Who beat better opposition Sonny Liston or Jack Dempsey

If you want to include 1958 among the years Sonny was the most dominant then there are more fighters beside ingo that he missed out. Archie Moore was still a relevant heavyweight at that time. He even beat some of the same guys Liston did. Henry Cooper too was in the top 4 for both 1958 and 1959. This is quite relevant. Sonny was really only climbing the fringe circuit until about 1960. Only From then on was he meeting and beating the real power players of the division.

 

Isn't this enough.

Wills--generally viewed as the outstanding challenger.

Norfolk--beat Miske in 1917 and 1919. Also beat Siki who knocked out Carpentier. Considering Miske appears to have been better than Brennan, one can make a strong case that Norfolk was better than Miske, Brennan, and Carpentier.

Godfrey--he was rated every year but one from 1924 to 1929. He was the #4 contender in 1925. The #2 contender in 1928. Don't see why his career "never got off the ground."

 

I broadly agree with this post except for one thing.
Folley was not robbed against Cooper he was out boxed because after dropping Copper he went right hand happy and forgot about his boxing and Cooper piled up the points with his jab.

 

I think we have reached a consensus on this point.

Norfolk would have been a strong choice for a title defense, but did he really do enough to force the issue?

Godfrey was more a victim of bad management than anything else.

He was in the rankings from time to time, but he punched too many people in the nuts, to establish himself as the top contender.

Perhaps Tate is the real untold story here. After his series with Wills, he should have been seriously discussed as a challenger for Dempsey.

 

This is true. There were easier fights out their in order for Henry to maintain his higher ranking than Sonny during 1958 and 1959. I have read Cooper say he was glad he did not fight Frazier or Sonny.

However, I have witnessed Cooper at a sportsmans dinner answering this question and he said:

"yes, it's about styles and business. There are fighters that are wrong for each other and there is no point putting your kid in with one who might be lower ranked that he thought was wrong anyway when it was nothing more gained than another fight. He said that and I trusted Jim. Me personally I liked bigger guys anyway I could move around. Even then there was whispers that Sonny wasn't too clever against a man who could move."

When pushed if he would have fought Sonny Liston Cooper said:

"well yes, of course I would, if he was champion, as a fighter you take your chance. Jim didn't like him for me but like I said I felt at that time I could do alright."

 

Before or after Dempsey beat them ?

 

Fulton and Firpo are two cases in point.:good

 

"Tate is the real untold story here"

Why? He lost all his fights as far as I can see to Norfolk and Godfrey.

His record was around 50% wins for his career.

He was beaten four times as far as I can see by Wills, three times in 1921, twice by knockout.

The January 1922 fights are interesting.

They fought in a town called Milwaukee, Oregon, which had a population of 1,172 in the 1920 census. I can't find it on an internet map, but it apparently is close to Portland.

The two fights in January, 1922 between Wills and Tate each drew crowds of about 5000. The venue was a converted train shed.

*I find that interesting as it shows it is at least possible that a small town could have a venue to seat thousands, which has been disputed concerning the Flynn-Dempsey fight of 1917.

On January 2, Wills hit Tate in the first round and apparently knocked him out off what I can gleam from the account. The referee disqualified Wills for hitting on the break.

The promoter illegally held up the fighters' purses and demanded they fight again for free (or actually for the original purse) and they were forced to comply if they wanted to be paid. The fans could attend the second fight free.

The second fight went ten rounds and was declared a draw,

Johnny Elkins, described in the article as a "local boxing historian" was quoted "Most in the crowd thought Wills won."

On the other hand, a Chicago Tribune correspondent was on hand and saw the fight as hard with Wills being knocked down by a rabbit punch in the ninth round.

Whatever, this whole thing doesn't seem to have been taken that seriously back east.

 

"Valdes"

mid-fifties perhaps,

but he didn't beat Johansson or Cooper who were the best of the Euro-heavies of the era.

Considering that Johansson KO'd Machen who KO'd Valdes, and Cooper outpointed Folley who also beat Valdes, Valdes is a very weak argument for proving Johansson, Cooper, or later Mildenberger, were somehow of a lesser class than Machen or Folley.

 

Given that Wills was seen as the standout contender going into the fight with Tate, we probably have to give Tate some credit for beating him, and drawing against him, whatever the circumstances.

In this respect Tate might have been more deserving of a title shot, than Norfolk or Godfrey, neither of who closed the gap on wills.

 

"Cleveland Williams"

Was not rated in The Ring yearly rankings prior to 1961,

but that isn't really the whole story.

You quote Bill Brennan's record in another post as being 22-2-3. Well, that is a bit misleading as it was the No Decision era. Fightsrec quotes his record as 39-6-4, really not that much different. You list Brennan's big wins as over Battling Levinsky, Bartley Madden, and Homer Smith. Levinsky was the light-heavy champ, although frequently beaten.

Madden was durable, but was 39-25-6 for his career. Smith had 45 defeats against 63 victories. These two are probably best described as just trial horses.

Williams has been scored, and fairly, for having a padded record, but so does Brennan. Of his 76 victories, more than half are against men with losing records or very few wins or fights. He consistently lost to the top men.

Williams was 44-2 when he first fought Liston. One of the losses was a four round fight reversed by KO. The other a KO to Satterfield.

Up until the Cleroux fight in late 1968, when he was past 35, much older than Brennan lived or fought to,

Williams had lost only six fights, the early two, two to Liston, a split decision to Terrell, and to Ali. From 1954 to 1968 he lost only to men who were heavyweight champions or claimants,

and he had a stoppage of Terrell.

To make a long story short, his down side isn't all that down. He had been knocked out only by Satterfield, Liston, and Ali, all great fighters or great punchers, and had knockouts over the two men who outpointed him.

I rate Williams a solid level above Brennan. Sorry, but I have to. I don't see Brennan as a likely winner over the 1962 Terrell, or probably ever getting a draw with Machen. I would favor Williams over the men Brennan beat.

Williams' punching power is, I think, overrated, but he was a big man with solid boxing skills and I don't see the various light-heavies and trial horses Brennan beat handling him.

I would say that Mike DeJohn is more at the level of Brennan.

Bottom line--ratings aside, Williams was better than Brennan and there is no reason to think the 1959 or 1960 version of Williams wouldn't have beaten any version of Brennan.

 

Godfrey never fought Wills.

I don't see what gap he could close.

And by the way, Godfrey had beaten Tate prior to those 1922 fights, and would later KO him.

*I also find it odd that Norfolk's several wins over Tate are taken off the table.

 

But when Jack fought Brennan the first time at least he had beat noted fighters. Brennan was at least (for what it is worth)described as a leading contender. AT THAT POINT.

Williams when he fought Liston, regardless of his 43-2 manufactured record, had fought just one name and lost to that one name by crushing KO. His record was 0-1 against name fighters. At that time Williams was neither rated nor a leading contender.