Peak Cleveland Williams v Champ Jersey Joe Walcott

People talk so much **** about Williams being shot but while it was a serious injury the doctor who attended him said that he would make a full recovery the same night as the shooting. You guys act like that incident irreparably damaged him. It did not. Ive asked over and over again to show me how he was so much slower, weaker, etc after compared to before and you cant because he was always a straight up and down come forward plodding slugger with leaky defense. That gunshot wound never changed that. He didnt lose to anyone after being shot that he would have beaten before and he didnt beat anyone before that he wouldnt have beaten after.

 

I think this is a close to even fight. On one head Walcott at his very best is better, but he lost an awful lot. On the other Williams didn't beat anyone for the most part. Willams needed more fights vs Ring Magazine men to fill in the gaps. But that did not happen, I favored Walcott ever so slightly, but under the assumption that he brings his A game. Otherwise give me Williams.

 

There was an optimistic prediction when Williams was shot that he would be out of hospital in a month and back in the ring in six. The reality was totally different. It was five months before he was well enough to leave hospital and a full year before he was able to resume training.

This article from six months after the shooting describes him as a shadow of his old self, still unable to lift any significant weight without pain.

https://ibb.co/jRWwtbW

 

So you take that the doctor meant "He'll fight again... poorly, but he'll fight again. And his dick hugging fan boys will have a perfect excuse for why he never accomplished anything worth the praise they give him."

Just out of curiosity, when do you think a fighters physical prime usually starts to decline? Most people would say that Williams, at 31, was at the tail end of his physical prime which conveniently for his fanboys coincided exactly with him getting shot. As someone pointed out above Lyle suffered a similar injury well into his twenties and didnt start boxing pro until he was 30. You never hear anyone say "How good could Lyle have been if he hadnt been stabbed and lost so much blood?" Its always "how good could Lyle have been if he started boxing when he was younger." It takes some serious mental gymnastics to blame Williams' inability to accomplish anything on getting shot at 31 years of age and 15 years into his career. If he was going to get anything done he would have gotten it done.

The fact is that whenever he ran up against anyone of note he couldnt do anything with them. When there is so much hand wringing around the idea that he COULD have been champion if he hadnt been shot because he had a title shot in the offing against a guy he was 50/50 with in two fights and who wasnt even the real champion its damning him and his meager accomplishments with faint praise. Could he have picked up a paper title by beating the guy whose promoter purchased a vacant title for him? Maybe. Thats about the best you can say of him. He had no better than a 50/50 shot. Terrell was improving, Williams wasnt. Would it have made a difference in boxing history? No. Not only am I not sure he that he could have beaten Terrell, who almost certainly would have been favored, but Im not even sure he beats the guys Terrell defended his title against. Would anyone here give him better than a 50/50 chance of beating the same Machen he had already drawn with? Chuvalo, who later beat him when both were shot? The Doug Jones that nearly beat Ali? Id give all of those guys a chance at beating the overrated Williams.

I'll ask again, who did Williams ever beat that was anywhere near as good as champion Walcott? Because when you start arbitrarily getting moved up in the rankings after a 15 year career by beating guys like Sonny Banks, Roger Rischer, and Billy Daniels then Im not buying that you are some threat to a guy who, while hot and cold, could be a stylistic nightmare for a plodder like Williams.

 

The king has returned.

 

Yes you are using double standards. It's ok if Walcott loses to bums and mediocre fighters at 33 but it's not ok for Williams to lose to bums and mediocre fighters after getting shot and having surgery at 38.

You're too unintelligent to comprehend what I'm saying.

Williams and Cooney are about the same level. Wtf does Cooney have to do with this conversation??? You're all over the place.

We're not talking about Lennox, Klitschko, or Hoylfield. We're comparing Williams and Walcott. If Williams gets no excuses for losing to a mediocre opponent at 38, Walcott gets no excuse for losing at 33. A 6 year old would have understood this by now. Are you slow?

Im not talking about Chuvalo's age, I'm talking about Walcott's age when he was getting his ass kicked on a regular basis. He was much younger than Williams was and wasn't recovering from a gunshot. Walcott was 36 when he lost to the bum Rex Layne. Layne was way worse than Chuvalo.

Walcott gets NO excuses for losing to Layne. You yourself said Walcott got better with age and yet he lost to a bum like Layne just 1 year before he won the title.

 

I was going to defer to Choklab on this match.

 

Yeah Walcott lost but Williams did to.
Did Walcott lost against someone called Sly Johnson or LHW beaten by LaMotta called Bob Satterfield?
Nope.
Was Walcott champ?Yes, unlike Cleveland Williams who would not be able to go distance or KO Ezzard Charles or Joe Louis.

We're comparing both if them.Walcott at that age was champion who beat Louis,Ezzard Charles and gave Marciano helluva fight which would Williams never do even in your dreams.
I am slow, but fast enough that knoes that guy who lost against Satterfield and Chuvalo ain't beating Walcott.

