Rate the quality of Sonny Liston's resume

One man is MW and the other is Lhw, both can bulk up one weight class more, but only bulk up, since they are not full sized for that weight class.

You mentioned Toney as fat at 190, but you did not say that he is a MW not a LHW like Martin was.

 

Though I have frequently disagreed with you I have liked your posts,but it seems to me you are reaching a bit here.

How many managers take fights for their charges knowing them not to be in top shape? It would run into hundreds.

Odds on fights are not an infallible indication as to how they will go. Braddock v Baer, Louis v Marciano, Liston V Ali,Honeyghan v Curry,Douglas v Tyson, Holyfield v Tyson etc.

 

@BoxingFan2002 I personally think Leotis Martin was a fair sized opponent, I don’t think he was a natural 175lber but Liston was definitely KO’d by a chubby, overstuffed 190lber when he was old - it’s not so damming, might say a bit about his chin… but it is amusing when people think anyone was ducking Liston when he was fighting guys he outweighed by 15-20lbs like Clark and Martin - Ellis, Quarry, Frazier they’d have all gutted him bad at this point and @klompton2 has posted extensively on the timeline of why those fights didn’t happen unapologetically.

 

"How many managers take fights for their charges knowing them not to be in to shape?"

With a top heavyweight prospect? Sure, trial horses are tossed to the wolves in whatever shape for the money, but guys with potential?

"Odds on fights are not an infallible indication"

Of course not. But they measure what chance a fighter is viewed as having going into any given match. And Williams had relatively short odds.

 

Unless we get info no one knows if or how much gym work Williams was doing. I have no comment except posting the answers to questions I asked the internet.

Do boxers often train in the gym without sparring?

"Boxers often train in the gym without sparring. While sparring is crucial for developing the specific skills and instincts needed for fighting, a significant portion of a boxer's training focuses on other aspects of fitness and technique. These include bag work, pad work, and drills focused on footwork, speed, and agility."

How many times a week does a boxer in training spar?

"A boxer preparing for a fight might spar 2-3 times a week. Some boxers spar less often depending on individual needs."

How many times does a boxer in training work out and spar in a week?

"A boxer in training should ideally work out 4-5 times per week, mixing technical work, sparring, and conditioning. Sparring, specifically, should be done 2-3 times per week while preparing for a fight."

 

Klompton is very interesting on that subject. I mean the subject of Liston turning down an offer to fight Quarry, if my memory serves me well.

 

Chuvalo vs DeJohn---"Hardly a dominant win."

In my judgment, this was not a competitive fight and the draw verdict is the worst scoring I have ever seen, bar none. It was a dominant win.

"DeJohn whipped Cleroux decisively."

Yes.

"DeJohn was completely dismantled by Billy Daniels."

Yes.

"Daniels in turn was thorouthly outclassed by Williams."

Yes.

"If Cleroux and Chuvalo don't have any case for being better than DeJohn, they certainly have no case for being better than Daniels--and definitely not better than Williams."

First. Chuvalo shouldn't be mentioned because he won decisively against DeJohn. It is fair to point out DeJohn managed to last the distance against Chuvalo and did not against Daniels. I saw the Cleroux-DeJohn fight back in the day. Cleroux walked right into a left hook in the third round. He didn't go down, but seemed out of it for several rounds while DeJohn built up a lead. Cleroux rallied late, but it was too little too late.

"no case for being better than Daniels"

In Chuvalo's case, who did better against Jones? Daniels fought Jones on equal terms. Chuvalo KO'd him.

Your argument is the old if A did better against B than C did, A must be better than C. This simply does not follow because styles make fights. Daniels was a mover, which DeJohn couldn't handle. Chuvalo and Cleroux were come forward sluggers who plodded straight in to DeJohn. They fought his fight. This might be true also for Williams, but both Chuvalo and Cleroux had top chins. Arguably better than Williams had. Fights in the early sixties would have been interesting. (of course, both outpointed Williams after the shooting. This clouds the issue with Williams. But no reason to believe that both Cleroux and Chuvalo hadn't also gone back.

