While you and I seem to be on the same side of the argument I have to speak up in all fairness and say that Gregg being ranked #3. Was outrageous. Beating an aged Cobb and an obscure 15-0 prospect never should have gotten anyone close to a top 5 rating. It’s almost as outrageous as fighters who have lost most of their recent fights being in the top 10. Gregg was nothing special but I’ll maintain that he was at least fringe and winning most of his fights. It’s also been ignored that Cooney was on the comeback trail after nearly two years of inactivity when he blasted Gregg in one round.
Yes it was ridiculous. Gregg was too high. But I guess the guy he beat, Tex Cobb, was too high as well. By the same top ten Dokes certainly was! Sometimes I thought the organisation’s were installing fighters lower in their ranks to annoy their rivals who had them higher. Refusing to list each other’s champions etc.
Ratings both the magazine variety and the sanctioning body ones are to be used as a guide. Neither are perfect and neither are always wrong. I would certainly hate to think that all our discussions here should be reduced to one sentence - “ he was ranked by ring..”
Oh I know what was going on,I watched Miteff and Daniels on Saturday TV fights. I watched Williams in tv fights . Just as I watched Cooney being hyped up as the next White Hope by the Whacko Twins feeding him on barely warm bodies . I don;t rely on paper I rely on my memory of those fights,fights that I actually watched as they happened. Films of those fights that I bought. I also rely on my recollections of the shenanigans of corrupt organizations like the WBC and the corrupt man who headed itJose Sulaiman and his walking wallet Don King. No need for your sarcasm, but if you want to get into specifics of comparisons between the two, the Ring of the 1960's and the WBC I'm happy to do so. I'm very comfortable matching my knowledge of those times against yours ..
Yeah it’s just a guide. That’s why the level of exposure a prospect is getting goes a long way. If you look at the ratings of that year it’s surprising how eager the governing bodies were to list ticket sellers. Cooney shouldn’t have been installed at #9 just for announcing an intention to comeback. I think they did that to Tyson when he came out of prison as well! Talking of Tyson, before he even beat Marvis Frazier, Tyson made the rankings more because he was exciting and very active than from beating good rated fighters. They did the same with Bruno. He sold tickets. Makes you realise for all Williams was this big hitter, and he was constantly matched to win in Texas, he kind of lingered at “prospect level” for decades without creating anywhere near that level of drawing power did he? where as Tyson, Cooney and Bruno created unrivalled interest.
You’re missing my point. I’m not arguing that the WBC or the ring was better than the other. I’m arguing the fact that men who were losing most of their recent fights are being haled as better wins than men who weren’t. And if we’re honest, I remember MANY instances in the past where you made many observations that went something like this : “ so and so lost 5 of their last 6 bouts. “ remember those ? So In your great recollection of sixty years ago were Billy Daniels, Roger Rischer, Alex Miteff and the 199 lbs unranked Terrell head over heels better than Gregg, Norton, Young, Browne, Chaplin and Lopez ?? Did Williams look as impressive as Cooney beating them? Did Cooney ever lose a fight as badly as Williams did to a guy like satterfield ? And by the way I think it’s great that you have vastly more knowledge of boxing than I do, but for someone who says he doesn’t rely on paper you certainly use ring ratings as a concrete standard for just about everything
Valid points which I'll try to address All 4 of those were ranked 2 when Williams beat them.The only ranked fighter Cooney beat was no 10 Norton, 38 years old,having his last fight. Williams was impressive beating Daniels,Daniels did well to go the distance.Comparing eras really gets us nowhere.I dont think Cooney would have fought a prime Williams, which punchers did he face? An old Foreman who dismantled him thats it. . I think it very possible that Satterfield ranked no 9 would ko a19 years old late sub Cooney just as emphatically as Satterfield did, Holmes and Spinks stopped him and neither hit like Satterfield. I dont say Williams competition was head over heels better than Cooneys ,but at least they weren't for the most past barely warm bodies or trial horses. I havent even made a pick here. Im just taking exception to Chok trying to hype Gregg and disparage Williams as he has done as long as I have posted here. Want to look at Cooney's opposition when he went pro at 21. 0--,0 0-1-0 0-7-0 5-11-4 2-20-1 0-1-0 2-2-0 0-4-0 0-1-0 How do you think he would do at 22 against Satterfield? I don't want to fall out with you ,so that's my piece said.
Well Williams fought more often than Cooney but Cus D'Amato and Patterson said some things about Cooney you should check. Again, he went 12 rounds with the best man and beat Lyle,Young and Norton which Williams couldn't do. And again for Comparing Satterfield a bum with Spinks is more than crazy.
Twice. Daniels did well to last the distance twice. and everyone else Williams fought called Daniels (Frankie, Terry and Billy) all went the distance with Williams as well. Did They all “do well” to last the distance with Williams? And it was still a higher profile win than anything Williams had on his roster. Williams was almost about to “catch on” as a hype job when he was demolished by Satterfield. After a relaunch, another run of spectacular mismatches, Williams was almost about to catch on again as a major prospect when Liston demolished him. Twice. After this the mystique was over but Williams started to establish himself as a decent house fighter “contender type” when he was gunned down by a trigger happy lawman. Miraculously Williams was rolled out again & matched to win until given a title shot “for old times sake” but was demolished again by the worlds champion. After this was a period where Williams went on the road as a journeyman losing to name fighters but winning against unknown types until retiring whilst still Texas State champion. only a fool could claim Williams competition was head over heels better than Cooneys since Williams fought a lot of guys from the phone book called “Daniels” as well as one McDaniels, a “baby” a “candy” and a “graveyard”. The day jobs of these guys don’t bare thinking about. Gregg is not being hyped by me. The WBC and the WBA did it for him. They hyped up Gregg….but not as much as other people they have also ranked for far less reason. You can’t blame me. I’m just shining a light on it.
We’re not going to have a falling out over a disagreement. No worries there. But Cleveland Williams despite being very young and without an amateur career had still been in the pros for FOUR years and had a record of 30-0-1 when he dropped a decision to a guy who was around 6-3 or something like that. He Had been in the pros FIVE years with a record of 35-1-1 when he was knocked out by an aged veteran who weighed i believe in the 170’s. Ok so Daniels, Miteff and Rischer were ranked. But that could also have to do with the circumstance of the times and the landscape of the division. Can you imagine what people would say of Cooney if he had beaten a guy who was 1-4-1 in his last six bouts ? Let alone being taken the distance by him ? Terrell was apparently unranked in the first fight with Williams. Again I’m well aware that Norton, Lyle, and Young were past it. I’m equally aware that men like Gregg, Browne, Chaplin, Lopez and Denis weren’t world beaters. But to say that these men were canyons apart from Williams’ victims via age, obscurity or lack of magazine ratings is something I’m not on board with.