Did that same Layne beat Satterfield?
And did Satterfield beat Williams?
Did Williams ever beat someone even that level?
Best wins are Miteff and young Ernie that still are not good as Layne.
Did that bum went distance with Ezzard and Johnson?
Oh my bad.

 

But did he lost?Nope.
Did he beat better guys than Williams?
Yes.
He struggled but he beat them and became world champ which Williams never did.

 

You realize, I hope, that a person can be in critical condition and still be expected to make a full recovery. It happens, literally, hundreds of time a day. And no, I didnt write it, a person quoting his doctor wrote it. Worth mentioning in light of everybody here claiming that Williams gunshot wound somehow made him a lesser fighter, again, 15 years into his career and aged 31.

Oh ok. He was just a late bloomer. He was 15 years into his career and just entering his prime but that gunshot wound ended all of that. LOL. And again, the elephant in the room here is that Cleveland Williams supposed prime is based on the fact that he finally, after more than a decade, broke into the top 5 and only did so with some seriously creative ranking and by beating a couple of guys who barely finished their career with more wins than losses. If thats his prime then I see no reason to make him a favorite over a guy like the version of Walcott who flattened Charles with one punch. A knockout, by the way, far better than any the supposed bigger puncher Williams was ever able to notch.

 

Yes, they both have bad losses. Both Walcott and Williams. That's all I've been saying over and over. If you're going to say Williams is bad for losing to Chuvalo while he was 38 coming off a surgery, Walcott is bad for losing to Layne at 36 a year before he won the title. It's that simple. Form a different argument.

Walcott didn't beat Louis. He beat Charles after like his 3rd attempt, a Charles who was way past his prime and fighting above his best weight. Gave Marciano a hell of a fight? Now you want to hype Walcott up for LOSING? These are all very poor, flawed arguments.

Yes you're slow if I have to explain to you for the 5th time that if Williams is a bad boxer for losing to Chuvalo, Walcott is even worse for losing to Layne. Layne is an even worse boxer than Chuvalo lol, and Walcott was in his prime just a year before winning the title when Layne beat him. Williams was washed up when he fought Chuvalo. Huge difference.

Layne is trash.

You're seriously asking me if Williams beat anyone above Layne's level? Williams beat Terrel and Terrel was certainly better than Layne. It's not even close.

You stubbornly refuse to admit Walcott has many bad losses that he has no excuses for while offering no excuses for Williams. You're a nit-wit hypocrite.

 

Yes but still you did not bring me anything but his excuses for being shot.
He wanted to fought like that so that is his problem if he fought wounded just like Tyson fought sick and unprepared.
Lost is what counts, and he lost against Chuvalo who was not near lever of Rex Layne.
Rex Layne, a powerful puncher, who knocked out 25 of his first 36 opponents. 69% is a better fighter than Chuvalo and gave many good fighters helluva fight and beat someone who beat Williams.

Yes he did in their first bout even Joe Louis apologized for that.

And he beat him in their 4th match too.And also he gave him helluva fight in their first two bouts.
Charles was not past prime and he was way younger than Walcott, 7 years if I am correct so no he was not past his best when he came after very good wins.

Nope I just said straight facts and those are that Walcott is not that bad as you want to build him to hype Williams and Liston but when I do that again you just brag?Double standards again.
Walcott beat Charles,beat Louis in his first fight and gave Marciano hell and did Williams proved himself like Walcott did?
Nope.

Again excuses for Williams loosing because you wanted to hype him so you can claim Liston beat someone but...Chuvalo was lesser boxer and puncher than Layne again.
If Layne was bad boxer than Chuvalo how he then stopped Satterfield who stopped Cleveland Williams?
Rex Layne, a powerful puncher, who knocked out 25 of his first 36 opponents. 69% ko percentage.
Chuvalos best Win is controversial win against Quarry while Layne beat Satterfield,Johnson and Walcott.

Again about Layne, he beat a man who beat Cleveland Williams easy in 3 rounds.
He also beat Johnson and Walcott.Rex Layne, a powerful puncher, who knocked out 25 of his first 36 opponents. 69% KO percentage.
William did not beat anyone close to Satterfield or Walcott level did he?
Nope.
Heavyweight Action ranked Rex Layne as the 11th best heavyweight boxer of the decade of the 1950s, with the top 3 spots held by Marciano, Walcott and Charles.
Here is Rex Layne sparring with Joe Louis yeah, he was that bad that Louis said he was excellent boxer.

This content is protected

heres what john garfield had to say about layne

"Throw out the record book on Layne, he was a rugged brawler with a quick, very heavy right. As he got shopworn and discouraged, more and more, he got outworked and beaten down.

But, when he first raged out of Utah -- full of **** and vinegar -- he'd have been a handful for anybody. He could crack with that right."



"Layne looms as the outstanding prospect west of the
Mississippi. He is a hard hitter... Layne has what it takes to be developed
into the next world heavyweight king. He can hit and has an abundance of
courage." - Nat Fleischer wrote in 1951

Both Dempsey and Gene Tunney had seen Layne in his fight with Satterfield and were high on him. "Polish up his defense and you have a prospective champ," was their chorus.