I'm not convinced that Cleveland Williams beats Floyd Patterson

You won't entertain the Ali being good option?

 

Some principle issues:

Patterson was obviously greater and Williams beat no one of his quality. That's true, but still think that the less great fighter can still reasonably be given a chance due to styles and also of there's reason to believe that he was better than his resume.

Not saying that things like these make me favour Williams, but I think it's fair if such things are used in the equation.

 

Terrell probably should not be considered "green" in any fight vs. Cleveland Williams. Williams is the one who had no amateur career and started fighting under age with no training in an area with no boxing gym. The bad habits that he learned being self taught probably affected CW the rest of his career, his footwork didn't look good and he looked to have problems keeping his feet beneath him (lunging) in all of the fights I've seen on video.

Terrell, grew up in a city with gyms, had a good amateur career and was probably well ahead of CW in fundamentals/skills when he turned pro. Williams was a guy who got by mostly on his physical ability, he was big, strong, and fast. If CW had grown up in a town with good gyms and trainers like Terrell did, and had been able to combine good boxing fundamentals with his physical prowess...well he was already one of the better fighters at his weight class, who knows how good he could have been?

 

That's all I've been saying. Virtually everyone on this thread favoring Patterson has been doing it on the basis of his superior resume (with the exception of you, JT1, and Pugguy) which is a very poor argument historically. It's a 50-50 fight for mine. One thing I overlooked is Patterson has a huge speed advantage which Williams would not be used to. He was usually the faster man, and that would not be the case in this bout. That could tip it, ever so slightly in Patterson's favor.

 

I wouldn't go as far as saying that favouring the guy with the best resume is a very poor argument, as in most cases the guy with the better resume wins, but I do think it at times can be making things a bit too easy for oneself. In short, it's not a given that the guy with the better resume wins even if it will be true most of the time.

In this particular case Ingo and Liston were the only ones who Floyd met who had comparable power in any punch as Williams had in his left hook, so it's a valid question what kind of damage Williams could do with it, I think. Then of course Floyd had things, not least speed, that Williams hadn't encountered at all.

 

Wait, Ingo and Liston were the only fighters Floyd met who were comparable in power to Williams? Again, who did Williams ever knock out that proved he had their power? You dont think Moore, Quarry, Ellis, proved they had power equivalent to Williams when dropping or stopping much better fighters than Williams ever did? Even Durelle and Henry Cooper showed at least as good power as Williams ever did. Pad Moore, Quarry, and Ellis' record the way Williams was and you dont think they have a higher knockout percentage as well? Im always puzzled by this idea that Williams was such a monster puncher when he doesnt really have the results to show it.

 

Poor may be to far but I find it to be very incomplete, lazy, and a cop out tbh. Both were world-class fighters, it's not like Williams was Lamar Clark where he was only going after guys who weren't even real fighters, in which case yes, favoring Patterson over him based on his vastly superior resume would be absolutely appropriate, and an actual breakdown of the fight would not be warranted.

The reason I said it was a poor argument was because the likes of Compton and many others who favored Patterson only did so on the basis of his resume, and refused to go into a breakdown (as you, JT, and Pugs did) on how the actual fight would pan out, given what we know about the two fighters.

 

Moore, Quarry, and Ellis had as much punching power as Williams? You seriously agree with this and think it's justified?

 

Several fighters are generally viewed as having great power without the KO's to back it up. Morrison and Samuel Peters come instantly to mind. Ruddock only had an ageing Dokes and Cooney's best names were all past it. And so on.

Williams didn't meet many top fighters in his prime either. So what we have to go on is the testimony of guys who faced him, for example Liston, and what our eyes tell us. Personally I think Williams looked to have more power in his punches than the guys you mentioned, but that's just me.

But more important is how dangerous a puncher a fighter is, since precision and timing also are very important elements. And Quarry might very well have been a more dangerous puncher.

But I can understand the viewpoint that William's power might be risky for Patterson. That is not saying I think he would ko Floyd, just that I can understand that perspective.

 

And it was thrown out of court. What's the point? Machen was doing the bidding of the IBC as both Floyd and Ingo were outside their control.

I was around in 1959 and I don't remember anyone saying Johansson didn't deserve a shot.

 

But raw power is meaningless. He isnt in there fighting a punching bag. Plenty of fighters we t the distance with Williams and the better they were they typically beat him thats a fair statistic to note regardless of how much it bothers swag.

 

If raw power was meaningless Shavers would never have reached as relatively far as he did. He'd never have had Ali and Holmes in the trouble he had, never in a million years beat Norton or even old Ellis and certainly not got the better of Young over two fights.

And I think Shavers was more limited and crude than Williams. So, William's explosive power is a factor for me. That's all I'm saying.

 

How could they? He was the EBU champion, had literally defeated all of the best HWs of Europe including, Italy, Germany, and Britain and knocked out the #1 contender in less than a round. Williams never saw the day he strung together the record Johansson did on his march to the title. Whoch is exactly why Johansson was the #1 contender and Williams was unrated in 1959. So the idea that Cus was avoiding Williams is patently ridiculous.

 

Shavers wasnt any worse a boxer than Williams was. And frankly Shavers record of wins and KOs over top fighters isnt exactly deep.

 

For someone with his lack of skill, stamina and durability it is. Raw power is what he had.