As for Daniels, he couldn't even win half his fights. He had nothing like the overall careers of Chuvalo and Cleroux. Extrapolating from one fight to a conclusion is silly. It is like arguing that Joe Rowan was a bigger puncher than Sonny Liston because he KO'd Bert Whitehurst in one round while Liston twice went the full ten rounds with Whitehurst.

 

"Chuvalo should have lost decisively to Miteff in their first fight."

Spectacular double standard rears its head.

Chuvalo was born on September 12, 1937. The first Miteff fight was on June 16, 1958. So Chuvalo was a couple of months younger than Williams was in 1954 against Satterfield. Chuvalo had 16 pro fights and 16 amateur fights. Williams had 40 pro fights. But we must totally dismiss Williams KO by Satterfield while trashing Chuvalo's much better performance against Miteff?

Miteff also had 16 pro fights, but 140 amateur fights. He was rated the #5 contender going in. He had won 15 of 16 with a KO of Holman and a decision over Valdes. (point being that Miteff was rated higher at the time of the fight than Satterifield who was coming in off a loss)

"When he knocked Miteff down in the final round, he should've gained a two point edge on the scorecards--but one judge gave him three points and another gave him four! Even with that absurdly favorable scoring, Chuvalo had fallen so far behind earlier in the fight that it only brought him to a draw."

The issue is a lot cloudier than that. I have not seen the fight and don't know if it was filmed. The description implies that Chuvalo caught Miteff with a big left and knocked him down and Miteff was badly hurt and barely hanging on to the bell.

I recall Nat Fleischer discussing this type of situation. An early knockdown costs points but you came back. A knockdown(s) in the last round which leaves you helpless but you manage to be saved by the bell is viewed by some as costing the fighter any right to a victory.

This is subjective and I can think of cases on both sides. The 1958 Chuvalo-Miteff fight does not stand alone. Jeffries was a mile behind Ruhlin in 1897, but caught him with a left hook in the last thirty seconds and dropped him. Ruhlin barely made it to the bell. It was ruled a draw. Schaaf was ahead of Baer in 1932 when Baer caught him with a right with only a few seconds left. Schaaf was on the floor but saved by the bell. Baer got the decision. On the other side, Cerdan was well ahead of Raadik in 1947, but was dropped three times in the final round. Cerdan got the decision. Same with Ingo against London in 1963.

My bottom line is that the green Chuvalo deserves credit for doing so well, whatever one thinks of how a late knockdown should effect the decision. The young Williams never did anything to match this performance.

As for Miteff losing close in the second fight. Wonderful. Miteff didn't do as well as -- Cleroux who outpointed Chuvalo twice. McMurtry who outpointed Chuvalo. Or Pete Rademacher who had a UD over Chuvalo in Toronto. It is a styles make the fight situation again. Miteff came to Chuvalo. Rademacher pointed out that Chuvalo was real tough if you stood in front of him, but could be beaten easily if you moved.

 

And Ellis

 

This isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.


I’m not going to waste time explaining why Satterfield was far more dangerous than Miteff—especially for a raw prospect. This goes back to what Deede and Pug already pointed out: fighting cans doesn’t offer the same kind of developmental value as going up against real contenders, which is exactly what Chuvalo was doing.

Williams logged more rounds—140 to Chuvalo’s 103—but that was out of necessity. He was teaching himself on the job, trying to fill in gaps that better-trained fighters didn’t have to worry about. Chuvalo, on the other hand, had serious backing from day one. He wasn’t some kid figuring things out alone at 14; he had top-tier trainers and a structured amateur foundation behind him.

So yeah, Williams fought more rounds, but Chuvalo got a lot more out of the ones he did fight. I’ll take quality over quantity every time—especially when the quality includes excellent coaching and world-class opponents.

1. It's incorrect that Miteff was the #5 cotender. He was 6. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-evening-news/175904073/ no biggie.

Also weren’t you just dismissing Williams’ win over Holman because he was supposedly at the end of his career—while at the same time giving him credit for beating guys who hadn’t won in three years and would never win again, just to prop up the idea that he was “experienced”?

Let’s not forget: Holman’s previous fight was against Miteff. So why does Miteff get credit for Holman, but Holman doesn’t count for Williams? You can’t have it both ways.

