Rate the quality of Sonny Liston's resume

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.

 

By the way, for all the new Chuvalo spin in this article, he would have five fights against top men over the next two years--Patterson, Terrell, Ali, Bonavena, and Frazier. He lost them all.

As well as losng to Eduardo Corletti.

 

No biggie. I'm not willing to die on this hill.

I never said Biden would end up ranked alongside Truman—I said his legacy might age similarly, which is a different point entirely. Truman left office deeply unpopular and was written off by many at the time, only for his reputation to steadily climb over the decades. That kind of long-view reassessment is what I was referring to.

And for what it’s worth, in the most recent presidential rankings released last year, Biden came in at 14th—far closer to Truman than to either Pierce or Hoover. So if we’re talking about where historians currently place him, the data already leans more in my direction than yours.

Just so I have this clear, the 23-year-old Ernie Terrell—an accomplished amateur with two Golden Gloves titles, five years as a pro, and over 20 fights under his belt—was "green," but the 20 year old Williams, who had less experience across the board, wasn't? How does that make sense?
And why is Terrell being unrated supposed to matter? Williams was unrated too—and unlike Terrell, he was still years away from earning a ranking. Terrell, by contrast, would break into the rankings within a year.

As for the idea that Terrell drastically improved in between their two fights—I'm not convinced. If he had developed that much over the course of just six fights, he should’ve made easy work of Williams in the rematch, especially with Williams fighting injured. But instead, Terrell barely edged out a split decision and had to hang on for dear life in the final round. That doesn't scream "massive improvement" to me.

I just looked back, and you listed Miteff's win over Holman to justify Miteff's ranking, not necessarily to give him credit for the bout. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and concede the point.

Agramonte was 5-3 against unranked opponents. Holman and Miteff were fighting ranked opponents for the most part. Agramonte had clearly seen better days, and his lack of a rating reflected this. As did the 20+ losses and literally countless knockdowns preceding this bout.

Funny how Agramonte being “only 28” is used to downplay any decline, yet wins over Miteff (26) and Alonzo Johnson (27) are dismissed because they were supposedly “older.”

If 28 isn’t considered past it, then what exactly makes 26 or 27 too old to count? You can’t have it both ways.

Holman was showing some signs of decline but was nowhere near the end of his career. In fact, he had nearly knocked out Miteff in their previous fight and had every intention of continuing. He was still capable of working his way back into the top ten—and had been ranked in the top 10 more recently than Agramonte by the time of their fights. Hell, he was ranked as high as number 3 just the year before. It was the brutal knockout loss to Williams—so severe that it took several minutes to revive him—that ultimately ended his career.

Already addressed Chuvalo's manager and trainer in a prior post.

But if Williams was already outperforming Chuvalo at that stage in their careers, then the gap between them is even wider than I initially believed. Chuvalo hadn’t shown significant improvement since the “draw” with Miteff (and I use that term very loosely) and the split decision win in their rematch—by only half a point, and on hometown cards at that. Meanwhile, Williams clearly demonstrated his superiority in his very next bout against Miteff by dominating and stopping him early. Thanks for helping me finally recognize just how much superior Williams is compared to Chuvalo.

 

"Biden" "Truman" Biden's "legacy might age similarly"

This interests me more than the boxing discussion. I would point out a big difference. Despite the 1952 bad blood between Truman and Ike, and the usual democrat versus republican and vice versa over the top rhetoric, Eisenhower represented basically a continuation of Truman's policies. After all, he had executed those policies, and even helped shape them, especially in Europe. Ike's Secretary of State, Dulles, had also been in the Truman administration. He had negotiated the 1951 peace treaty with Japan. And there were other senior Eisenhower admin figures like Beetle Smith and Joseph Dodge who came from the Truman administration. There were some differences, but in the main it was continuity. Same domestically. Ironically, on the big question of civil rights, Ike might well have been more in line with Truman's desegregation policies than Stevenson. Ike finished desegregating the military, and also desegregated the federal government. Stevenson in 1952 chose segregationist Alabama senator John Sparkman as his VP running mate.

In contrast, Trump is dismantling Biden's policies. Biden himself has said his legacy is being destroyed by Trump. If true, what will this leave for history to credit Biden with?

"Biden came in at 14th"

In the middle of his administration? Like crediting a victory in a football game off a first quarter field goal. All this proves is the bias of the scholars involved.

And the question of Biden's mental fitness is certainly on the table. How will he be judged if it is determined he never was the hands-on president due to dementia? What sort of comparison can be made with the buck stops here decisive Truman?

