Chuvalo In The Late 1890's/Early1900's How Far Could He Go?

Um, Ruhlin's very clearly throwing punches. A couple even land.

You specifically asked for film instead of written accounts. You got film.

Now you complain that the filmed opponent wasn't adequate.

Well, that's the only prime film of Jeffries out there. Aside from Sharkey, which is unwatchable. So either take the film and work with it, or go back to newspaper accounts.

Your original request for film just seems so pointless now. Why ask for film when you've already decided -- from written accounts -- that the filmed opponent is inadequate?

Funny how Ruhlin doesn't manage to hit him with many.

You do realize that most footwork from that era revolved around lunging to close the gap? Or don't you?

You should, because 90% of Johnson's (very impressive) footwork is just that. Jeffries shuffled to conserve energy until he actually came within a relevant distance to strike. That shuffling you're complaining about is just preliminary. The actual meat of Jeffries's footwork comes when the opponents enter feinting range. At that point, he could cover a lot of ground and usually timed it to avoid the counter. It needs to be integrated and set up with feints a lot more than modern boxing. That's most of the game back then, and Jeffries's footwork did exactly what it was supposed to do.

Jeffries pulls it off here against an opponent who's trying to play keep-away. He repeatedly manages to get Ruhlin to guess wrong and fail to nail Jeffries coming in.

I was (pretty obviously) using "shock" sarcastically. If you were annoyed that I replied to your substantive posts on a public discussion thread, that's just silly.

 

Assuming you're not joking with me, that's pretty cool stuff. Any news, McGrain?

 

Johnson often cliched, held and hit. The fact that you can't see it does not mean it did not happen. You can see Johnson clearly hitting on the break in the Moran fight. That one is on you tube. Watch and see for yourself.

I produced a news report that said Ketchel landed a solid blow and the mark was clearly visible. Even you must remember that! Again, you don't own the film. I do not have time to take dust off the tape, and take a snap shot photo of it, so the press report will have to suffice.

Did you even bother to read a full round by round report? I posted it here, and if you score the rounds based on the way a primary source saw it, Jeffries was slightly in the lead prior to the KO.

 

Eh, legal or not, holding and hitting was part of the game back then. One of the many parts of Johnson's skillset that I find impressive, really.

 

We agree that Corbett could adapt to modern rules.

We disagree that Chavalo wasn't suited for 1900 rules. He was a good body puncher, game, and durable. Making the fight in those days had something to do with the scoring...perhaps even more so than it does today. With Chavalo, the modern skills hurt him. Back in 1900, he doesn't have to worry about them as much. At least that is how I see it.

Chavalo was a game man, even when out matched vs Ali he had his share of moments. Similar in many ways to Marvin Hart, who had Johnson on defense for the majority of the second half of the fight.

As for my pick on Chavalo vs Johnson, I need to know the ring size and the rounds. The smaller the ring, the better Chavalo's chances.

If Super middles could KO or floor Johnson, or in O'Brien's case out box him, what could a solid fighter ( Chavalo ) in a talent rich era do? Chavalo in his prime would likely rate as Johnson's 2nd toughest title opponent, behind Jess Willard though his skills were better than Willard's

 

I agree. His right uppercut in the clinch was perhaps his best punch.

My point is that in a modern setting Johnson won't be able to get away with this. Take away a fighters preferred offensive strategy via a rule change, and he is downgraded. As such Johnson best offensive stuff does not translate into modern times.

As for whether it was legal or not in 1908, that often depended on the negotiations, or the referee. If you go by Queensberry rules, its a foul.

 

Yep. We differ slightly in how he'd adapt, but the bottom line is that he could.

Yes, I agree that Chuvalo has all of the PHYSICAL tools to do well in Johnson's era. He's bigger, stronger, and harder hitting than most of his opponents. Definitely more durable. And you're right that his aggression would be helpful.

What Chuvalo doesn't have are the period-specific skills. His arsenal is mid-range compared to Johnson's, or Jeffries's. Chuvalo can't out-feint guys who've been masterfully feinting their entire careers. He certainly can't close distance like Johnson or Jeffries could. He doesn't understand the turn-of-the-century inside wrestling game at all, and his punches don't set him up for advantageous positions on the inside.

This sounds a little like you're saying that Johnson/Jeffries era fighters were just inferior technicians, so Chuvalo could get away with stuff he couldn't a century later.

I actually think that they're just two different sports that share some similarities in rules. Like badminton and tennis.

Oh, yeah...

But Hart was more than just game. He'd fought the 1900's long range feint-lunge-clinch game his entire career. His style was built around that. Chuvalo's wasn't.

Hart and Chuvalo share many physical attributes, yes. (I actually think Chuvalo is a bigger, stronger, harder-hitting man, so there you go). And both were crude for their eras. But their skillsets are totally different, because their eras trained totally different skills.

Probably less than O'Brien or Choynski, to be honest.