Miteff was hurt but he wasn't out on his feet or in any danger of being stopped. Chuvalo tried to finish him but he just couldn't. This is a far different proposition to the Ingo-London bout you brought up. London's knock down of Ingo was of unquestionably greater consequence. The bell ring to end the bout and save Ingo. If the fight had gone on, Ingo could not have continued.

"I would have stopped the fight if the bell had not saved Johansson. He could not have continued." -Referee Andrew Smythe

We know Miteff could've because he did. Despite scoring a far more debilitating KD, London only got a 2 point round compared to Chuvalo who got two 3s and a 4.

If you think the situation is far "cloudier" than that, I'd like you to produce me a single bout where a fighter scored ONE knockdown and got rewarded for two on two scorecards and three on the third.

Literally nobody is disputing that Chuvalo was better than Williams at those respective points in their career. I've stated why above.

Chuvalo had a clear edge at that point for a number of reasons. He came up with strong guidance, had a solid amateur pedigree to build on, and was consistently tested against far more capable opponents. He wasn't learning on the fly — he had the structure, the coaching, and the competition necessary to develop properly. Williams, by contrast, was still figuring things out the hard way against much weaker opposition. So no, it's not surprising Chuvalo looked more polished early on.

The issue is, a much more experienced Chuvalo was unable to beat Miteff convincingly. He won a disputed SD by a half point in his hometown. In Miteff's very next fight, Williams dominated him with ease.

What do Cleroux and McMurtry have to do with anything? This discussion is about Williams’ opponents and how they fared against Chuvalo — not a list of unrelated fighters who beat Chuvalo at various points. If you’re trying to pivot away from the original point, at least make it relevant.

You did the same thing in our Biden/Truman discussion. I pointed out that approval ratings in the moment don’t always predict how a presidency will be viewed in hindsight — using Truman as an example, and suggesting that Biden’s legacy might age more favorably over time. Instead of engaging with that point, you brought up Hoover — a completely unrelated case — as if one counterexample invalidates the entire idea. It didn’t. It just sidestepped what I actually said.

Now you’re doing the same thing here. The conversation is about how Williams’ opponents fared against Chuvalo — not about Cleroux, McMurtry, or anyone else who never fought Williams. It’s the same deflection playbook.

I honestly don’t know what point you’re trying to make here. Miteff went right at Chuvalo — exactly the approach you claimed wouldn’t work — and still nearly beat him. On a fair scorecard, he arguably should have. He didn’t have that kind of success against Williams because he was up against a much better fighter, plain and simple. This isn’t about some vague “styles make fights” cliché — it’s about the level of opposition.

 

"It's incorrect that Miteff was the #5 contender. He was #6."

NBA Ratings released May 31, 1958 (Miteff and Chuvalo fought on June 16) Next rating for end of June.

Champion--Floyd Patterson

1--Eddie Machen
2--Zora Folley
3--Roy Harris
4--Willie Pastrano
5--Alex Miteff
6--Ingemar Johansson
7--Nino Valdes
8--Cleveland Williams
9--Mike DeJohn
10-Pat McMurtry

Note the high ranking for Williams. Thanks for the correction.

"Biden-Truman"

Anyone making historical analogies should anticipate counter analogies. Comparing Biden to Truman? Pretty far out there except in the "anything is possible" debating point sense. Hoover is certainly a better comp. Franklin Pierce is probably the best. I won't live to see where Biden's rep finally settles. But it would shock me if he ends up there with Truman. Or closer to Truman than to Hoover and Pierce.

"I won't waste time explaining why Satterfield was far more dangerous than Miteff."

Of course he was. My position is that he was more dangerous than anyone Williams defeated. (Ernie Terrell was still green and unrated)
That is the issue with Williams. Who was his best win? How good was this opponent? It isn't that Satterfield was unbeatable. Plenty of guys beat him. Williams is one who didn't.

"Why does Miteff get credit for Holman, but Holman doesn't count for Williams."

That is not my position. I think they deserve equal credit. My issue is why don't you give Williams credit for defeating Agramonte? Why do you wipe this fight off the slate? Agramonte had a higher winning and KO percentage than either Holman or Miteff, and a lower KO'd by percentage. Miteff had only one win--Valdes--over a man currently rated. Agramonte had two. Holman and Johnny Flynn. All three fought the best, with Agramonte going the distance twice with Joe Louis and Clarence Henry among others. Agramonte was 5-3 in his last 8 fights. Holman was 3-5. Miteff 4-4. Agramonte was only 28. He might have been going downhill, but weren't the other two also? Why the big difference?