 

"Already addressed Chuvalo's manager and trainer in a prior post."

To avoid being heavy handed, I was facetious in my comment on your take on Chuvalo's management and training. I don't know if the above comment is facetious, but I'll be direct. The Sports Illustrated Article I quoted shows that you knew nothing or next to nothing about Chuvalo's early career. You were simply blowing smoke.

"Miteff"

Comparing Chuvalo's first fight with Williams performance against Miteff is insanely unfair. Chuvalo was 20 and had only 64 pro rounds and was going against a rising #5 rated Miteff. Williams was 28 and had been a pro for 14 years. He was at his peak, It is probably his best win over a rated opponent.

It is true that a peak Williams did better against Miteff than Chuvalo and Cleroux to a degree--both did beat Miteff--in 1961, but none of the three did as well as Mike DeJohn, who blew out Miteff in one. By your logic, this makes the young DeJohn better than all three.

Of course, this logic is nonsense. A fighter can't be judged off one opponent. It is the whole career. And it might be a cliche, but styles do make fights. Look at Schmeling against Baer and against Louis, and Louis against Baer. Or Norton and Frazier against Ali versus Norton and Frazier against Foreman.


"Agramonte" "countless knockdowns"

Agramonte---stopped 7 times in 72 fights (1 per 10)

Miteff--stopped 8 times in 39 fights (1 in 5)

Holman--stopped 7 times in 45 fights (1 in 6.5)

Satterfield--stopped 13 times in 79 fights (1 in 6)

So Agramonte was the most durable over his career. 28 was his age. And he was still able to win fights against winning fighters.. Holman, Miteff, and Agramonte were all losing consistently to good men. My point is they are on the same plane.

I want to make the point that I am not that high on Chuvalo either. He is much like Williams. A lot of talk of about a "new" Chuvalo, but losing to the better men. With a ton of excuses. And a puffed up record full of ham and eggers.

Williams--with Satterfield he was inexperienced despite 40 pro fights. if it is brought up that Chuvalo or Cleroux or Lavorante had bigger wins, the excuse will be that Williams didn't fight Jones or Harris or Folley. The defeats after 1964? Including Cleroux and Chuvalo. After the shooting so don't count.

So an excuse for everything. The problem is the accomplishments just aren't there, so at best it is potential and an enigma.

 

I’ll concede I was mistaken about McWhorter being there from the very beginning — fair point. But the rest stands. Chuvalo was clearly well-trained early on, which is why he was consistently matched against far tougher opposition than many prospects (including Williams) at that stage of their careers. That didn’t happen by accident.

The problem is that Chuvalo didn’t appear to improve significantly after his first fight with Miteff. Even in their rematch—when Chuvalo had far more experience—he still only managed a hometown split decision win by half a point over a Miteff who according to you was "older" and already in decline.

DeJohn was better than Chuvalo and Cleroux, but he wasn’t on Williams’ level. Outside of Miteff, Williams consistently performed better against their common opponents. He earned a draw with Machen, while DeJohn was badly beaten by him twice. And while Billy Daniels thoroughly outclassed DeJohn, Williams handled Daniels with ease.


Dejohn was 3-5 against common opponents. Williams 4-2-1.

Fair enough, what opponents of Williams do you feel Chuvalo might've done better against? Think he gets a draw with Machen? We know he couldn't beat Terrell or hold him to a SD.

Not sure why you conveniently left out the part where I said "preceding this bout" in regards to Agramonte's knockdowns.

Miteff had been stopped 3 times before fighting Williams while Agramonte twice that.

They were absolutely not on the same plane. Miteff was still rated for a reason. Holman had just been number 3 the previous year. Agramonte hadn't been ranked in years.

Holman was also losing only to ranked fighters at that point.

Please do tell what were the rankings of Bob Dunlap, Kid Riviera, Billy Gilliam. who Agramonte was losing to.

I'm not high on Chuvalo either. Highly overrated. He fought four punchers, two shot (one of them literally), and struggled greatly with them, and was flat out stopped by the other two punchers he fought who were green.

You forgot to mention that Williams had zero amateur fights, a remarkably low number of rounds for his 40 pro bouts, and a glaring lack of quality opposition — not to mention he was a last-minute substitute.

Meanwhile, a 23-year-old Ernie Terrell, with the same number of pro rounds but a decorated amateur background, is labeled “green” by you — and you cite his lack of ranking to support that. Yet somehow, Williams doesn’t get the same consideration, despite being years away from a ranking, while Terrell would earn his within a year. That’s a pretty selective standard.

