Cleveland Williams had the speed to give Patterson problems. I think so Patterson should win this though.
Well I don't make any picks based exclusively on reach, I would hope that goes without saying. I guess I should say (in the name of pedantry...)"a ten inch reach advantage is prohibitive in this case." I obviously don't think an 0-2 81" reach fighter is going to beat someone like Floyd Patterson; somewhere between world class and and, as you would say, bum, is the tipping point.
Yes, I understand that. But with Frank Bruno and Cleveland Williams being about on the same level of crapness I'm guessing Bruno's extra couple of inches in reach and his size in general must make a massive difference .
Neither one of them was crap for me. Both were legitimate contenders and both were ranked in their respective top tens in multiple years. Neither man was crap, nor in the world class. I think that if Bruno didn't have heavy promotional backing he basically would have been Williams. But Bruno brought an extra 20lbs ish prime for prime which I think would make him a tougher prospective for a cruiserweight type, yes.
Why would you imagine he'd do better against Williams than he did against Pete Rademacher or Brian London?
I'd favor Patterson as he is the better all-around fighter, but as has been noted, Williams had a big punch and Patterson was vulnerable to the big punch. Williams is a bit of a wild card here, and very much a live underdog. Williams' best chance would be an early round blitz; the longer the fight goes the more it favors Floyd.
Because Liston, Ali and Satterfeild finished Williams in that distance. I think Patterson hit harder than Ali and he was faster than either of Liston or Satterfeild.
They certainly weren't flat out crap. They simply possessed a degree of crapness. They possessed other attributes too. Better ones. I'm possibly selling Williams a little bit short putting him on Bruno's level. Williams was relatively quick and fluid. And his chin was no worse, I'd say.
Perhaps it is unnecessary. The same could be said for describing a boxer as "weak chinned", "feather fisted", "glass chinned", "slow as molasses", "primitive", "unskilled", "amateurish", "sloppy", "wild", "fragile" etc. Negative adjectives, certainly. "a bit crap" is kind of shorthand for all or several of those types of things. Taken too literally, any of them are unnecessarily harsh.
I definitely sense a growing movement towards the use of kinder words though. I'm maybe a little out of step with it but I might in time get up to speed.
I disagree. I think there's a difference between calling a fighter "crap" or rating him on an imaginary "crap scale" than describing his boxing as "weak-chinned" or rating him on an imaginary "chin scale". The first is universally recognised as a putdown, the latter can be recognised as a proper judgement. Saying a fighter who has a weak chin has a weak chin is ok, saying a fighter who has a weak chin is "Crap" isn't great. But that's just me.
I disagree. There's always been resistance to dismissing fighters as "crap" or "sh1t" or whatever, that's never been acceptable in any era IMO. It's always drawn a reaction, and without question has drawn a reaction since I followed boxing.
If we were in a pub we would be using words like crap and SH1T to describe fighters. The commentator Steve Holdsworth once told me he thought Robin Reid was crap, and this was right after he took Calzaghe close. This was in private obviously. Casually people talk like that. In print it just looks wrong.