"Weren't you just dismissing Williams win over Holman because he was at the end of his career?"

???? What did I say about that? Holman was indeed at the end of his career though. It was Agramonte who beat him at his peak in 1950 when he was on a run which included wins over Elmer Ray and Turkey Thompson and was rated #5 by the NBA.

"Literally no one is disputing that Chuvalo was better than Williams at those respective points in their careers."

I would dispute it to the extent of saying that Williams had the best win either had scored with his victory over Agramonte. And he had more experience no matter how it is spun. Chuvalo had only fought 64 pro rounds. You credit Chuvalo with 103 rounds, apparently including amateur. Williams had at least 140 pro rounds. (I think pro rounds more valuable than amateur rounds)

"Chuvalo had a clear edge at that point for a number of reasons"--such as

1--"He came up with strong guidance." Who was Chuvalo's manager and trainer in hiis early years? Williams was managed by Lou Viscusi, who managed Willie Pep, Joe Brown, and Bob Foster to championships. Bill Gore was his sometime trainer. Williams was hardly hurting in this area.

2--"He had a solid amateur pedigree." 16 fights against Canadian amateurs? Okay.

3--"Was continuously tested against far more credible opponents."

This last is true, but only to an extent. Bob Baker was better than anyone Williams had fought. Agramonte was probably the next best opponent for either.

 

"Chuvalo has serious backing from day one"

I don't know that much about Chuvalo in his early days. Who was his manager? Who was his trainer? Williams had Viscusi and at times Gore.

"Miteff went right at Chuvalo . . . and still nearly beat him."

The key word is nearly.

"What do Cleroux and McMurtry have to do with anything?"

They beat Chuvalo. So did Rademacher. Cleroux was a come forward guy like Miteff. He was just better. McMurtry and Rademacher, hardly top men, were able to easily outpoint Chuvalo.

"fighting cans doesn't offer the same kind of developmental value as going up against real contenders, which is exactly what Chuvalo was doing."

True. So what do we conclude? Williams' supporters see an excuse. Williams' critics say tough. You either cut the mustard or you don't and if you never develop because of avoiding solid competition, that is only the way it is. You are judged by what you do, not by what you might have done.

 

Chuvalo was initially managed by Irving Ungerman, a major figure in Canadian boxing who really pushed to get him noticed. His early trainers varied, but the most consistent and impactful was Ted McWhorter during his prime years. Unlike Williams—who was often left to figure things out on his own despite having names like Viscusi and Gore around—Chuvalo actually had a team that trained him to fight. His corner focused on conditioning, durability, and strategy tailored to his style. While his team wasn’t based in the U.S., Ungerman’s promotional clout and McWhorter’s hands-on approach meant Chuvalo had real backing and structure from the start, especially compared to the looser setup Williams dealt with.

The key word is "nearly"—and that’s exactly the problem. If Miteff was supposedly fighting right into Chuvalo’s strengths, then there’s no excuse for the fight being that close. The only reason it was scored a draw was because of outrageous judging. Chuvalo scored just one legitimate knockdown, yet somehow got credit for two on two cards and three on the third. That inflated scoring is the only thing that saved him from a loss.

Did you manage to find any other fights—besides this one—where a fighter scored a single knockdown but somehow got credit for two on two cards and three on the third? You were saying earlier that this kind of thing wasn’t all that uncommon, so I assume you’ve come across some examples to back that up?

And just for context—Miteff didn’t come anywhere close to beating Cleveland Williams. That contrast kind of speaks for itself.

Okay, but no one was comparing Cleroux or McMurtry to Chuvalo. The actual comparison was between Williams and Chuvalo, and since Miteff fought both, his performances against each are entirely relevant. That’s what makes him a meaningful point of reference. Cleroux and McMurtry, regardless of their results against Chuvalo, aren’t part of that comparison and don’t really factor into the discussion.

