Rating the Heavyweights of Liston's era

Not to nitpick, but boxrec lists him as being over 20 years old, weighing 200Lbs, and having 27 fights as opposed to Jones's record of 7-3. He also lost this fight rather easily in all fairness. Against Satterfield, he was nearly a year older than he was against Jones, and now had a record of 31-1, plus outweighed Satterfield by some 25 Lbs. Again, he lost more than convincingly. While I agree that Williams was probably still a work in progress, his credentials and physical description, when sized to that of his early conquerors, makes it a tad difficult to play the green card.

A nice testimony, and probably a great fight to watch. We have to consider though, that Williams was not the only fighter to trouble Liston in his career, and merely giving a great fighter a run for his money, can only hold so much weight. By this logic, Renaldo Snipes is an all time great contender.

I have already commented on my feelings of his win over Wayne Bethea. Williams did no more to Bethea than many of his peers were doing at the time. It's sort of like everyone of the 1980's having the claim to beating James " Quick " Tillis. A good win yes, but by no means did it set anybody apart from one another. There are also a lot of references to potential robberies in your post here, but the fact is, those fights are listed as either draws or losses. Its not uncommon for people to have mixed feelings over the results of close fights. The Earnie Terrell win was decent, but Terrell's marketability went up a tad later. Its only in hindsite that we can say that it was a good win, and Terrell beat him in the rematch anyway. Also, you claim that Williams was the only man to ever knock out Terrell. The fight is actually listed as having a TKO outcome, and another fighter named Jeff Merritt repeated the feat a number of years later. Therefore, your claim about Williams being the only one to ever KO Earnie is incorrect on a couple of different levels.

Fair enough. If you've seen those fights, and are impressed by them, then I won't despute that he looked good on film.

I believe this. Many fighters were very hard to beat, regardless of their actual value. Bert Cooper gave hell to many of top fighters. Oliver McCall did the same, and even defeated an all time great in his prime, but this hasn't stopped many posters ( possibily including yourself ), from calling him mediocre.

 

A fair criticism on your part,

the difference here, is that I am not listing Corrie Sanders as being one of the best of an era. I think you have Williams somewhere around #5 during Liston's ara, or perhaps maybe that's what the RING had him at. I will stand by my claim that Sanders is better than given credit for, but that's about it.

Another small difference, is that you tend to rate fighters with some sort of personal agenda. You go to great lengths to discredit Sanders, for the sole purpose of discrediting Klitschko for losing to him. This is commonly termed as circular logic, and for obvious reasons, does not usually work. As for my critiquing Sanders, I clearly have no hidden agenda to berate Liston. I'm simply looking at Williams' career as a separate entity, and have even admitted that I don't know much about him. You on the otherhand, will fire off a fighter's shortcummings as though you were in the man's corner when he fought every match....

 

Suzie, how do you see a prime Williams doing against the Ali he fought in '66? How do you see a prime Liston doing against that night's version of Ali?

 

I like the order.

With Ali and Liston in there, the list has talent at the top, however, I do not think the depth is great from #5-10.

I have seen all of these guys on flim. Terell was much better in a match I saw that did not have Ali in it.

 

Just watched Liston/Wiliams (thanks suzieQ) and Thompson/Igbramov, what Williams and Liston would have done to them, if Wlad doesn't stop Thompson in two I will run down the street naked (please don't hold me to it though).

Williams top 5 for sure a very dangerous fighter, but Sanders was an underrated dangerous fighter as well.

 

Great stuff, Q.

And jesus christ Harol Johnson is ripped to ****.

 

I think you have Williams too high on your list. His resume is a bit thin and I think people tend to overate him because of his power, people love a big hitter. I'd definitly rate H Johnson ahead of Williams(H Johnson's heavyweight resume seems to be really underated by a lot of people). I'd probably put Folley and Machen ahead of Williams as well. But overall your list was solid and enjoyable to read.

Also, let me see if I got this right. You say Williams loss to Jones should be largely written off due to inexperience. He was 20yrs old and had 27 or 28 fights and Jones was coming in with around 10 fights. Then on a thread I read almost right before this one you said Wlad Klitschko's loss toRoss Purrity was very damaging. Wlad was about 22 and had 24 fights and Purrity was a tough gatekeeper who had recently drew with Tommy Morrison. You also mentioned Williams would go on to weigh more in his peak but Wlad was also fighting 10-15 pounds less than his peak fights. I admit Wlad had an extensive amatuer career and Williams probably didn't, though I don't know much about Williams amatuer career. But overall, I'd say both fighters loss in similar circumstances and both losses carry a similar amount of weight. If I missed something by all means correct me if not I smell a bit of a double standard here.

 

The difference in amatuer credentials is partilly offset by who they lost to. Purrity was a 40 fight veteran gatekeeper while Jones was a ten fight gimme. You can make a case that Williams loss was less damaging, and I'm not so sure about that, but if Wlad's was "very damaging" as you put it than Williams loss has to be seen as atleast "damaging" to his career. These two losses carry similar weight from how I see it.