Cleveland Williams in the 1930s

Your replies suggest otherwise.
The old timers suck, deal with it.

 

FIlm doesn't show, the punch landing. Carnera's back actually obstructs the view so we don't know. I don't think Sharkey faked it but it is open up to interpretation especially given both men's character.

So ring magazines, and respected historians don't count but random posters on a boxing forum are fair game when it comes to validation? Got it.

You say Jack was coming off a win over Schmeling, to support Carnera's win over him.

1. Virtually everybody agrees it was a robbery.

2. Sharkey had been out of the ring for over a year, by the time he faced Carnera, and even die hard Carnera fans concede Sharkey was past his prime.

Then you have Williams! Ernie, he might have beat a contender who was nothing special was he even ranked? a gate keeper at that point a guy who lost 3/4 other fights that year with his sole win being over a guy with a 6-22 record. Ernie was five years into the game. Yeah, it is what it is. [/QUOTE]
Again, going by this logic you can easily dismiss many wins such as Machen's win over Quarry, Frazier's win over Mathis, etc. I also don't know why you think Terrell was Williams best win. He was not even ranked at the time Williams beat him. Williams' wins over Miteff, Daniels, and Rischer were much better, as was the majority draw with Machen that most in attendance, and one judge thought he'd won clearly.

Terrell was the best fighter of the mid-60s not named Muhammad Ali. I don't know why you're trying to dismiss a win over him. In a 5 year period, he'd beaten Folley, Cleveland, Machen, Jones, etc and won the WBA championship. The only two people to beat him were Williams and Ali, and only Williams knocked him out.

I genuinely don't understand a word of this.

Please stop with the damage control. Your homophobia is just as glaring as your racism, much as you try to deny both.

Terrible wording from a terrible poster? Color me shocked

 

Again, going by this logic you can easily dismiss many wins such as Machen's win over Quarry, Frazier's win over Mathis, etc. I also don't know why you think Terrell was Williams best win. He was not even ranked at the time Williams beat him. Williams' wins over Miteff, Daniels, and Rischer were much better, as was the majority draw with Machen that most in attendance, and one judge thought he'd won clearly.


Terrell was the best fighter of the mid-60s not named Muhammad Ali. I don't know why you're trying to dismiss a win over him. In a 5 year period, he'd beaten Folley, Cleveland, Machen, Jones, etc and won the WBA championship. The only two people to beat him were Williams and Ali, and only Williams knocked him out.
I genuinely don't understand a word of this.


Please stop with the damage control. Your homophobia is just as glaring as your racism, much as you try to deny both.


Terrible wording from a terrible poster? Color me shocked[/QUOTE]

Cool.

What do you mean by the Ring Validating things like "top 100 punchers"? You are acting like a "historian" is invulnerable to stupidity. Have you seen some biased Historians lists? You also totally ignore my point there to keep being a diva. They're as open to fault as we are. If a historian rates Dempsey higher then Ali does that make it stand any sturdier? that is when we have film of both and complete records and newspaper articles?

I think Sharkey was in less then stellar condition in with Carnera. He just has to be better the Ernie who might have beat a guy who was okay 5 years prior. You ignoring all of Carnera's other wins? call it a robbery. I already explained this, it makes no difference.

Okay, getting desperate here. Terrell got better after the fight, it was his step up bout he beat Williams afterwards, and got better after that. Whatever way you want to spin it Terrell was a relative novice on the way up. Yes you can take the lustre off those wins but not dismiss them, wasn't Quarry like 18 fights into his career or something?

Alex Miteff? are you the full quid how can you even... He lost like 9 times before Williams and a bunch right after. he'd been through the trash compactor... he was about a year off retiring temporarily in 61 and losing to a 6-5-5 guy we have all never heard of. Every 'Daniels" on his record was a can and you know it, tell me about there impressive resumes and career right after or just before Williams. Rischer was another nobody who would go on to be a trial horse. Better off sticking with "Near prime" Terrell. Okay? he might have beat Machen but did he? No.

I don't dismiss his win over Terell I just acknowledge he was KO'd as a relative novice on his way up, the first big step up in his career. Like I said call him PRIME Terrell and he still isn't enough to be greater then the Preemium one.

Glaring Racism tell me more. Damage control? I called you fruity, I didn't go petrol bomb an LGBT parade. I don't even know what to say to this, you got woke like a fifteen year old girl on Tik Tok because another man called you Fruity for admiring half naked men's physiques, you should probably get testosterone replacement therapy. Your next post better have a semblance of intelligence and dignity or this "debate" is over.

