Cleveland Williams vs Deontay Wilder - Ring Rated contenders defeated?

Ring didn't even rank the WBC Heavyweight Champion Tyson Fury when he entered the ring to defend his title last time out in front of 60,000 fans.

People gravitate toward them at times because they tend to rank all the organizations' champions (except when they don't, like with Fury), but their ratings are just as "fickle" as all the others. It's just a collection of people picking fighters, like every other org does.

Ring ratings have never gotten anyone a heavyweight title fight. The sanctioning bodies at any given time, whether it was the New York State Athletic Commission, the National Boxing Association, World Boxing Association, World Boxing Council, etc., are the ones who do.

Champions represent those organizations.

Deontay Wilder was the WBC champion. So Deontay Wilder fought WBC challengers. Just like Holmes. Just like Vitali.

 

You’re seeing three guys in the top 5 and a draw+classic trilogy with an ATG.

 

If they want to count sanctioning body opponents like the WBA's, so Cleveland can get his three wins, Wilder won the WBC title, made 10 successful defenses against WBC challengers, and knocked out the WBA #2 contender (Helenius) last time out.

So we'll give Cleveland 3 and Wilder 12.

 

You can't make a reasonable case for Wilders opponents being among the ten best in the world with the exception of Ortiz and Stiverne however. They simply don't have the wins/overall career accomplishments.

Both beat two guys one could reasonably argue were top 10 heavyweights

 

Daniels was ranked 8th by the WBA, but he was also ranked 10th by the Ring.

https://ibb.co/27b4ZgC

 

All ratings are arbitrary. Could you make a reasonable case that Tyson Fury is one of the 10 best heavyweights in the world? Ring didn't rate him most of last year even though he was the WBC Heavyweight Champion and made two defenses of his title last year, in front of a combined 150,000+ fans.

But Ring said, for much of the year, he wasn't one of the 10 best heavyweights.

Are we going by Ring ratings, sanctioning body ratings, the "reasonable case" ratings or the "what we feel" ratings?

Any time the tide turns in a debate, you guys want to change the rules.

All ratings are arbitrary. Guys who are connected or undefeated (or both) and coming up often get ranked before they beat anyone in the top 10, in every weight division, forever.

 

The ring magazine removed Fury from their rankings after he announced his retirement post the Whyte fight. I suspect it is their policy not to rank inactive/retired fighters, or fighters who had retired but now have a fight scheduled, until after their first comeback fight & are therefore active again.

You may disagree with that policy &/or their interpretation in enforcing it in this instance with Fury, but as I suspect you know, his omission was likely because of this policy, rather than them considering Fury active & eligible to be ranked, but not as deserving as the 10 x HWs they did rank going into Dec 2022.

I agree with your point that, as is the case with the various boxing organisations (e.g. WBC, WBA, etc.), the Ring magazine ratings are compiled by people & so are, to a degree at least, subjective. To my knowledge, unlike the various organisations, the Ring don't charge sanctioning fees. Put simply:

• Are the ring magazine rankings infallible? No
• When appraising a fighters career, are quantity of ring magazine ranked contenders beaten referenced on here more often than quantity of WBC, WBA, IBF or WBO ranked contenders beaten? Yes
• In the main, do the top 10 rankings of the ring more closely resemble the boxing public's perception of the most deserving fighters, than any of the organisations? Yes

Where a fighter has a dearth of victories over ring magazine ranked fighters, I think we should be careful not to conflate the following 2 x separate issues - 1) Blaming the fighter; and 2) How it impacts on how that fighter should be ranked in an historical context. That dearth of contenders may be entirely, partially or in no way, the fault of the fighter. Either way, it is a separate subject that doesn't change how many ranked contenders that fighter beat, which is typically a critical consideration when rating them.

Out of interest, how many of the opponents that Wilder beat, do you consider deserved to be ranked in the top 10 fighters in the world going into their fights against him?

 

Those sneaky *******s. Got in under the wire and rated for a few weeks.

 

My problem with people doing comparisons like these are obvious.

First, Deontay Wilder and Cleveland Williams never fought anyone based on their Ring rating, because those ratings never held sway. The sanctioning bodies of the time did.