Then again, Williams offered Jones $60,000 for a fight and got nothing but silence in return.

The only person making excuses here is you. Every one of Williams’ impressive wins during his prime gets dismissed, while his earlier wins—against supposedly weaker opposition—are used to argue he wasn’t as green as people claim. The goalposts keep moving.

For example, Agramonte is framed as"only" 28,

but Miteff at 26 and Johnson at 27 are somehow “older”.

And then there's the Terrell fight: you claim Terrell was too green when Williams beat him, yet somehow Williams—who had less experience in every meaningful way when he fought Satterfield—doesn’t get the same benefit of the doubt. It’s not analysis at that point, it’s just spinning narratives to protect a preferred view.

 

"I concede I was mistaken about McWhorter"

Yes. And more in error about Ungerman. He did not become Chuvalo's manager until 1964.

"Clearly Chuvalo was well-trained from early on." -- "The problem is Chuvalo didn't appear to improve significantly after his first fight with Miteff."

Chuvalo and McWhorter in the 1965 lay the lack of improvement at the feet of poor training. What is your explanation?

Chuvalo "was consistently matched against tougher opposition"

And so has more matches against name fighters. This is spun as a negative versus puffing up a record against tomato cans. Chuvalo would later go the tomato can route quite a bit himself.

"DeJohn was better than Chuvalo or Cleroux"

DeJohn defeated Cleroux. But he lost to Chuvalo. What makes him better than Chuvalo? As for Williams, there is one common opponent you didn't mention. Liston. DeJohn went further in one fight with Liston than Williams did in two combined. If entire careers are considered, there isn't much to choose between these four. None would make my list of the top ten heavyweights of the 1960's.

On DeJohn, if compared with Williams. Williams defeated two fighters rated in the top ten when he beat them--Miteff and Daniels. DeJohn defeated five. Miteff, Powell, Richardson, Hunter, and Cleroux. Miteff, Powell, and Hunter were by KO.

"Please do tell me the ratings of Bob Dunlap, Kid Rivera, Billy Gilliam when Agramonte lost to them"

Dunlap was rated #7 by The Ring in ratings to September 18, 1952. He fought Agramonte on September 29. Dunlap was rated #5 for October.

Rivera was rated #10 by the NBA in their quarterly ratings to March 12, 1952. He fought Agramonte on June 4, 1952.

Gilliam was never rated by either as far as I can tell. (I don't have the Ring monthly ratings for 1953) but had wins in 1952 and 1953 over both Bob Baker and Nino Valdes. He was certainly a top 15 to 20 fighter.

"Miteff had been stopped three times before fighting Williams while Agramonte twice that."

Miteff was stopped 3 times in 32 fights. Agramonte 6 times in 70 fights. (and of course Miteff was on the cusp of being stopped five times in his next 7 fights. Agramonte would be stopped in 10 by Nino Valdes in his next and last fight after going a full ten with Williams)

"Williams offered Jones $60,000 for a fight and got nothing but silence in return."

I asked the internet to give me info about this offer, and received this reply:

"It appears there might be a misunderstanding or a lack of readily available information about an offer of $60,000 made to fight Cleveland Williams. No specific mention of this offer, including the date it was made, can be found."

So I would like a primary source. It does on the face of it seem over the top. Machen got $22,000 for fighting Williams. When was the Jones offer made and by whom? Would it have been credible anyway?

Much is made of Patterson choosing to fight Machen rather than Williams in 1964, but here are the WBA ratings for June of 1964:

Champion--M Ali
1--Doug Jones
2--Eddie Machen
3--Ernie Terrell
4--Cleveland Williams
5--Zora Folley
6--Floyd Patterson

So Patterson was fighting the higher rated fighter for a large purse. I won't second guess him on this one.

By November, the WBA had stripped Ali and their ratings:

Champion--vacant
1--Ernie Terrell
2--Cleveland Williams
3--Floyd Patterson
4--George Chuvalo
5--Eddie Machen
6--Doug Jones

Patterson had beaten Machen. Jones had lost a very close decision to Daniels and been KO'd by Chuvalo. Williams rose to #2 by outpointing Daniels. (my take--the two best active heavyweights, Ali and Liston, are not rated) And what actually had Williams done to rate ahead of Patterson? (Williams was shot late in that month and was removed from the ratings by the WBA--aside--was that fair?)

