC connected fighters.

As for Williams, when your best results are a KO of a then-unknown and unrated Ernie Terrell and a draw with Machen, that doesn't really scream out "must avoid" to me. Nor do wins against Rischer, Miteff, Daniels, Alonzo Johnson etc who were fringe contenders at best and it's not like plenty of others in the division were not beating them as well.

Liston beat all three of them convincingly and did eventually (and deservedly) get his title shot. Williams, Machen and Folley were never in that league. In fact I think their reputation for supposedly being avoided by D'Amato/Patterson has actually boosted their reps well beyond their actual accomplishments.

 

Evidently Folley gave Liston a very tough fought in '60. Both were prime. Folley took the fight straight to Liston, fighting brilliantly and valiantly according to all accounts. He even had Liston covering up several times. It was a thriller by all accounts. In '64 I believe, Liston sent Folley a telegram shortly before the first Ali fight. He told Folley after he got finished with the bum Clay that he would "love" to give him a title shot. He evidently thought Folley deserved a shot.

 

As much as I love Williams I agree. His peak passed over him. '56 to '65 were roughly probably the best years that Williams would have had, but they were lost, partially due to himself, and partially due to some of the people who ducked him. Williams had trouble putting together good winning streaks over good enough opponents to get a shot in his prime. Williams not getting to fight for a title in his best years was not all his fault though. That just happens sometimes. Williams was great, and imo deserved a title shot, not because of his record, but because of his skills. But I'll agree, from '58 to '65, Liston, Folley, Machen, Chuvalo, Doug Jones, Terrell, Ali, Patterson, and guys like that had definitely achieved much more and in that way were more deserving of the shots they all received in those years (my mistake, Folley and Jones didn't get shots in those years). Williams could have beaten Ingo and Floyd when they were champs though, and handily imo.