Deontay Wilder won the WBC title and defended against WBC challengers. Wilder fought Robert Helenius (rated #2 by the WBA) to get a high WBA rating, because that's one way to get a high ranking in the WBA. (Now he's Usyk's #1 WBA contender). If Wilder fights Andy Ruiz, it'll be because the WBC says he and Ruiz need to fight to become the WBC mandatory.

Not because Andy Ruiz is rated #5 by Ring.

Just like Cleveland Williams fought WBA contenders in an attempt to get a title shot, because who the WBA rated mattered in getting a title shot. Not Ring. Ring Magazine ratings held no sway over who got a title shot in the 1950s and 1960s any more than they do now (and they hold none now).

That's how the game has always been played. So that's who they fight.

The only thing the Ring magazine ratings had going for them over the sanctioning bodies was they historically recognized the lineal champion and they included all champs in their ratings. That was their claim to fame.

Yet they even managed to BLOW that last year. I'm finished with them.


The second, and more glaring point, is simply "counting" Ring ranked contenders treats them as though they are "Apples to Apples" comparisons when judging quality of opposition. It's lazy.

I just looked it up (thanks to Solomon's tip), since I remembered I had the issue. Daniels was ranked #10 as of Sept. 11 ... 19 days before the Williams rematch. Then he got knocked out of the top 10.
https://ibb.co/ZL93b6Y
https://ibb.co/4Tcvcyj

On the other hand, the staff of Ring Magazine took it upon themselves to rank:
* Bermane Stiverne in the Ring top 10 every month for four straight years (from 2013 to 2017).
* Chris Arreola in the Ring top 10 every month for six straight years (from 2009 to 2015)
* Luis Ortiz in the Ring top 10 every month for seven straight years (from 2016 to TODAY).
* Tyson Fury in the Ring ratings for 11 straight years (2012 to TODAY) - the vast majority of time as champ.

How is winning a decision over Billy Daniels, who was in the Ring ratings for 19 days before the rematch, an equal one-to-one, apples-to-apples, comparison (or worse, insisting a decision over Daniels is better) than Wilder winning and successfully defending his title 10 times against longtime contenders?

How is decisioning 19-day-ranked Billy Daniels EQUAL to knocking out a guy like Luis Ortiz, who has been in the same Ring ratings every month for seven straight years, in a title fight?

Honestly? It's lazy.

And how big of a "hater" does someone have to be to push that agenda with a straight face?

If Ring ratings got you title shots, boxers would target those contenders. But it's not how you get title shots. Fighting contenders rated by the sanctioning bodies do.

And whether we like it or not, if wins over contenders rated by sanctioning bodies have ALWAYS been the route to get title shots and keep your title, then who REALLY are the top contenders - the contenders that get you in line for title shots, or the ones who don't?

That's really all I have to say on that.

Until the "Who Beat More Ring Ranked Heavyweights - Duane Bobick or Usyk?" thread gets posted .

Gotta go.

 

I agree neither Wilder nor Williams selected their opponents based on their ring magazine rankings. I've not seen that point contested.

I haven't seen anyone claim the quantity of ring magazine ranked opponents beaten should be the sole arbiter of how a fighter's career should be assessed. I agree with you that it shouldn't.

I also do not recall seeing, prior to this thread, any poster referencing the number of WBC (or any other strap) ranked contenders a fighter has beaten, in relation to a discussion appraising that fighters career.

I have seen many posts, from various different posters, on multiple threads, referencing the number of ring magazine ranked contenders numerous fighters have beaten, as a key indicator to the quantity of world class opponents that those fighters beat.

As per my previous post, I believe that the ring magazine rankings more typically reflect the views of independent, knowledgeable boxing fans, than those of any of the individual organisations. It therefore stands to reason, fallible as they are, that ring magazine rankings are the best, objective, quantifiable, indicator of the number of world class contenders a fighter has beaten.

Chris Arreola wasn't ranked by the ring magazine when Deontay Wilder fought him. He was coming off an SD over Travis Kauffman & a draw with 18-3 (now 18-8-1) Fred Kassi. He was clearly not one of the worlds top 10 HWs at this point.

Talking of which, I find it notable that you didn't answer my question about how many different fighters Wilder has beaten that you consider as being amongst the best 10 HWs in the world at the point he beat them.

 

Chris Arreola was ranked by Ring magazine for six straight years and was still rated by the WBC when Wilder picked him as a late sub when his number-one contender Povetkin failed the first of basically all his PED tests that year.

Billy Daniels was 0-6 in his fights leading up to his split decision as a late sub over Doug Jones, who had no business being rated at the top to begin with. (Another of Ring's "terrible" ranking examples.) Daniels got ranked for 19 days, before losing to Williams on his way to going 1-13 in his next 14 bouts.

How the F is that points win over Daniels better win that beating Chris Arreola?

How was Daniels "clearly" one of the best heavyweights in the world? He was 2-for-20 in the bouts around his "shock" win over Doug Jones. 18 guys showed they were as good or better than him in that period. That's more than 10.

That's YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE of why "counting" the number of wins over Ring ranked fighters is nonsense, especially across generations. Thank you.

Chris Arreola would've beat the living crap out of Billy Daniels.

 

Tbh, I've limited my comments in this thread to Wilder for a reason, I'm no expert on Cleveland Williams & even less so on Billy Daniels, so we will have to see if others answer your questions.

What I do know is that the Chris Arreola that fought Wilder was shot, as evidenced by, amongst other things, a draw with a near 38-year old Fred Kassi, who lost every fight he contested thereafter, including to the near 41-year old ghost of ex-LHW Tomasz Adamek. Arreola didn't belong anywhere near a top 20 at HW by the time Wilder fought him, let alone top 10.

Ok, I'll leave you alone after asking this question for a 3rd & final time, how many different fighters do you consider Wilder beat who were amongst the best 10 fighters in the world when he beat them?

 

You're asking a loaded question and you know you are.

Wilder floored twice and successfully defended his WBC heavyweight title for the eighth time against the lineal champ and undefeated Tyson Fury.

Everyone knows that if Usyk, Joshua, Vitali, Wlad, Lennox, etc., floored the lineal, 30-year-old Tyson Fury twice and successfully defended their heavyweight titles against him with a draw, it would be one of the biggest accomplishments of their careers.

Hell, the biggest accomplishment of Vitali's career was getting half his face torn off but winning four rounds against Lewis in Lennox's last fight.

But your phrasing purposely eliminates that enormous accomplishment, which you clearly did on purpose.

And I've been around here long enough to know who I'm dealing with when someone "phrases" it like that.

Anytime someone wants to "pretend" Fury-Wilder 1 didn't happen, and Wilder didn't successfully defend his title, and Wilder didn't make two more successful defenses after that ... I know what I'm dealing with.

The best "win" of Wilder's career, to date, is successfully defending his title for the eighth time against Tyson Fury ... as it would be for any active heavyweight today.

If Usyk fights Tyson Fury, floors him twice, and successfully defends his belts against him ... it would be the biggest accomplishment of his career. And nobody here would dare go,
"Right, but it was a draw, so let's pretend it never happened" (which your question did).

Fury, Stiverne twice, Ortiz twice, Breazeale (also highly WBC ranked/also previously rated by Ring), Arreola, Helenius (who was coming off two wins over a guy ranked by all the orgs AND the precious Ring going in) ... and Wilder's career isn't over yet.

Unlike Williams'.

Now tell me why decisioning 2-for-20 Billy Daniels was better than Wilder successfully defending his title against Tyson Fury, beating Luis Ortiz twice, beating Bermane Stiverne twice, beating Dominic Breazele, beating Chris Arreola and beating Robert Helenius -- all of whom would've cleaned their shoes with Billy Daniels.

 

You're assigning an agenda to me I simply do not possess. Read my 1st post in this thread, where i say i think Wilder is better than many credit him for.

My reason for asking you the question 3 times is simple, this is a thread about the number of ring magazine ranked contenders Wilder beat. You've posted that you consider the Ring magazine rankings are irrelevant, so I asked how many different fighters Wilder beat you consider to be amongst the top 10 HWs in the world when he beat him. That's all.

I can only disagree in the strongest possible terms that Lewis, being awarded a draw in a fight most people felt he lost, against that version of Fury, would not be the considered the biggest achievement of his career. I'm confident that a poll on here would see most agree with me in that regard.

 

Shot but broke the Compubox record and dropped Andy Ruiz after the Wilder fight.