Willsons is better, simple as that.
If that kind of loss of fidelity/nuance is typical of the translation then it's not for me. Maybe I misunderstood and this translation is intended as an easy-reading introduction for readers with reduced vocabularies?
The translator doing slightly different choices, often more accurate to original does not make it worst.
And yes, it sounds better because it is translation to actual English. There is no loss of nuance here anyway.
As a (once) professional translator with some familiarity with the language, I'd like to reassure potential readers that it's a fine translation with a unique parti pris. It's in spirit probably closer to the original than some translations that may be more canonical, e.g. Pope's, but that have been criticized just as harshly (or more) in the past.
I’ve not heard of Peter Green before but that translation doesn’t look to be great either, if the sample is representative. There’s nothing to be ashamed of in that, translating Homer was a schoolboy/girl exercise for centuries but only a very rare talent ever got something beyond serviceable. Again, the tiresome part is people celebrating workmanlike translations for social reasons.