 

"What opponent of Williams do you feel Chuvalo might have done better against? Think he gets a draw with Machen? You know he couldn't beat Terrell or held him to a SD."

Interesting question. Williams has the edge against boxers. Hard to see Chuvalo doing anything against Machen. Hard to see Chuvalo lasting against the Liston of the Williams fights. The one major opponent I can see Chuvalo doing better against is Satterfield. Chuvalo had a chin and I can see Chuvalo hanging in there like Layne did and he certainly has the power to knock Satterfield out. Speculation. My guess would be Satterfield by a decision.

Chuvalo--"highly overrated. He fought four punchers, two shot (one of them literally) and struggled greatly with them . . . was flat out stopped by the other two punchers who he fought when greeen."

Chuvalo was stopped by Frazier and Foreman. But he fought a lot more than four punchers, punchers at least at some level. Besides Foreman, Frazier, and Williams, there were Patterson, Quarry, Bonavena, DeJohn, Cleroux. Chuvalo certainly lasted against more good punchers than Williams lasted against. Williams' comp for Foreman and Frazier, Liston, blew him out twice.

"Terrell, the same number of pro rounds, but a decorated amateur career"

The "decorated" career didn't keep Terrell from losing two fights to Johnny Gray in the pros.

You assume amateur careers were extremely valuable back then. How did 1948, 1952, and 1956 Olympic champions Rafael Inglesias, Ed Sanders, and Pete Rademacher, fare in the pros? And these were world champions, not guys winning local novice tournaments.

My point with Williams in 1954 and Terrell in 1962 is that they were at about the same point in their careers. They had about the same rounds but puncher Williams had quite a number of more pro fights. And he had the best win either had to that point over Omelio Agramonte. So my take is both KO's are on the same level, except Terrell seems to have done much better and lasted longer against Williams than Williams did against Satterfield. Either count both or dismiss both.

"Agramonte" "28"

That was his age. I was not comparing his age to any of Williams' opponents. All, after all, are young. My point was that he was obviously not aged. But every fighter mentioned--Agramonte, Holman, Miteff, Alonzo Johnson--was past his best and now losing frequently when Wliiams got to them. (this is not unusual--only a few fighters at any given time are top ten and on winning streaks)

"every one of Williams impressive wins"

But in the long run of history, how impressive are they? Some wins by other contenders:

Fireman Jim Flynn--Sam Langford and Jack Dempsey

Gunboat Smith--Sam Langford and Jess Willard

Paulino Uzcudun--Harry Wills and Max Baer

Johnny Risko--Jack Sharkey and George Godfrey

Steve Hamas--Tommy Loughran and Max Schmeling

Tommy Farr--Tommy Loughran and Max Baer

Lou Nova--Max Baer and Tommy Farr

Elmer Ray--Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles

Rex Layne--Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles

Bob Satterfield--Bob Baker and Nino Valdes

Harold Johnson--Jimmy Bivins, Clarence Henry, Nino Valdes, Eddie Machen

Jerry Quarry--Floyd Patterson, Earnie Shavers, Ron Lyle

Jimmy Ellis--Oscar Bonavena, Jerry Quarry, Floyd Patterson

And there are a ton of others who have one or more wins far more impressive than beating a still unrated contender in Terrell and second tier guys like Daniels and Miteff

 

The two situations aren't remotely comparable.

Terrell was two years older than Williams. He had been boxing professionally for five years, Williams for just two and a half. He boxed as an amateur for more than two years before that, Williams had no amateur career at all, just a handful of illicit 4-rounders in his mid-teens.

Being a champion amateur is no guarantee of professional success, but an amateur career provides a grounding in fundamental skills which a fighter can then build on. The alternative is to do what Williams did - turn pro as an outright novice and learn the basics in the ring, fighting every couple of weeks. The downside being that seventy years later people look at Boxrec and say, "Oh, he had a lot of fights. He was really experienced."

And of course, unlike Williams against Satterfield, Terrell wasn't brought in on two days' notice. He actually had time to train for the fight.

 

If Williams can be believed, he turned pro in 1947, seven years before the Satterfield bout.

He had about 40 pro fights, some apparently not on his official record, but mentioned in newspaper reports.

"He had a lot of fights. He was really experienced."

So your argument is that a having a lot of fights doesn't make one experienced? What exactly does?

"an amateur career provides a grounding in fundamental skills"

It could, but so does a professional career, of necessity. I simply don't agree with considering pro experience less valuable than amateur, especially back then.