How good was the Korean Hawk/Jung Koo Chang in his prime?

Yeah, Mante/Lora, GPater, Flea, Sweet Pea and the like were all well-versed on his career. Especially Mante, his knowledge of the lower weights was encyclopaedic and he was probably the best fight analyst on the site. There was a poster called Confucius too who was an expert on South Korean boxing who's knowledge of Chang was very extensive.

Anyhow, great fighter, at least in terms of skill imo. One of the great transcendent natural talents of Asian boxing along with Harada, Park and Payakaroon etc. You described his style nicely Russ, he was like a mini-Duran before Arcel and Brown helped Duran to develop his more layered, textbook approach. Top wins over Zapata, Ohashi, Chitalada, German Torres etc. He was well past it by the time of the Kittikasem fight.

 

I'm not sure about his circumstances outside of the ring tbh mate, never delved into it.

Yeah, I used to love just reading some of the older posters, there's a massive treasure trove of knowledge slowly being lost from the old ESB archives. Better than anything published in the mainstream magazines. It's great to still see yourself, Matt McGrain, janitor, McCray, John Thomas, scar, Al Francis, cobra, Bukkake and probably more who I've forgotten. Even klompton, truculent and aggressive as he is, still pops in and makes good contributions. Jel is someone I don't remember from way back when whose posts I keep a close eye on. Very good poster.

 

It's definitely still a unique forum in terms of the knowledge on display even if many of the top boys don't come here anymore. I liked it that as well as the experienced old hands and historians that we had a generation including you and myself that also comprised of El Bujia, Manassa, Vic-Jofre, teeto, Greg Paterson, Flea, Swarmer and the like who were all younger than 25 or so but had knowledge that way outstripped their years.

 

Anyhow, I'm gonna try and rewatch Chang-Zapata I soon. Maybe the first German Torres fight too....

 

Gonzalez should have anybody's respect purely for the Carbajal trilogy alone imo. Very good fighter at his best, skilled hooking pressure fighter with top power who could box and move very well as he showed in the Carbajal rematches. The first fight was fantastic btw, a classic, and the whole trilogy shone more of a mainstream light on the lighter divisions.

Every time Gonzalez seemed ready to emerge as a great fighter though, he got bombed out. First against Pascua, then Carbajal, then Sorjaturong, each time after looking really imperious in previous efforts. He drew comparison to JCC a lot but never had his chin or defensive ability really, similar to Barrera a few years later. Peak Chang would've beaten him clear I think, if focused and on point, though Humberto would've been one of the best punchers he'd faced. He generally handled big hitters fine though.

 

I am going to have to repeat myself whole lot here:

The prime Chang was basically untouchable at his best. I would go as far as to say that I'd favor no flyweight in the post-Pascual Perez era to beat him except Harada. (And I think I've seen them all in terms of widely available extant footages.) His only loss was to Zapata in their first fight, and Chang had a foot injury that prevented him from moving well - as well as training all-out. So he couldn't bring his trade-mark withering, but intelligent, pressure upon Zapata. Still, it was a controversial loss, and I (and most I think who saw the fight) had Chang winning the fight against an acknowledged master champion. And Chang made it no doubt in the return bout as to who is the boss.

The best way to characterize Chang is not to compare him to Pryor per convention, but to Duran. More precisely, Duran minus the pop. Chang was an aggressive, fast swarmer, but he was more economical and accurate with his punches than an indiscriminate swarmer like Pryor; and unlike most fighters known for pressure and aggression, Chang could box from a distance, and - perhaps most important - he was nearly impossible to hit clean. And he was fast - fast of hands and foot. He could also throw with both hands, all angles, all types of punches, and seamlessly switch from orthodox to southpaw a la Hagler.

What weaknesses? Other than bad training habits and partying that saw him look like a ghost of himself in his later career (and the decline didn't come just after the first retirement; you can see it even in his later title defenses - e.g. Ohashi), there is none. He was short, but he could get in on any long-limbed expert defensive guys, as the Zapata fights showed. Big punchers? He could run circles around them and barely get touched, like the first Torres fight showed. Balanced boxer-punchers? He could dominate them from both inside and outside - whichever way he wanted to go - as the first Chitalada fight showed. This was a special marriage of technical virtuosity and raw speed and reflexes.

The problem was outside the ring, as his rapid decline showed. In this, he had a Tyson-like trajectory - which is another analogy I hear a lot in the West (and is spot-on, unlike the Pryor comparison). Chang was done physically before he even hit his mid-20s; and even in some earlier fights you can see that he took something off during training and paid for it by going in out of shape (e.g. the second Torres fight).

Still, a completely washed Chang should've won a decision against Chitalada in their return bout; and I believe he was leading in the Kittikasem fight going into the last round would've won if you fought more prudentially. (Chang was mindful of the Chitalada decision and rashly tried to finish in the final round). I also do not think the Chiquita fight was as wide as the official scorecard, as Chang has a lot of moments early.

How good was Chang? I repeat: No flyweight beats him in my time, save Harada, at Chang's best. Accompilishment-wise, substantial, but could've been better, and he could've had 20-plus defenses if he really remained focused on his craft and not let external things distract him.

But the gods do not bestow all their gifts on one man, as the Homeric saying goes. And Chang's immense ability was not buttressed by a work ethic.

And it is indeed the tragedy of Korean boxing that its two greatest natural talents - Chang and Chan-hee Park - were cursed with its worst work ethic.

 

Addendum: I don't want to be misunderstood. I don't want to make a perfect analogy between Chang and Chan-hee Park. Chang had heart and was genuinely tough; Park didn't and was not. So Chang toughed out difficult, grueling wins even when he was physically spent; Park wilted the minute adversity presented itself.

Park was a *****; Chang was not.

So there is an ocean's difference between the two, too.

 

Wow. Great post.
I'm a big fan of Chang, and still learning about him. I always thought his defensive radar was very underrated.

Do you have any knowledge on Chang's trainers and training? How he got into boxing?

 

I know of his promoter; but I do not know of his trainers. He got into boxing the way a lot of boxers got into boxing those days. He was a troubled kid from Pusan (which is a seedy port city), and he was steered into a boxing gym and found his calling. Boxing was a way out from poverty and other troubles in those days in South Korea, because of South Korea's economic under-development. The irony is that now it seems like boxing is the exclusive sports for the rich, as even world class former fighters seem to cater themselves to rich people wanting to lose weight (e.g. Kim Kwang-Sun's gym).