Rate the quality of Sonny Liston's resume

You’re on fire Swag.

Especially re your highlighting of the number of limited round fights on Williams’ record - a fact that doesn’t seem to be being duly taken on board - and a fact that highlights that actual rounds fought should also be included in the calculations for so called “experience”.

I’ll just add that the Satterfield KO loss is often improperly fixated on and overly weighted for the purpose of discrediting Williams.

Reference to same for that very purpose always omits Williams young age, the fact that he was a late substitute and the fact that he had not yet matured into his fully prime size of 210-215 lbs.

Intentional omissions or not, they do not lend to due analysis’ which obviously then leads to skewed conclusions.

There is also the self contradicting dual claims that 1) Williams record was padded with few notable names appearing and 2) Williams was well “experienced” going into the Satterfield with a 36-1-1 record.

Sufficient to say that one can’t have their cake and eat it too.

And the crux point is, when reasonably and properly considered, how much does the Satts KO loss actually matter relative to the greater scheme of Williams’ whole career?

Prime Williams is reasonably calculated to have been be a far cry from the barely over 200 lbs near 21 yo version from 1954.

If the Satts loss meant what some people think or claim it to have meant, Cleve would’ve been crashing out again at some point before the Liston fights - but that didn’t happen.

Nor did it happen again through to Williams gun shot injury and nor did it happen again for another period after that, until the Ali fight - despite Williams then advancing age and the serious physical injury he acquired along the way.

 

“Big” Toney but not “Biggest” Toney that guy wasn’t very good.

 

I was told you were my friend by Mac I can see why lol give’m hell Lonny … but keep in mind we are all on the chopping block atm so do read the meatball, squabbles etc thread so you don’t accidentally become a causality lol.

 

No need for anyone to become a CAUSALITY,whatever that is. No need either for epiphets like liar, and massive hypocrite,let's all leave the personal insults out.

 

The "Liston cleaned out the division" mantra led me to do research on champions and how many of the contenders they had beaten when they became champion. I used The Ring Annual Ratings because they are consistent on the end of the year. I used the end of the year, and credited who defeated a contender before the end of the year (Louis, Charles, and Frazier) Just to see how the various champions from Baer to Frazier stack up. Listed is whom they had defeated and their rating, and who was the #1 contender if not listed:

Max Baer 1934
Primo Carnera #2, Max Schmeling #4, King Levinsky #5----(#1 contender, Steve Hamas)

Jimmy Braddock 1935
None----(#1 contender, Joe Louis)

Joe Louis 1937
Tommy Farr #2, Bob Pastor #8, Roscoe Toles #9-----(#1 contender, Max Schmeling)

Ezzard Charles 1949
Jersey Joe Walcott #4, Jimmy Bivins #7, Pat Valentino #8----(#1 contender, Charles--#2 Lee Oma)

Jersey Joe Walcott 1951
Ezzard Charles #1

Rocky Marciano 1952
Jersey Joe Walcott #1, Rex Layne #2, Roland LaStarza #7

Floyd Patterson 1956
Hurricane Jackson #1, Archie Moore #2

Ingemar Johansson 1959
Floyd Patterson #2, Henry Cooper #4, Eddie Machen #5, Joe Erskine #9----(#1 contender, Zora Folley)

Floyd Patterson 1960
Ingemar Johansson #2----(#1 contender, Sonny Liston)

Sonny Liston 1962
Floyd Patterson #1, Zora Folley #5, Cleveland Willaims #6

Muhammad Ali 1964
Sonny Liston #1, Doug Jones #10

Joe Frazier 1968
Oscar Bonavena #3, George Chuvalo #4, Manuel Ramos #8----(The Ring champion, Muhammad Ali)

**the big surprise is Ingo. Who would have thought he had more wins over his top five and top ten than Liston did.

 

Why can't you just admit you were wrong for once instead of manufacturing strawmen?

 

"you're painting a partisan narration"

That makes me unique? Actually, I think I am less emotionally involved in this debate than many on the other side. But that is only a personal opinion.

"let's keep it grounded in intellectual honesty"

Okay. But that should go for both sides. When I pointed out that Willie Meehan had beaten a prime Dempsey--September of 1918--I was told he was not prime. He only reached prime in 1919. Whatever. That was not you.

