If you truly think getting a black eye in a boxing match is a slight against the individual whom knocked the other guy unconscious then there is nothing to say to you. You constantly like to change the topic and avoid questions. You also can’t name me five top wins from Williams because they don’t exist. So babe in the woods experienced vet. It didn’t really matter because he only had one good win when he stepped up and that got avenged.
I don’t think Williams would last the distance against Rex Layne. look at their results versus Satterfeild.
I didn't avoid any questions. You asked me to show you where you said Williams was prime which was a leading question fallacy. You didn't ask me to name Williams' top 5 wins, you asked Swag. The only thing I brought up was Rocky's age compared to Williams in fights where they looked bad. See I knew you would have responded by dismissing the black eye. It shows Rocky really had a hard time with Louis' jab and he said so himself but you want to ignore that. He is no expert at defense and slipping a jab. Yet you're the one who wrote long essays making excuses for how bad Rocky looked against Louis in the thread about his defense compared to other champions. Why constantly defend this and insist Rocky wasn't in his prime yet if the black eye was no big deal? You insisted that Frazier and Tyson's defense was worse even though the stats included fights when they were past their prime. You claim fights where Rocky looks wild and sloppy such as against Lastarza and Lowry were when Rocky was "before his prime" even though he was 26. My point was not every fighter ages and progresses at the same rate but you don't want to accept that. Somehow a 20 year old Williams has no excuse but a 28 year old Rocky gets tons of excuses with even more experience. If Williams has no excuses against Satterfield at 20 years old then Rocky has no excuses against Louis, period.
You’re so all over the place with misleading statements and false information it’s tough where to start. Actually I should t waste my time. You’re right a black eye in a boxing match is proof someone had a hard time of it. The fight itself is of little importance when someone has a bruise on their face. So I concede you’re right. And my point with Williams was he wasn’t a rookie. He wasn’t prime but he wasn’t some kid rihht out the gate. And it also NEVER mattered with him. He never won any meaningful fight other then the Terrell bout
Excellent point. Using this logic, I think Williams outpoints Quarry. I mean just look at their results against Machen!
Williams would blast Layne into the next zip code. Low skilled, slow twitch and adverse to training is not a good equation when facing an explosive athlete like Williams. Satterfield was all over the place, blasting dudes or getting blasted. He fought a high risk, high reward style. This such inconsistent outcomes.
1. You never asked me this in any other thread. You might've asked others. 2. I never said he was great. If I did please show me the post, and I'll gladly concede the issue. 3. I'd say his top five wins are Billy Daniels 2X, Terrell, Miteff, and Rischer. Honorable mentions to Johnson and Holman. No argument. He narrowly lost an SD, that many, myself included should've gone his way in a fight where he finished the stronger. Not even remotely true. Beating Holman and Richardson did not get him into the top ten. I suggest you look at his early fights and see which ones of them were truly "professional" fighters. Then get back to me. I'd give Williams excellent chances against the past prime aging opponents Marciano fought. I believe he'd lose to a prime Charles, and maybe Walcott and Moore. Then again, I'd also favor a prime Charles to beat Marciano but I digress.
Believe me, everything you post is already dumbed down enough as it is Untrue, he was at one point the #3 contender and earned a title shot for the WBA Championship, which he unfortunately never got because he was shot. Fixed it for you. Also untrue. Only person who decisively defeated him remotely close to his prime was Sonny Liston. There's a shock! That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But multiple men, inferior to Williams lasted a hell of a lot longer than 5, and even went the distance with Marciano. Learn how to spell before you label someone a "dumb ass"
Ok so if Williams was before his prime at only 20 and took a fight with a dangerous hard hitting veteran on a 2 day's notice why do so many people on this thread blast him for it? There are MANY "all time greats" who had MONTHS to prepare for even worse opponents than Satterfield and ended up losing! For the record I think Rocky wins at least 7/10 but the amount double standards people have against Williams is just appalling. You'd think he slapped people's mothers or something.
I never “blasted” Williams for losing a fight to a good fighter. But it seems to be the trend with Williams. Always an excuse. If he was such a good fighter to claim he would beat one of the best ever then there should be proof. He should have a whole career to show of what he accomplished. Not just decent showings in losing efforts. That’s the point. He falls short whenever stepping up. Let alone taking on one of the best ever.
There's no talking to that guy. Wait until the argument get's so drawn out that he has to resort to telling you how much of a "raw hunk of manliness" he is. This guy is so delusional that he thinks because he has Sonny Liston as his profile picture that he's built like him or something. Not to mention his constant misuse of logical fallacies. God forbid you have a disagreement with something he says and all of a suddenly you're perpetuating strawman and "I never said that". Take what he says with a grain of salt.
Layne is being underrated here. He burned out early but wins over Charles, Walcott, and Satterfield among others are nothing to sneeze at. He was a good, tough, tenacious fighter when he was focused. His problem was he wasnt dedicated.
Layne was tough as old boots but was a total slob who hated to train, who was physically weak and did nothing about it (according to Dempsey),who was all slow-twitch, and a guy who prospered by his constant correlation to Dempsey. Speaking of which, his "victory" over Charles was beyond ridiculous, with Dempsey doing the sole scoring... He was a tough, tough guy. You can see this watching film. But he was incredibly limited.