 

Williams had the ability to do very well in the 1930s. But a lot would depend on how much backing he’d get in terms of management, promotion, training, etc. unfortunately there were a lot of good black heavyweights in those days who’s potential went unrealized.. Joe Louis was an extreme exception.

 

Said historian didn't rate Dempsey over Ali, and is well respected within the boxing community. I'll take them over a racist homophone who had Bonavena leading Ali 9-3.

After the Carnera bout, Sharkey had 6 remaining bouts and won only 2 of them. One of which have been all confirmed to be a fix, and his opponent was suspended for "not giving his best effort".

Terrell on the other hand, would go on to become WBA champion and after Ali the best fighter of the mid 60s.

Terrell was 23 years old, had been pro for 5 years, never been ko'd, and his last loss was against a contender TWO years prior. A controversial SD many thought he'd deserved.

He'd had 20 fights prior but would go on to beat London and draw with Patterson less than a year later. Also Machen was all but a shell of himself at that point in his career, having a mental breakdown after eliminating his chances at a title shot against Cleveland years prior.

I love how you're allowed to use his performances AFTER a bout to gauge what kind of level a fighter was but I'm not allowed to do the same. Double standards at their finest. Miteff was in his 20s off the top of my head, and coming off an SD to Chuvalo in Chuvalo's hometown, and nearly knocked out Cooper prior. Afterwards, he'd given a young Ali all he could handle prior to being stopped and was ahead on one card.

Rischer was not "another nobody" he'd had wins over King, Cooper, Powell, etc throughout his career and was a ranked contender.

I love how you mention, all the losses on Miteff's record going into the Williams bout but neglected to do the same for Daniels. Don't worry. I'll save you the trouble. He was ranked, coming off wins against Alonqi and Dejohn, 16-1 with that sole loss being to Muhammad Ali.

He was also not a can, prior to his second bout with Williams beating the aforementioned two men, and going on to beat Doug Jones.

I already did, in a previous post. I'm not interested in educating you further.

Hell of a lot better than anything Carnera could've achieved. Make me laugh by saying otherwise.

Please don't try to gaslight me. You're not nearly smart enough to do so.

 

So cruel!!

 

Again, that's not true at all. Carnera beating Loughran is more impressive than Williams drawing with Machen. I don't even have to mention Sharkey fight.

 

1. I was referring to anything Carnera could've achieved against Machen.

2. Regarding Carnera beating Loughran, I don't put much stock in it. Carnera was stepping on his toes all night, and their are suspicions of a fix "I had to knock him out to win, I had to agree to that"., and the judges scorecard seem to reflect that. Consensus was Loughran outboxed Carnera in the early rounds but that was not reflected in the score cards.

Also he was coming off an sd win against a washed up Sharkey who'd have 5 bouts after, winning only two, one of which was all but confirmed to be a fix. He'd also lost to Johnny Risko three fights prior.

 

I don't think Machen would have an easy time with Carnera at all. I can see Primo beating him with his size on the inside.

We have some footage from that fight, don't we? I don't see anything fishy about the footage we have. Loughran clearly wanted to win that bout.

I never saw anything suspicious about this fight. I don't like how people try to explain every single Carnera win with a fix. As I said, we have no strong evidence of any of his world level fights being fixed.

Losing to Risko is no shame. Machen lost to washed up Harold Johnson 6 fights before the Williams fight.

Carnera won the Loughran fight legitimately, Williams didn't beat Machen. I'd take Loughran over Machen personally.

 

Your line of thinking is not conducive to a decent debate. Neither is your intelligence- That much is certain Carnera may be inferior to Williams I don't really care. I was saying it half kidding in the first place and even if I wasn't your devotion to Williams is nothing less then strange. I can't be bothered anymore lol.

Falsely accusing someone of Racism and Homophobia is just about the bottom of the barrel this goes beyond lazy posting and reading, Shows how pathetic you are. Go, show me these unforgivable racist posts? Oh and while you are at it actual homophobic remarks. Show the forum what a fraud you are.

 

I actually had someone on here tell me that I was not taking into account his victory over Alex Miteff.

 

Of course they did.

 

Got to agree here Swag!

 

The Big Cat would clean everybody's clock but Louis, and even that's competitive.

 

Based on what?