Is DaVarryl “Touch of Sleep” Williamson underrated?

It's ok to be a fan of Wlad, you don't have to be a fanboy. Claiming that Wlad didn't duck Williamson 2 and implying that unranked unknown nonentity Eliseo Castillo was a more interesting or worthy opponent is fanboy stuff.

An immediate rematch would have been very interesting because of the controversy of the first fight (should it have been stopped? Was Wlad going to win having been knocked down in the previous round with 5 to go?) Both men had a good chance to win, that's far more interesting than a rehabilitation knockover job. It's no coincidence that Sanders wasn't rematched and no coincidence that Brewster was waited out a few years. Wlad could have rematched Williamson to prove a point and set the record straight. It's not like Williamson was iron-chinned and couldn't realistically be KO'd. But he was dangerous, so it was swerved.

"theoretically his opponent didn’t have to be great to win"

There's nothing "theoretical" about it. He was coming off a loss to non-great Brewster, having previously been beaten by non-greats Sanders (although Sanders was a very dangerous 1-3 round fighter) and Puritty. He'd be knocked down three times by non-great Peter in his fight after next. The Williamson fight was in the balance and Wlad was very fortunate that it was stopped when it was.

 

Eurosport:

"The 29-year-old Klitschko, 44-3 (40), beat Byrd out of sight in 2000 and got by Williamson on a somewhat controversial split technical decision last October."

It's a controversial topic on this forum. Other articles where it's described as controversial:

https://www.boxing247.com/weblog/archives/124094

https://www.espn.com/sports/boxing/columns/story?columnist=graham_tim&id=2047276

https://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk...ng-klitschko-turned-his-career-around-2483564

Bleacher report article says the same

The fight was pretty much the definition of inconclusive and controversial. 5 round "Split technical decision" is almost the most controversial way you can win a boxing match.

"Horrible cut"

The cut was not in a bad spot and I've seen worse be allowed to go on. Compare:

https://img.championat.com/i/article/68/23/1.48976865668E+13.jpg

https://boxingjunkie.usatoday.com/w...-121-1-e1639809553873.jpg?w=1000&h=600&crop=1

"We don’t know if Wlad was fortunate that the bout was stopped when it was"

We don't know he would have lost but he was in obvious peril. He was fortunate to be given an instant-win rather than taking the significant risk of continuing in a dangerous fight that was only at the halfway point.

Here's a blatant lie:

“I don't see any sense in fighting Williamson again. For me this fight will not be a step forward. I understand his reasons for wanting to fight me. It's prestigious and financially favourable for him. But for me this fight will keep me at the same spot.” - Wlad Klitschko

Wlad would have been next in line for a shot at Byrd had he won, instead he fought unranked Castillo and complained that Williamson leapfrogged him in the IBF rankings after he beat McCall 40 days later and ranked Jefferson after that.

 

"Trust me this guy despises Wlad."

As much as you love him? I find that hard to believe.

 

You claimed that Wlad didn't duck a Williamson rematch and implied that unranked nonentity Eliseo Castillo was a better opponent.

You claimed that the fight wasn't controversial.

You claimed that "you need more than what Williamson's got to beat ATG Wlad", despite Wlad losing to a journeyman and two fringe contenders and Wlad being in serious trouble against Williamson halfway through the fight when he was given the instant-win by the doctor.

You're a dishonest fanboy.

 

If Williamson was a journeyman, I shudder to think what guys like Chagaev and Chambers were.

Williamson went through a few names on Wlad's record: Barrett, Jefferson, Brewster (multiple times), Brock (multiple times), Thompson. He also tried to make fights with Mercer and McCline in the pros, who bailed for one reason or another.

 

Dumb boring comment from a dumb boring poster.

 

It's interesting that Williamson, who came 1st or 2nd closest to beating Wlad out of his 64 victims, who took the 3rd least damage of his 69 opponents and who was blatantly swerved by team Wlad, is frequently unmentioned as one of Wlad's best opponents. Whereas several Wlad-victims with with no real gameplan and inferior attributes who were thoroughly dominated by Wlad are rated more highly. I think the Williamson fight is one they'd rather memory hole.