Ken Norton vs Big Cat Williams

What doesn't make sense? - new fighters were breaking into the upper echelon of the rankings (Ali and Jones), while Williams came up short when he tried to step up his comp (against Machen).

Why does that automatically mean Williams should be moved up over them without actually scoring a big win himself? Both Moore and Folley had each scored bigger wins that year than Williams had, or probably ever did in his whole career.

 

It's not simply a matter of "lumping in a couple fights" - it's a consistent trend throughout his career that he failed to win whenever he stepped up his competition beyond simply the journeyman/fringe contender level. Even in the case of the Terrell fights, he beat Terrell when Terrell was still unranked and on the way up, but he couldn't replicate that feat once Terrell was good enough to become a rated contender himself.

 

"The two or three best heavyweights in the game" were the ones that could actually beat Machen - Johansson, Folley, and Liston had already done so decisively before Williams attempted the same, and probably against a better version of Machen (since he wasn't on the cusp of a mental breakdown at the time of those fights). Williams came up short in his own attempt to follow in those fighters' footsteps.

 

You're looking at this like you're just scanning Boxrec.

I'm looking at 1961 and 1962. Johansson was done. Foley was knocked out by light heavy Jones. Machen was shipped off to a mental institution.

Johansson never beat Williams. Zora never beat Williams. Hell, Machen didn't beat Williams, either.

But you have them ALL BETTER THAN WILLIAMS. Based on what? Williams losing to Liston? None of those guys (including Patterson) beat Liston either.

Williams gets a bum rap around here because he lost to Liston twice. But nobody else was beating Liston, either. Certainly not Patterson.

We know Machen couldn't beat Patterson. We know Johansson got stopped twice by Floyd. If you want to rate Zora over Cleveland, fine. But Zora was getting knocked out by light heavys in 1962. So I don't agree. Ingemar was getting floored and nearly KOed in one by a nobody in 1962, so I'm not buying him, either.

From 1962 until he was gunned down when he was the number-two contender behind Liston and the champ Ali, Williams was no worse than the third best heavyweight. Probably the second best in 1962, before Clay made his move.

And I think he'd have beaten Patterson - which none of you guys seem to disagree with either.

Norton could beat Ali, but he couldn't beat Foreman. Norton didn't fight Lyle. Norton couldn't beat Holmes. Norton barely edged Young. But Norton is viewed as no worse than the second best heavyweight through the second half of the 70s.

I view Cleveland Williams the same way during the first half of the 1960s. I think Liston owns him (like Foreman owned Norton). But I think Cleveland was as good or better than everyone else (including Patterson).

If there aren't head-to-head matchups to view, sometimes you just have to trust YOUR EYES.

Watch Cleveland Williams tear into Sonny Liston in their first fight, and tell me Floyd Patterson beats that guy. Hell no. Tell me Johansson beats that guy? No.

Ali ... Liston ... Williams - I'd take those three over anyone else from 1960-1964. Patterson, Johansson, Machen included.

 

How many times was Patterson decked by Liston and Ali? Machen didn't beat Williams, either.

Williams knocked out Terrell. Then, after Liston won the title and Williams didn't have a shot at ever getting a title fight with him, Terrell won a split decision over Williams.

And the official ratings body at the time still considered Williams better than Terrell, even after the decision, because they kept Williams rated above Terrell.

Had Williams not been shot by police, he and Terrell would've fought for the vacant WBA belt in 1965. Williams was rated one spot above Ernie and they had begun negotiations when he was shot (so Machen, who Williams was also rated above, got the fight instead).

So, we'd know who was better in the rubber match between Williams and Terrell had it taken place. But it didn't.

But, scanning boxrec, you seem to be under the impression Terrell's split decision win carried more weight than Williams' KO of Terrell.

IT DIDN'T.

Just like Roy Jones' majority decision over Tarver, and then Tarver's ko of Jones ... didn't leave Roy Jones rated ABOVE Tarver.

KO wins are more impressive than narrow split decisions. They were then. There are now.

Nobody beat Williams for 14 years from 1954 to 1968 ... except for Ali and Liston. Terrell edged him once, but Williams' KO of Terrell trumped it (according the sanctioning body).

You can nitpick how dominant he was over every guy he fought, and try to knock him down, but nobody beat him. Light heavys like Doug Jones weren't starching him.

I'm leaving for the weekend.

But I enjoyed the debate.

Bottom line, Cleveland Williams and Ken Norton aren't that much different. If Williams hadn't been shot, he'd have probably even won the WBA title against Terrell ... which would've been a bigger accomplishment than Norton just being hand his WBC strap.

Anyway, gotta go.

Peace. :good

 

It's worth pointing out that when he got KO'd by Williams Terrell was just an untested prospect who was yet to beat a single rated heavyweight. All his noteworthy wins (against Jones, Machen, Chuvalo, Folley etc) and attaining contender status came after his loss to Williams. Against an older and more experienced Terrell, Williams lost. And Terrell is the closest thing to an elite level heavyweight on Williams' list of wins.

 

Good point. Williams record is so padded. Not saying he couldn't punch and that alone would make him dangerous for Norton.

 

Since when does getting dropped in a fight that's otherwise dominated make a fighter "done"?

You keep isolating on the fact that Foley was KO'd by Jones, but ignoring the fact that he had decisively beaten Cooper and Cleroux around that same time, which are both better wins than Williams ever scored in his entire career.

Nor did Williams beat them, nor did he even beat fighters of their level (whereas Johansson and Foley did beat fighters of Williams' level or better), or even the level of their best wins (like Machen) - and he came up short any time that he tried.

Based on the fact that they succeeded against a level of opponent that Williams was never able to.

Since when is "tearing into" a fighter for a round without making headway and then crumbing soon afterward an achievement?

It would make much more sense to argue, "Look at Machen holding Liston at bay for an entire fight and tell me Patterson and Johansson beat him" - but even that argument doesn't hold any water.

Which makes no sense, since you'd be taking Williams over fighters that he already drew and lost against in that time frame, in addition to other fighters of a level that he never succeeded at.

 

The title of this thread is big cat Williams vs Ken Norton. Assuming we are talking about who would win vs the two it would be Williams hands down. Norton could not handle huge punchers and by all counts Williams was one huge banger. I watched live Norton being obliterated by Garcia, Foreman, Shavers and finally ****ey. It would be little different if he fought prime Williams.

 

Agreed.

 

But if you're going to hold Norton's early and late career KO losses against him, then you'd also have to consider that Williams was KO'd by the likes of Satterfield, Mac Foster, and others, which would murk the waters quite a bit.