Mike Weaver vs Cleveland Williams

[joseph5620]

Who, in your opinion wins this?

Williams. Weaver was a slow starter and that would not work against a puncher like Williams.

[billeau2]

Weaver is underrated, Williams is overrated.


Weaver wins this one. Should be exciting - and short.

Tell me Pookie...was weaver a puncher?

[Rusty Tromboni]

Williams. Weaver was a slow starter and that would not work against a puncher like Williams.

And yet he survived against Coetzee, who would stop both Williams and Liston.

You guys should actually watch fighters before talking about them.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Tell me Pookie...was weaver a puncher?

Maybe ask Larry Holmes.

Or let me guess, you don't consider Holmes very good because Cerafino Garcia beat him, too?

[Rusty Tromboni]

Williams. Williams has reach, experience, and when on his A game a fighter with exceptional skills.

Weaver did well for himself. He was competative in an era where that is quite an achievement. Unfortunately he started late and like Norton, could have been even better with an early start.

Williams basically uses his reach to stop Weaver. Little hercules tries but cannot muscle Williams. A good effort for sure but imo this one goes to Williams.

Oh yeah, which skills did Williams have?

What experience did he have over Weaver?

In what way is starting "late" a bad thing, especially at Heavyweight?

Weaver struggled with fighters who were more skilled and experienced than him. If you came at him looking for the kill, or became too relaxed you'd get zinged. He was deceptively skilled.

Not Champion material but a solid contender who made the most of limited means.

Williams, conversely, was just a hype job.

[billeau2]

Oh yeah, which skills did Williams have?

What experience did he have over Weaver?

In what way is starting "late" a bad thing, especially at Heavyweight?

Weaver struggled with fighters who were more skilled and experienced than him. If you came at him looking for the kill, or became too relaxed you'd get zinged. He was deceptively skilled.

Not Champion material but a solid contender who made the most of limited means.

Williams, conversely, was just a hype job.

https://www.sportbible.com/boxing/ne...onent-20200814

Know why I pasted that article? Because rather than me explaining something fundamental to the sport, I let Lennox Lewis do it... Him and Tyson are talking about the strongest mutual opponent they faced, then Lewis tells us "why."

Let Lewis explain it to you in his praise of Holly. He never says, that Holly could punch, defend, etc... No... he sites the years of experience and how that translates in the ring to success. You see where I am going with this Pookie?

[billeau2]

Maybe ask Larry Holmes.

Or let me guess, you don't consider Holmes very good because Cerafino Garcia beat him, too?

I was asking you... and as you have complimented me on so many occasions, we both know there is a method to my madness, ehh Pookie? See heres the thing: Williams was a big puncher. Very dangerous with skills.

Weaver was not a big puncher. He was known to be strong and to be tough, but was not particularly skilled, fast, hard punching, etc.

[Rusty Tromboni]

https://www.sportbible.com/boxing/ne...onent-20200814

Know why I pasted that article? Because rather than me explaining something fundamental to the sport, I let Lennox Lewis do it... Him and Tyson are talking about the strongest mutual opponent they faced, then Lewis tells us "why."

Let Lewis explain it to you in his praise of Holly. He never says, that Holly could punch, defend, etc... No... he sites the years of experience and how that translates in the ring to success. You see where I am going with this Pookie?

When you've been exposed why do you make it worse for yourself?

Why not just admit you were mistaken?

You don't have to sa, "Sorry, Kevin, I was talking out of my ass."

You can just say "yeah, I goofed on that one. My bad. Sometimes I get things crossed in my head."


And we would leave it at that. Instead, you double-down. And you even decide it's OK to make up facts to cover your lies. Maybe IRL that works. But here's the thing about this forum.... it's on the internet.


I don't mean to always pick on you. It's just you say the most outlandish things and then get defensive when you're called out on it.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I was asking you... and as you have complimented me on so many occasions, we both know there is a method to my madness, ehh Pookie? See heres the thing: Williams was a big puncher. Very dangerous with skills.

Weaver was not a big puncher. He was known to be strong and to be tough, but was not particularly skilled, fast, hard punching, etc.

Maybe ask the orderlies to loosen up your straight-jacket? Clearly it's cutting off the blood flow to your brain.

Many fighters far better than Williams learned the consquence of Weaver's power. Late in the fight, no less.

Weaver could be beat, but he feasted on hacks like Williams.

[joseph5620]

Oh yeah, which skills did Williams have?

What experience did he have over Weaver?

In what way is starting "late" a bad thing, especially at Heavyweight?

Weaver struggled with fighters who were more skilled and experienced than him. If you came at him looking for the kill, or became too relaxed you'd get zinged. He was deceptively skilled.

Not Champion material but a solid contender who made the most of limited means.

Williams, conversely, was just a hype job.

If you're going to argue with me you need to step up your reading comprehension. When I said Weaver it's a slow starter I meant he started off slowly when he fought. That's why Michael Dokes was able to stop him in one round although that fight was stopped way too early.


It's called styles make fights. Almost everything you responded with is not relevant here.