That’s a fair point in theory, but it cuts both ways. If we’re judging fighters strictly by what they did, then Williams’ actual performances—like dominating Miteff, who gave Chuvalo all he could handle—should carry weight. You can’t dismiss what he did in the ring just because his overall résumé isn’t filled with top names.

Yes, development matters, but outcome matters more. Williams may not have had the same level of consistent opposition, but when he did face shared opponents, he often looked better. So if the standard is “you’re judged by what you do,” then what he did against guys like Miteff speaks volumes.[/quote]

 

[/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]

"Chuvalo was initially managed by Irving Ungerman"

"His early trainers varied, but Ted McWhorter was the most consistent and impactful during his prime years."

"Ungerman's promotional clout and McWhorter's hands-on approach meant Chuvalo had real backing and structure from the start."

Thanks for the facts. Here are excerpts from an article from Sports Illustrated (the date is hard to read, but I think Feb 1, 1965) on the approaching Chuvalo-Patterson bout. The article is written by Gilbert Rogin. It was a profile of Chuvalo, called The Croation Candidate.
---------------------------

"Chuvalo has a new trainer, Theodore McWhorter, who has altered his style, and an even newer manager, Irving Ungerman, who generously supports him and extols the new Chuvalo."

"Theodore McWhorter made George what he is, but he always had the potential. All the guy ever did was run and skip rope. They can't punch back. But he's the same guy."

Chuvalo quoted--"I always felt I was destined for the world's heavyweight championship."

"On the road to this proposed fate, is the meeting with Patterson at Madison Square Garden. Chuvalo is now the WBA's third ranked heavyweight contender. Patterson is number 2."

(The article gives a resume of Chuvalo's spotty record to his loss to Joe Erskine where Chuvalo) was "disqualified for repeated butting. whereupon he quit the ring and went into the used car business."

(The Erskine fight was on October 2, 1961. Chuvalo's next fight would be on March 15, 1963.)

"Chuvalo attributes his futile record to his manager, the late Jack Allen, and his trainer, Timothy McBeigh."

Chuvalo quoted--"I was discouraged. I was wasting my time. They tried to make a boxer out of me. I jabbed. I moved around a lot. My right hand, I might as well left at home. For my build, it was unnatural." . . . "They only had me boxing three rounds in the gym. So I figure, how can I go ten fast rounds. I'd only get aggressive in the last round."

(Eventually, Chuvalo tired of selling used cars and went to Detroit to look up Theodore McWhorter.)


Theodore McWhorter quoted--"He had all the qualifications. He just needed someone to bring them out. What he did, he did as well as he knew how."

"He had no confidence in his handlers. They had him moving around like a lightweight. . . . Big guys can do it just so long."

"It wasn't too hard to change him around. I closed him up. Before, he would open up to throw a punch. Telegraph it. I taught him to bob and weave, slip, throw combinations. He can counter punch now. He can do a lot of things. I saw he was getting hit too much with jabs."

"He is definitely not the fighter he was. He's got a lot more confidence."


"With McWhorter as his trainer, and acting as his own manager, Chuvalo started his comeback."

(Following fights with DeJohn, Alongi, and Folley--the Folley fight in early 1964)

"Chuvalo got himself a manager--enter Ungerman . . . and a sponsering group, Apollo Promotions." (Ungerman and several of his millionaire friends)

 

All I can say is how shocked I am at the total inaccuracy of this article by the major American sports magazine of the time. My word, they have Chuvalo retiring because of losses he attributes to poor training in late 1961. They then have him hooking up with McWhorter around a year later--either late 1962 or early 1963. And they have Irving Ungerman becoming his manager in early 1964. When we know from you that Ungerman was Chuvalo's manager from the get go, in 1956, and we know from you that Chuvalo had the best possible training. Obviously, both Chuvalo and McWhorter are either being misquoted or are lying.

Anyone watching the tape of the Chuvalo-McMurtry fight in 1958 can see that Chuvalo's never telegraphs punches, has a perfect defense against jabs, and sustains his attacks for three full minutes of each round. McMurtry winning by a wide margin only shows the corruption of the American judges.

Thanks for setting the record straight,

plus skuttling the spin that Chuvalo was inexperienced and poorly trained when he drew with the then #5 ranked Miteff in 1958.