You're intellectual honesty take is yours, but I admit you made a valid point which I overlooked. Billy Daniels and Alex Miteff did have extensive amateur careers, and so got off to good career starts. They were at their best early in their careers. I just never thought of that. If that makes me intellectually dishonest, I have to plead guilty.

"The picture you are trying to paint of Williams, that he was a fringe contender, simply doesn't hold up."

I don't think I every used the term fringe contender. (Perhaps another poster did, and you are confusing us) I posted he was a decent contender, but not a top contender because he simply did not defeat a fighter who was highly rated when he fought them. My question is what would you call him and why? Did he rate above men who beat multiple champions like Ray and Layne? Above a guy who beat Schmeling and KO'd Loughran like Hamas? Someone with a run of KO's of rated men like Franklin? Did he accomplish more than Firpo? Nova? Valdes? Bivins? Should he rated above erratic types with lots of defeats but lots of big wins like Risko and Satterfield? With solid runs of wins over second tier guys like Baker who rose higher in the ratings.

"Daniels"

The problem is Williams beat him twice by decision. In between these two fights he lost several fights including getting KO'd in three by Mildenberger. He did not actually win half of his career fights, going 23-21-4.

"Miteff"

Had lost 3 of his last 4, but to good fighters. Was still rated #9. Interestingly, was best when young. He had only 42 pro rounds under his belt when he faced Besmanoff, who had been rated. He had 62 pro rounds experience when he faced Holman and KO'd him in 9, in the fight right before Williams outpointed Holman in ten. He met Valdes with 79 rounds of pro experience.

"Holman"

Had lost five of six, and was coming in off a KO defeat to Miteff.

These are worthy victories on a resume. They shouldn't be the best, or close to the best, for a really top man though.

So it boils down to a somewhat green Terrell, who was not yet rated, and whom Williams lost a rematch to. Williams deserves credit, but how much? Each to decide.

end of part one

 

https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-...st-fight-Was-he-ever-reprimanded-for-doing-so

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/rocky-marciano-vs-sonny-liston.432718/page-49#post-18696108

https://www.b0xingscene.com/forums/...se-of-you-who-put-think-marciano-is-overrated Replace 0 with o
Then there's your permabanned alt (one of them at least)

https://ringsidereport.com/?p=54591

https://www.b0xingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76182 Replace 0 with O.

 

"Williams' injuries held him back against Terrell. He couldn't sustain his usual aggression and was forced to fight in spurts, relying on his boxing skills."

I just watched the film. Honestly, Williams seemed slow. Did hand injuries cause that. Also he seemed wide open for right crosses. The left side of his cheek and eye ended up badly puffed. He could box, but his reactions looked slow, and he had Louis' weakness of being open to a right. Whatever else, he certainly threw a lot of fierce looking punches. He just often missed badly.

This is a fight folks disagree about. I had Terrell winning 6-3-1. It was a great fight, most unusual for Octopus Ernie.

"In the originally scheduled WBA title fight with Terrell--before Williams was shot--Williams likely would have come out on top."

Perhaps. But perhaps not. He lost to Terrell in 1963. Would the two years have helped the aging Williams? Anyway, rating a guy high for something he didn't actually do? I just don't go there. I rate on real world victories.

"If Williams had won, he'd have been WBA champion and likely picked up some defenses against Chuvalo and Jones."

Of course none of this happened.

"put him in a different light."

Somewhat. But let's not overdo it. If we accept this scenario, what would it mean? Williams would be the fourth best heavyweight. I can't believe anyone thinks the 33 year old Williams (if not shot) would somehow have been in Ali's class. And Liston? Liston had already crushed him twice. I don't think there is any reason to think a third fight would have seen a reversal. And I think Patterson was better and had a far better resume. Williams would have been a paper champion, not the best out there.

Anyway, nice discussion, from this virulent partisan.

 

But in the month Liston actually became champion he had wins against #1 Floyd Patterson, #2 Eddie Machen, #3 Zora Folley, #6 Cleveland Willams and #10 Mike DeJohn. It's an exaggeration to say he completely cleared out the division, but with wins against all of his top three plus two other contenders he came closer to it than most.

 

Okay, did I ever claim that I wrote those things?
Like, you use quotes from different forums and sources, does that mean that you also steal other people's quotes and thoughts?

You also claimed that my last comment was stolen or copied and pasted, but instead of providing any evidence to support this, you brought only accusations and insults, even knowing that it was my post, and I can confidently claim that I wrote it.

 

Okay. Good point.

I used The Ring Annual ratings for consistency and because I didn't have access to full monthly ratings.

 

201lb Williams was 35-1-1 when he fought Satterfield. A professional for 5 years & literally just a few days away from his 21st birthday .. & though not much amateur experience it is documented that he took up the sport aged 14.

190lb Rex Layne though a couple of years older had been a professional for just TWO years when he scrambled a much fresher Satterfields brains in 8 rounds..

& was it just forgetfulness or wilful ignorance that you failed to add that Satterfield had lost TWICE the same year as the Williams fight? That he was sliding somewhat.. so you can negate any 'green-ness' on Williams's part with the less mileage on the clock & massive weight advantage he had..

A small ageing Satterfield made an absolute mockery of Listons resume.. King, Valdes, Summerlin, Marshall, Williams.. he also beat many of Williams opponents too.. & you've all got the nerve to pull the smaller Marciano apart? Big Cat & Valdes couldn't KO a LHW who Layne , Moore & Charles annihilated...

What was so markedly different to the version Liston beat anyway? The two fellas Williams beat before Liston were truly atrocious.. I'm not exaggerating:

Howie Turner who was 1-1-4 in his last 6 fights & coming off a loss

Ollie Wilson who was 10-15-0 & coming off 4 straight losses & had an overall losing record

LMAO.. & this fella Williams is one of Listons best wins.. can u imagine that today?! Seriously

Shall i go on?

John Holman 1-6 in his last 7 fights , was coming off 2 losses

Bob Albright 1-4 in his previous 5 fights, was coming off a loss..

They were all literal losers?

185lb Frankie Daniels.. why was Williams even fighting this guy twice at that stage of his career? Daniels was 34-14-2 & had already lost to an ageing Bob Satterfield twice..

This is monumental levels of corrupt embarrassing padding.. Williams had done NOTHING leading up to Liston & you're all acting like he was some ****in monster by then... all i take from his record leading up to Liston is they knew he wasn't really a world beater & was extremely vulnerable & so matched him accordingly.. & if Williams was extremely green then i dunno wtf a 2-6-1 Clifford Gray was.. another fella Williams fought on his comeback trail to Liston.. i mean what the actual ****?!

Williams was a BUILT fighter for the era & is someone the Liston fan boys cling on to because shattering his mystique shatters Listons.

Well it just got shattered.

 

Do you know what the word gullible means? You are citing newspaper betting odds from the 1950s.. the sport in Listons era was as bent as a mobsters promise.. its marketing ffs.. it's one way they built up certain fighters.. make out he's up against the odds to the casuals (when he's really not) whilst simultaneously
cashing in... then when he wins its a win win for those involved.. back then your average joe didn't have the resources we have today to actually look at just how evenly matched they are.

Look at that fight in full context .. Henri was 16-23-1 (at the time of the fight) & 190lbs.. in the same year that Williams beat him he was also KOd in 2 by 177lb Julian Keene .. & prior to that Marciano opponent kid Matthews had taken care of him in 2 also.. a seasoned professional .. that's how u wanna swing that? He was PADDING...

He beat 2 opponents? Two solid wins? Who? 179lb Lalu Sabotin who never got a decent win his entire career & 182lb Art Swiden who had by that point beat 9 debutees & had took 8 losses against his non debutants & 2 draws? GTFO..

You really do have to reach to find any semblance of credibility for Williams you lot sometimes don't u? Go find me another Frankie Daniels scares Marciano sparring story or something because that was an atrocious attempt LOL.. & YES.. he was SUPPOSED to blitz them.

A 'seasoned professional'

 

Ok but who do you miss on Liston's CV between 1958 and 1964?

It is said that Ali was in his prime in 1965-67, that he was never better. Based on what fights is this considered?