Prime For Prime Cleveland Williams vs Brian London

Obviously none.

But it didn't come out of thin air.

 

This is quite unique then.

 

Williams by KO.

 

According to your assessment rules ,since Whitehurst went the distance twice with Liston but was stopped in 3 rds by13-4-1 Willie James,James should rank higher than Liston.

 

No of course I don't think that, Big Willie James was never in Listons league. but Willie James was something of a dangerman since poor Ed Sanders (the Olympic gold medal winner) died after fighting him and James also beat a 1952 version of Rex Layne knocking him down three times.

Wayne Bethea beat the same version of Ernie Terrell that Big Cat Williams beat and Ernie Later improved. fighters improve. just as Whitehurst improved on his knockout loss to Willie James in losing a close split decision in the rematch.

Cleveland Williams must go down in history with the unique distinction as being the contender with a fearsome reputation not based on a win.

 

Choklab is doing very well on a sticky wicket and I have a lot of sympathy with the view that Williams is overrated, certainly based on résumé. However i think while London's career stands up to Williams in many respects, styles make fights and I fancy Cleveland in this one.

 

Fighters do improve, yes. Like Terrell obviously improved in the year and a half and five wins which separate his split decision loss to Bethea and his stoppage loss to Williams.

 

There is nothing wrong with fancying Williams on the basis of styles, I accept that. On paper it's close to 50-50 but on styles it is permissible to deduce a favouring of one or the other without too much solid proof, That is entirely fair.

What I cannot accept is this solid, cast iron belief that London v Williams is a sure fire mismatch based entirely upon reputation alone. A unique reputation not based on any particular Williams win.

 

Williams improved after the two losses to Liston as well. Did Williams fight the best version of Liston or was Liston better beating Folley, machen and Patterson?

Terrell might have fought the best version of Williams but like I say he improved after that..

 

Some fighters who are head to head monster's, just never get the signiture win.

There is nothing unique about this situation.

 

I think there is something unique about this situataion. Here is a man who on film looked terrific losing or looked terrific against hand picked guys. He fits a later criteria of what a superstar is supposed to look like in a future era but it does not quite pan out in his own era.

I can't think of another exciting fighter (and I won't forgett that Williams was indeed an exciting addition to his own era) who never quite made the grade whilst bypassing the necessary single signature win.

 

Williams in a harder fight than he expected.

 

I don't think much of Williams as a top contender but I pick him over London

 

George Godfrey never produced an exceptional win, Ron Lyle never produced an exceptional win, Gerry C00ney never produced an exceptional win, David Tua never produced an exceptional win.

That doesn’t mean that these guys were on the level of Brian London, it just means that they were likely on the cusp of being something big, but managed to blow it against people at the top of the game.

I say this as somebody who has been very critical of people who make extravagant head to head picks for these sort of fighters.

 

George Godfrey, Tua, Lyle and C00ney still had better wins than Williams did ...this is what I think is unique about the Big Cat.

Those guys were above the level of Brian London. But Brian would have been good enough to fight them around the time he could beat Pastrano, Rischer, Erskine and Folley. He would lose, but he would qualify as a good opponent for any of them.