To use the analogy I mentioned earlier, Chuvalo was like an excellent tennis player. O'Brien, Jeffries, Johnson, and Choynski were playing badminton.

More skilled than Willard in what way? I agree that Willard and Chuvalo were both crude by their eras' respective standards.

But at least Willard's crude skills were oriented toward winning under Johnson's rules.

 

That's absolutely true.

But Jeffries would have the same problem. A lot of the assumptions that allowed Jeffries to get away with his style -- that his opponent would stay at long range, that his tiny gloves can slip past an opponent's guard, that he'd transition into vigorous clinch work, that he wouldn't have to deal with combinations -- no longer apply in 1960. Jeff would have to develop head movement, a better jab, and some punch variety in a hurry.

Yeah, that's true in theory, but I don't care much what the rules technically say.

Boxing is a social activity. It's embedded in the people who compete in it, not in the text of the Queensberry rules. If refs had no problem with Johnson's holding & hitting back then, neither do I.

(Or if you want an alternate explanation: People interpreted the rule against "holding and hitting" very differently back then. The language changed meaning between 1900 and now).

 

If Chavalo could catch up to Ali who had better reach, foot work, and fine clinching skills himself, why could he catch up to other fighters in 1890's to 1900's?

The only heavy who of the times who used laterally mobility, and and quickly moved around with his feet of the times on film was Corbett. The vast majority of the top talent from 1890-1910 were there to engage. Examples: Sullivan, Hart, Burns, Jeffries, Sharkey, Langford, McVey, Fitzsimmons, etc...

You had a few semi mobile types like O'Brien, Johnson, and Kid McCoy but there were not the norm. So Chavalo really would not need feints to hit them, as the high guard concept wasn't the norm in the times either!

If Chavalo was was born into the times, he picks up clinching skills and feints to some extent. From from a physical standpoint he was stronger and bigger than most of the fighters. I still say he is suited for the times by the way I am defining it.

You could say Chuvalo if he was boxing in the 1890's to 1900's might be similar Joe Goddard.

The skill sets were different. Fighters back then did not use the jab to set up combinations, and most had low guard and did not incorporate modern footwork . However, they were used to in-fighting, uppercuts, clinch fighting, were better body punchers, and because they often used one punch at a time, better at feints. Its a different skill set if you will, but not as fundamentally sound as what we see today in terms of out skills, or defense.

I mostly agree here. But my point is if CHavalo was in his prime in the early 1900's he would have the skills of the times. If you time warp him from 1970 to 1900 he has a modern skill set that would give him an edge in other areas.

Willard had the worst defense of any filmed heavyweight champion I have seen. He was somewhat clumsy and not an accurate puncher. In that way Willard was crude.

Willard won because he was bigger, more durable and hit harder. Johnson could not clinch Jess or manhandle him. In closing I feel a fighter can pick up skills of the past or future if he was born into that era, but he really could not change his stature.

 

So you are using a 60 second action clip. Why not describe what happened prior? Is that beyond what you know? I'll catch you up to speed.

Jeffries had already hurt and floored Ruhlin, and determined he had no fear of his power. So he went for a finish. When you open up in attack and advance, you leave yourself open. A trade here was something Jeffries was just fine with. Sugar Ray Robinson was hit a lot, and its for many of the same reasons.

Jeffries had nimble feet. Watch his training clips and you'll see. In this fight, he didn't need to use nimble footwork to catch up to Ruhlin. The film is grainy, shot at a distance, and runs slow.

As I told you before, Jeffries did better vs bigger fighters. ( Ruhlin, Jackson, Munroe, Kennedy ). These guys ranged from 195-215 in weight. None of them made it past 5 rounds. Although you don't see it Jeffries was a big puncher. He floored ever man he meet, save his late comeback attempt.

No class fighter of the times was bigger, and none were stronger. If Jeffries were around today, he'd be 230, and likely the strongest man in the division with a more modern skill set. I think he'd beat Wlad, but lose on points to Vitali.

 

Johnson often cliched, held and hit. The fact that you can't see it does not mean it did not happen. You can see Johnson clearly hitting on the break in the Moran fight. That one is on you tube. Watch and see for yourself.



I produced a news report that said Ketchel landed a solid blow and the mark was clearly visible. Even you must remember that! Again, you don't own the film. I do not have time to take dust off the tape, and take a snap shot photo of it, so the press report will have to suffice.



Did you even bother to read a full round by round report? I posted it here, and if you score the rounds based on the way a primary source saw it, Jeffries was slightly in the lead prior to the KO.

Once again, you are not saying what I wrote is in this thread is un-true

Its there in print to read, and since you don't watch the films, its a moot point unless I want to post my collection on you tube to prove you wrong on something for the 100th time.

But I would be willing to post a link that says Ketchel who hardly landed much left a large and visible mark on Johnson's face. The report doesn't say a black eye, but the films which you never watch but somehow feel 100% sure to comment on do! You can see Johnson fouling Moran on you tube. You don't go there, rather you hide behind what you think is the unknown. :hi: