Rate the quality of Sonny Liston's resume

By the way, for all the new Chuvalo spin in this article, he would have five fights against top men over the next two years--Patterson, Terrell, Ali, Bonavena, and Frazier. He lost them all.

As well as losng to Eduardo Corletti.

 

No biggie. I'm not willing to die on this hill.

I never said Biden would end up ranked alongside Truman—I said his legacy might age similarly, which is a different point entirely. Truman left office deeply unpopular and was written off by many at the time, only for his reputation to steadily climb over the decades. That kind of long-view reassessment is what I was referring to.

And for what it’s worth, in the most recent presidential rankings released last year, Biden came in at 14th—far closer to Truman than to either Pierce or Hoover. So if we’re talking about where historians currently place him, the data already leans more in my direction than yours.

Just so I have this clear, the 23-year-old Ernie Terrell—an accomplished amateur with two Golden Gloves titles, five years as a pro, and over 20 fights under his belt—was "green," but the 20 year old Williams, who had less experience across the board, wasn't? How does that make sense?
And why is Terrell being unrated supposed to matter? Williams was unrated too—and unlike Terrell, he was still years away from earning a ranking. Terrell, by contrast, would break into the rankings within a year.

As for the idea that Terrell drastically improved in between their two fights—I'm not convinced. If he had developed that much over the course of just six fights, he should’ve made easy work of Williams in the rematch, especially with Williams fighting injured. But instead, Terrell barely edged out a split decision and had to hang on for dear life in the final round. That doesn't scream "massive improvement" to me.

I just looked back, and you listed Miteff's win over Holman to justify Miteff's ranking, not necessarily to give him credit for the bout. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and concede the point.

Agramonte was 5-3 against unranked opponents. Holman and Miteff were fighting ranked opponents for the most part. Agramonte had clearly seen better days, and his lack of a rating reflected this. As did the 20+ losses and literally countless knockdowns preceding this bout.

Funny how Agramonte being “only 28” is used to downplay any decline, yet wins over Miteff (26) and Alonzo Johnson (27) are dismissed because they were supposedly “older.”

If 28 isn’t considered past it, then what exactly makes 26 or 27 too old to count? You can’t have it both ways.

Holman was showing some signs of decline but was nowhere near the end of his career. In fact, he had nearly knocked out Miteff in their previous fight and had every intention of continuing. He was still capable of working his way back into the top ten—and had been ranked in the top 10 more recently than Agramonte by the time of their fights. Hell, he was ranked as high as number 3 just the year before. It was the brutal knockout loss to Williams—so severe that it took several minutes to revive him—that ultimately ended his career.

Already addressed Chuvalo's manager and trainer in a prior post.

But if Williams was already outperforming Chuvalo at that stage in their careers, then the gap between them is even wider than I initially believed. Chuvalo hadn’t shown significant improvement since the “draw” with Miteff (and I use that term very loosely) and the split decision win in their rematch—by only half a point, and on hometown cards at that. Meanwhile, Williams clearly demonstrated his superiority in his very next bout against Miteff by dominating and stopping him early. Thanks for helping me finally recognize just how much superior Williams is compared to Chuvalo.

 

"Biden" "Truman" Biden's "legacy might age similarly"

This interests me more than the boxing discussion. I would point out a big difference. Despite the 1952 bad blood between Truman and Ike, and the usual democrat versus republican and vice versa over the top rhetoric, Eisenhower represented basically a continuation of Truman's policies. After all, he had executed those policies, and even helped shape them, especially in Europe. Ike's Secretary of State, Dulles, had also been in the Truman administration. He had negotiated the 1951 peace treaty with Japan. And there were other senior Eisenhower admin figures like Beetle Smith and Joseph Dodge who came from the Truman administration. There were some differences, but in the main it was continuity. Same domestically. Ironically, on the big question of civil rights, Ike might well have been more in line with Truman's desegregation policies than Stevenson. Ike finished desegregating the military, and also desegregated the federal government. Stevenson in 1952 chose segregationist Alabama senator John Sparkman as his VP running mate.

In contrast, Trump is dismantling Biden's policies. Biden himself has said his legacy is being destroyed by Trump. If true, what will this leave for history to credit Biden with?

"Biden came in at 14th"

In the middle of his administration? Like crediting a victory in a football game off a first quarter field goal. All this proves is the bias of the scholars involved.

And the question of Biden's mental fitness is certainly on the table. How will he be judged if it is determined he never was the hands-on president due to dementia? What sort of comparison can be made with the buck stops here decisive Truman?

 

"Already addressed Chuvalo's manager and trainer in a prior post."

To avoid being heavy handed, I was facetious in my comment on your take on Chuvalo's management and training. I don't know if the above comment is facetious, but I'll be direct. The Sports Illustrated Article I quoted shows that you knew nothing or next to nothing about Chuvalo's early career. You were simply blowing smoke.

"Miteff"

Comparing Chuvalo's first fight with Williams performance against Miteff is insanely unfair. Chuvalo was 20 and had only 64 pro rounds and was going against a rising #5 rated Miteff. Williams was 28 and had been a pro for 14 years. He was at his peak, It is probably his best win over a rated opponent.

It is true that a peak Williams did better against Miteff than Chuvalo and Cleroux to a degree--both did beat Miteff--in 1961, but none of the three did as well as Mike DeJohn, who blew out Miteff in one. By your logic, this makes the young DeJohn better than all three.

Of course, this logic is nonsense. A fighter can't be judged off one opponent. It is the whole career. And it might be a cliche, but styles do make fights. Look at Schmeling against Baer and against Louis, and Louis against Baer. Or Norton and Frazier against Ali versus Norton and Frazier against Foreman.


"Agramonte" "countless knockdowns"

Agramonte---stopped 7 times in 72 fights (1 per 10)

Miteff--stopped 8 times in 39 fights (1 in 5)

Holman--stopped 7 times in 45 fights (1 in 6.5)

Satterfield--stopped 13 times in 79 fights (1 in 6)

So Agramonte was the most durable over his career. 28 was his age. And he was still able to win fights against winning fighters.. Holman, Miteff, and Agramonte were all losing consistently to good men. My point is they are on the same plane.

I want to make the point that I am not that high on Chuvalo either. He is much like Williams. A lot of talk of about a "new" Chuvalo, but losing to the better men. With a ton of excuses. And a puffed up record full of ham and eggers.

Williams--with Satterfield he was inexperienced despite 40 pro fights. if it is brought up that Chuvalo or Cleroux or Lavorante had bigger wins, the excuse will be that Williams didn't fight Jones or Harris or Folley. The defeats after 1964? Including Cleroux and Chuvalo. After the shooting so don't count.

So an excuse for everything. The problem is the accomplishments just aren't there, so at best it is potential and an enigma.

 

I’ll concede I was mistaken about McWhorter being there from the very beginning — fair point. But the rest stands. Chuvalo was clearly well-trained early on, which is why he was consistently matched against far tougher opposition than many prospects (including Williams) at that stage of their careers. That didn’t happen by accident.

The problem is that Chuvalo didn’t appear to improve significantly after his first fight with Miteff. Even in their rematch—when Chuvalo had far more experience—he still only managed a hometown split decision win by half a point over a Miteff who according to you was "older" and already in decline.

DeJohn was better than Chuvalo and Cleroux, but he wasn’t on Williams’ level. Outside of Miteff, Williams consistently performed better against their common opponents. He earned a draw with Machen, while DeJohn was badly beaten by him twice. And while Billy Daniels thoroughly outclassed DeJohn, Williams handled Daniels with ease.


Dejohn was 3-5 against common opponents. Williams 4-2-1.

Fair enough, what opponents of Williams do you feel Chuvalo might've done better against? Think he gets a draw with Machen? We know he couldn't beat Terrell or hold him to a SD.

Not sure why you conveniently left out the part where I said "preceding this bout" in regards to Agramonte's knockdowns.

Miteff had been stopped 3 times before fighting Williams while Agramonte twice that.

They were absolutely not on the same plane. Miteff was still rated for a reason. Holman had just been number 3 the previous year. Agramonte hadn't been ranked in years.

Holman was also losing only to ranked fighters at that point.

Please do tell what were the rankings of Bob Dunlap, Kid Riviera, Billy Gilliam. who Agramonte was losing to.

I'm not high on Chuvalo either. Highly overrated. He fought four punchers, two shot (one of them literally), and struggled greatly with them, and was flat out stopped by the other two punchers he fought who were green.

You forgot to mention that Williams had zero amateur fights, a remarkably low number of rounds for his 40 pro bouts, and a glaring lack of quality opposition — not to mention he was a last-minute substitute.

Meanwhile, a 23-year-old Ernie Terrell, with the same number of pro rounds but a decorated amateur background, is labeled “green” by you — and you cite his lack of ranking to support that. Yet somehow, Williams doesn’t get the same consideration, despite being years away from a ranking, while Terrell would earn his within a year. That’s a pretty selective standard.

Then again, Williams offered Jones $60,000 for a fight and got nothing but silence in return.

The only person making excuses here is you. Every one of Williams’ impressive wins during his prime gets dismissed, while his earlier wins—against supposedly weaker opposition—are used to argue he wasn’t as green as people claim. The goalposts keep moving.

For example, Agramonte is framed as"only" 28,

but Miteff at 26 and Johnson at 27 are somehow “older”.

And then there's the Terrell fight: you claim Terrell was too green when Williams beat him, yet somehow Williams—who had less experience in every meaningful way when he fought Satterfield—doesn’t get the same benefit of the doubt. It’s not analysis at that point, it’s just spinning narratives to protect a preferred view.

 

"I concede I was mistaken about McWhorter"

Yes. And more in error about Ungerman. He did not become Chuvalo's manager until 1964.

"Clearly Chuvalo was well-trained from early on." -- "The problem is Chuvalo didn't appear to improve significantly after his first fight with Miteff."

Chuvalo and McWhorter in the 1965 lay the lack of improvement at the feet of poor training. What is your explanation?

Chuvalo "was consistently matched against tougher opposition"

And so has more matches against name fighters. This is spun as a negative versus puffing up a record against tomato cans. Chuvalo would later go the tomato can route quite a bit himself.

"DeJohn was better than Chuvalo or Cleroux"

DeJohn defeated Cleroux. But he lost to Chuvalo. What makes him better than Chuvalo? As for Williams, there is one common opponent you didn't mention. Liston. DeJohn went further in one fight with Liston than Williams did in two combined. If entire careers are considered, there isn't much to choose between these four. None would make my list of the top ten heavyweights of the 1960's.

On DeJohn, if compared with Williams. Williams defeated two fighters rated in the top ten when he beat them--Miteff and Daniels. DeJohn defeated five. Miteff, Powell, Richardson, Hunter, and Cleroux. Miteff, Powell, and Hunter were by KO.

"Please do tell me the ratings of Bob Dunlap, Kid Rivera, Billy Gilliam when Agramonte lost to them"

Dunlap was rated #7 by The Ring in ratings to September 18, 1952. He fought Agramonte on September 29. Dunlap was rated #5 for October.

Rivera was rated #10 by the NBA in their quarterly ratings to March 12, 1952. He fought Agramonte on June 4, 1952.

Gilliam was never rated by either as far as I can tell. (I don't have the Ring monthly ratings for 1953) but had wins in 1952 and 1953 over both Bob Baker and Nino Valdes. He was certainly a top 15 to 20 fighter.

"Miteff had been stopped three times before fighting Williams while Agramonte twice that."

Miteff was stopped 3 times in 32 fights. Agramonte 6 times in 70 fights. (and of course Miteff was on the cusp of being stopped five times in his next 7 fights. Agramonte would be stopped in 10 by Nino Valdes in his next and last fight after going a full ten with Williams)

"Williams offered Jones $60,000 for a fight and got nothing but silence in return."

I asked the internet to give me info about this offer, and received this reply:

"It appears there might be a misunderstanding or a lack of readily available information about an offer of $60,000 made to fight Cleveland Williams. No specific mention of this offer, including the date it was made, can be found."

So I would like a primary source. It does on the face of it seem over the top. Machen got $22,000 for fighting Williams. When was the Jones offer made and by whom? Would it have been credible anyway?

Much is made of Patterson choosing to fight Machen rather than Williams in 1964, but here are the WBA ratings for June of 1964:

Champion--M Ali
1--Doug Jones
2--Eddie Machen
3--Ernie Terrell
4--Cleveland Williams
5--Zora Folley
6--Floyd Patterson

So Patterson was fighting the higher rated fighter for a large purse. I won't second guess him on this one.

By November, the WBA had stripped Ali and their ratings:

Champion--vacant
1--Ernie Terrell
2--Cleveland Williams
3--Floyd Patterson
4--George Chuvalo
5--Eddie Machen
6--Doug Jones

Patterson had beaten Machen. Jones had lost a very close decision to Daniels and been KO'd by Chuvalo. Williams rose to #2 by outpointing Daniels. (my take--the two best active heavyweights, Ali and Liston, are not rated) And what actually had Williams done to rate ahead of Patterson? (Williams was shot late in that month and was removed from the ratings by the WBA--aside--was that fair?)

 

"What opponent of Williams do you feel Chuvalo might have done better against? Think he gets a draw with Machen? You know he couldn't beat Terrell or held him to a SD."

Interesting question. Williams has the edge against boxers. Hard to see Chuvalo doing anything against Machen. Hard to see Chuvalo lasting against the Liston of the Williams fights. The one major opponent I can see Chuvalo doing better against is Satterfield. Chuvalo had a chin and I can see Chuvalo hanging in there like Layne did and he certainly has the power to knock Satterfield out. Speculation. My guess would be Satterfield by a decision.

Chuvalo--"highly overrated. He fought four punchers, two shot (one of them literally) and struggled greatly with them . . . was flat out stopped by the other two punchers who he fought when greeen."

Chuvalo was stopped by Frazier and Foreman. But he fought a lot more than four punchers, punchers at least at some level. Besides Foreman, Frazier, and Williams, there were Patterson, Quarry, Bonavena, DeJohn, Cleroux. Chuvalo certainly lasted against more good punchers than Williams lasted against. Williams' comp for Foreman and Frazier, Liston, blew him out twice.

"Terrell, the same number of pro rounds, but a decorated amateur career"

The "decorated" career didn't keep Terrell from losing two fights to Johnny Gray in the pros.

You assume amateur careers were extremely valuable back then. How did 1948, 1952, and 1956 Olympic champions Rafael Inglesias, Ed Sanders, and Pete Rademacher, fare in the pros? And these were world champions, not guys winning local novice tournaments.

My point with Williams in 1954 and Terrell in 1962 is that they were at about the same point in their careers. They had about the same rounds but puncher Williams had quite a number of more pro fights. And he had the best win either had to that point over Omelio Agramonte. So my take is both KO's are on the same level, except Terrell seems to have done much better and lasted longer against Williams than Williams did against Satterfield. Either count both or dismiss both.

"Agramonte" "28"

That was his age. I was not comparing his age to any of Williams' opponents. All, after all, are young. My point was that he was obviously not aged. But every fighter mentioned--Agramonte, Holman, Miteff, Alonzo Johnson--was past his best and now losing frequently when Wliiams got to them. (this is not unusual--only a few fighters at any given time are top ten and on winning streaks)

"every one of Williams impressive wins"

But in the long run of history, how impressive are they? Some wins by other contenders:

Fireman Jim Flynn--Sam Langford and Jack Dempsey

Gunboat Smith--Sam Langford and Jess Willard

Paulino Uzcudun--Harry Wills and Max Baer

Johnny Risko--Jack Sharkey and George Godfrey

Steve Hamas--Tommy Loughran and Max Schmeling

Tommy Farr--Tommy Loughran and Max Baer

Lou Nova--Max Baer and Tommy Farr

Elmer Ray--Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles

Rex Layne--Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles

Bob Satterfield--Bob Baker and Nino Valdes

Harold Johnson--Jimmy Bivins, Clarence Henry, Nino Valdes, Eddie Machen

Jerry Quarry--Floyd Patterson, Earnie Shavers, Ron Lyle

Jimmy Ellis--Oscar Bonavena, Jerry Quarry, Floyd Patterson

And there are a ton of others who have one or more wins far more impressive than beating a still unrated contender in Terrell and second tier guys like Daniels and Miteff

 

The two situations aren't remotely comparable.

Terrell was two years older than Williams. He had been boxing professionally for five years, Williams for just two and a half. He boxed as an amateur for more than two years before that, Williams had no amateur career at all, just a handful of illicit 4-rounders in his mid-teens.

Being a champion amateur is no guarantee of professional success, but an amateur career provides a grounding in fundamental skills which a fighter can then build on. The alternative is to do what Williams did - turn pro as an outright novice and learn the basics in the ring, fighting every couple of weeks. The downside being that seventy years later people look at Boxrec and say, "Oh, he had a lot of fights. He was really experienced."

And of course, unlike Williams against Satterfield, Terrell wasn't brought in on two days' notice. He actually had time to train for the fight.

 

If Williams can be believed, he turned pro in 1947, seven years before the Satterfield bout.

He had about 40 pro fights, some apparently not on his official record, but mentioned in newspaper reports.

"He had a lot of fights. He was really experienced."

So your argument is that a having a lot of fights doesn't make one experienced? What exactly does?

"an amateur career provides a grounding in fundamental skills"

It could, but so does a professional career, of necessity. I simply don't agree with considering pro experience less valuable than amateur, especially back then.

 

Just on where I put Williams. Here are my ratings for the top heavyweights of the 1960's

1--Muhammad Ali
2--Sonny Liston
3--Joe Frazier
4--Floyd Patterson
5--Jimmy Ellis
6--Jerry Quarry
7--Oscar Bonavena
8--Ernie Terrell
9--Harold Johnson
10-Zora Folley
11--Karl Mildenberger
12--Eddie Machen

(Williams would be somewhere between 13-15 along with Chuvalo and Cleroux)

Who should Williams be rated above on this list and why?

 

No one's suggesting pro experience is less valuable than amateur. Only that, in the absence of any amateur experience at all, the early stages of a fighter's professional career are going to be spent making up that shortfall.

You do yourself no credit by attempting to spin the six bouts Williams said he had before 1951 into an additional four and a half years to be tacked onto his professional career.

 

I am not spinning anything.

Williams himself is quoted that he started his career in 1947.

If these are the only six fights he had, it is fair to point that out.

As for pro versus amateur experience, in those days the pro rules were far looser and so amateur boxing might not prepare one for the type of attacks one got in the pros.

The bottom line is forty fights and over 140 rounds is significant experience.

 

Yes, I was wrong about that as well. I didn't read your notes on the articles, just skimmed through.

It wasn’t a matter of poor training. The reality is that Chuvalo simply didn’t develop much beyond what he showed in his first fight with Miteff. Their rematch confirmed that. He hit his ceiling early, and that was about as far as he was going to go. If you disagree, then point to a stage in his career where he clearly wouldn’t have needed hometown ****ery just to avoid a loss to Miteff (twice). And while you’re at it, did you ever find another fight where a guy scored one knockdown but somehow got credited for two on two cards—and three on the third?

