George Foreman vs Cleveland Williams

Probably about time to wrap this particular topic up Swag it's only going further downhill i reckon mate.

 

No. of course not. Chuvalo beats him up a lot quicker. As I’ve always said, Williams improved to the level where he could respectfully hang with Chuvalo (albeit in a losing fight) where as Clark didn’t.

no. clark loses both fights too and without doing half as well. I don’t recall saying otherwise. Ever.

. Clark was brought up by Swag from another thread. Not me. I only defended the comparison with part of Williams career over his first 30;fights or so. The issue you have was made up by swag.

Absolutely not. Never said he could. What is this?

Absolutely not. I never expressed any thoughts on such a fight on this thread. Mind, Terrell was a stoppage anyway.

 

A nearly 40 years old, post gut shot ,20lbs over his best weight Williams had improved enough to hang with Chuvalo?
Chuvalo and Williams fought common opponent Alex Miteff in1961with 3 months between the bouts.Chuvalo won a close split dec, Williams stopped Miteff in5 rds.

Honest and objective.lol

 

This is true. And a good point. It is also true that 1961 Williams was beyond the first 30 fights of his career that are in question. Where as a young man Williams career was being manufactured in much the way that others have.

 

Deep down I'm actually quite proud of this place for being able to take a 60-0 poll ten pages. Enough people to fill a double decker bus agree on the outcome of this fight, yet there's still somehow heated debate on it

 

You're probably right lol wasted far to much time on this thread. But that's what Chok does to you. You know this first-hand.

 

If it wasn't for Chok, this thread would've had one, maybe two pages.

 

Cheers for Choklab! He gave us something to do

 

You know how ratios/proportions work, right? If Williams had 94 bouts and you feel the first 30 of them weren't much better than Clark than that honestly isn't much of a criticism if the rest of his career was him fighting decent to good to great opponents. Because the first 30 bouts are less than 1/3 of his bouts or just barely over 30%.

For comparison, you could argue roughly 30% of Foreman's opponents weren't too drastically better than Clark's. Or Tyson's first dozen or so opponents as he was making his debut. Or Julio Cesar Chavez & Sugar Ray Robinson. Or Rocky Marciano, who was still fighting guys with 20 or more losses when he was more than halfway done with his career.

Every pro does this. They fight low quality guys to build up their skill and confidence, than move onto the journeymen, contenders, etc. For every Williams opponent you feel could have been one of Lamar Clark's KO victims, I'm 110% certain I could find at least 2-3 similarly poor quality guys on the resume of several highly rated heavyweights. Williams stepped up in class and fought household names and champions. Clark never moved on past this stage and found his niche as an entertaining bum slayer. So I don't get what the point of this comparison was when you could say the same about virtually any decent heavyweight's first couple dozen bouts.

 

Even the early guys on Williams' resume were still boxers as opposed to Clark who fought truck drivers, and wrestlers.

 

I don't think its about the result so much as one posters perception of one of the protagonists.

 

Agreed. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with Foreman at this point

 

I quite agree. This was the point I was making for goodness sake. Please take it up with Swag for introducing this Clark issue.

 

That is impossible. The thread was four pages deep before I even contributed!

 

I bought up YOUR previous posts about Clark to question your laughable statement that you were neutral and impartial towards Williams, even when it's laughably obvious you're not.