No one is trying to spin this as a negative. The simple fact is that Chuvalo’s fights against tougher opponents provided him with exponentially more valuable experience than the guys Williams faced.

Chuvalo defeated Dejohn at the end of his career with a majority decision.

Dejohn had much better performances against Miteff, and defeated Cleroux decisively which Chuvalo never managed to do.

Might have something to do with the fact that Dejohn was holding on for dear life inside.
"Not once in close did DeJohn work on the body of Liston instead of punching at the body he hung on."
Article clipped from Wisconsin State Journal - Newspapers.com™

as well as squatting to the floor to avoid punishment Article clipped from St. Louis Post-Dispatch - Newspapers.com™

Williams, on the other hand, had the courage to trade punches toe-to-toe with Liston and actively pursue the knockout—something he nearly got, Liston himself conceded. "I went out to feel him out in the first round and he almost knocked me out. I thought he had cut my throat" Source: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/54153015/daily-news-post/

He also rated Williams higher than Dejohn. "Two of William's losses came at the hands of Liston, who has said Williams was the hardest puncher he has ever met." https://www.newspapers.com/clip/51090697/sioux-city-journal/

It’s common sense that you’ll last much longer if you’re mostly trying to survive rather than genuinely going for the win.

Given your top ten presidential rankings, I'd consider this a credit to the aforementioned fighters. Obviously, Williams would be at a disadvantage of such a list considering he was shot before the halfway point of the decade. Despite this, Williams ranks higher than all of these men in such lists.

Heavyweight Action-1960s Rankings Williams is 11, while Chuvalo is 16. Cleroux and Dejohn do not make an appearance.

The Top Ranked Heavyweight Boxers of the 1960s Williams is 13, while Chuvalo is 16 again. Dejohn is 27. Cleroux is 38.


Williams also ranks above Chuvalo in the annual ring ratings every year until he's shot when he disappears entirely. The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: Heavyweight--1960s - BoxRec

I have zero doubt Williams could've replicated those wins (which he did in two instances). On the other hand, I doubt Dejohn replicates Williams' draw against Machen, nor his victory over Daniels. He failed miserably against both.

Fair enough, I'm admittedly unversed in that era. Even so, it's clear as day he was at the end of his career, considering he'd only fought once more.

Miteff on the other hand was just coming off the aforementioned half point SD loss to Chuvalo in his hometown and would on to give Ali
"Serious trouble during the early rounds".

Not sure where you're going with this. I was making the point that Agramonte had more wear and tear than Miteff going into their respective fights with Williams. Bringing up their post Williams bouts- doesn't change anyhing.

I was mistaken. It was $50,000 Article clipped from The Press Democrat - Newspapers.com™ It appears he also made offers to Folley.

You are mistaken. The issue isn't with Patterson choosing to fight Machen. It was his decision to fight Chuvalo. The WBA attempted to organize a tournament to determine a new champion for their vacant title. The plan was for the #1 contender to face the #4 (Terrell vs. Chuvalo) and the #2 to face the #3 (Williams vs. Patterson) in the semi-finals. But instead of following that structure, Patterson agreed to fight..... Chuvalo. This undermined the entire setup, prompting the WBA to abandon the tournament idea altogether and simply sanction Terrell vs. Williams as the bout for the vacant title.

"THE WBA after stripping clay of his crown, named Terrell, former heavyweight king Floyd Patterson, Cleveland Williams of Houston, and Doug Jones of NY to fight it out in a tournament to determine a successor to Clay. Since then, Jones onetime top contender, has lost to Billy Daniels, and George Chuvalo"
Jones was the original fourth contestant but after losing to Daniels and Chuvalo, was replaced by the latter.

Take it up with the WBA, not me. If Williams was really such a non-factor as you claim, he doesn't make it close to number 2.

 

I'll have to respond to the rest later but I'll have to single this out.

This isn't true. They had the same number of pro rounds but Terrell had an extensive amateur career prior. Williams didn't.

Fights aren't as important as the number of rounds if the number of fights don't quite match up with the rounds. For example, a guy can have 60 fights against cans, but if they all end in one round. He still has little ring time respective to his number of fights.

Just so I have this clear, Terrell and Williams, KO losses are about equal yet according to you,

What was that you were saying about spectacular double standards?

 

"The reality is Chuvalo didn't develop much beyond what he showed in his first fight with Miteff."

All sorts of things wrong here. First, you are criticizing Chuvalo for getting a draw with the #5 rated heavyweight (coming off a win over Valdes) in his 17th fight before his 21st birthday. Second, you ignore the film evidence of the McMurtry fight that he was still relatively crude compared to where he ended up after McWhorter took over. Third, Chuvalo is being criticized for doing so well when 20. If he flopped totally, like Williams against Satterfield, the case would be stronger that he later improved. What the fight indicated is he had the chin, toughness, and punching power to hang with a tough rated fighter very early in his career.

"home town decision"

You certainly hammer this.. You don't mention that Williams' draw with Machen was in Williams' hometown.

"Williams is 11, while Chuvalo is 16." "Williams is 13, while Chuvalo is #16 again"

Ballpark with my rating. If you agree with those ratings, we don't have that much of a disagreement.

"Cleroux is #38"

That doesn't really sound reasonable. Where was Terrell rated? Or Machen? After all, losing to Manuel Ramos might be considered worse than losing to DeJohn. I don't want to overrate Cleroux, but his record deserves more than that rating. One off night does not negate a career.

Patterson's "decision to fight Chuvalo"

Why not? The winner would get Ali if he beat Liston. Why would anyone care about Terrell? He won his "title" by beating Machen who was coming off a loss to Patterson. He defended against Chuvalo, coming off a loss to Patterson, and Jones, who was KO'd by Chuvalo. Terrell was totally a cheese champion. It was reasonable for Patterson to aim for a fight with the real champion.

None of this WBA stuff cuts any ice at all. I can at least understand their stripping Robinson when he didn't fight rubber matches against either Fullmer or Basilio. I can understand their position that Moore should give Johnson another shot. I don't agree with their actions but I can at least understand them. Stripping Ali? For defending against Liston? And trying to organize a tournament with Liston victims Williams and Patterson, plus Ali victim Jones, plus Chuvalo, and Terrell, their top contender off splitting with Williams and beating another Liston victim, Folley. This tournament was ridiculous. Doesn't mean the NBA (WBA) was always off the rails, but they obviously were in this case.

Miteff "gave Ali serious trouble in the early rounds"

I just watched this on you tube. It was Ali's 9th pro fight. He was a string bean at 188 lbs. Ali was only 19 and hadn't filled out at all. Miteff weighed 210. it appeared to me Miteff simply missed most of his head punches, often badly. He did do some body work, but I didn't see Ali in any trouble at any time. Miteff ate a lot of punches and was put down in the 6th by a right. He managed to get up but was in no condition to continue. I thought the judge who scored it 25-21 for Ali was accurate. One judge did have Miteff ahead, but for me that is a head-scratcher. The way the fight went shows who was landing the effective punches.

"green and unrated"

Unrated is factual. Fair point on green. Terms like green and prime are sloppy terms with no precise meaning.

"Chuvalo defeated DeJohn at the end of his career"

And Williams never fought him.

"DeJohn . . . defeated Cleroux decisively, which Chuvalo never managed to do."

Chuvalo won a UD over Cleroux, so it is not true he never beat him. I have seen DeJohn and Cleroux. I have not seen Chuvalo and Cleroux, so no way to judge the relative performances. Chuvalo's UD victory was sandwiched between two SD losses to Cleroux.

"The simple fact that Chuvalo's fights against tougher opponents grounded him with exponentially more valuable experience than the guys Williams fought."

So you are criticizing a fighter for fighting tough opposition. And ignoring that tough opponents might take more out of him. Everything is being spun in Williams favor. I don't give a fighter credit for not fighting worthy opponents.