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

Thank you.

I would actually strongly disagree with this, thouggh. Mugging was something Johnson (and his contemporaries) did exceptionally well. His approach to boxing was built around it. Chuvalo's wasn't.

This is the flipside of the style argument above.

Chuvalo's boxing skills are oriented toward exchanging combinations in midrange under modern rules. Johnson's are designed to hit you from long range, close the gap as quickly as possible, and beat on you in the clinch with tiny gloves.

Under turn of the century rules, Johnson grinds Chuvalo down. The opposite might -- or might not -- happen under modern rules.

 

Corbett's style isn't remotely modern, though. It's textbook 1890s. The lunges, approach to infighting, preferred range, ****ed fists, rotating guard. Everything.

Gans I'll give you, because you've probably studied a lot more footage of him than I have. As I think you (and others) have mentioned before, though, skills start in the lighter weight divisions and move up.

 

Corbett could quickly bend at the waist and deliver a straight body shot with either hand. Never saw any heavyweight do it as well has he did! His combination to floor Fitzsimmons was fantastic.

I have 27 minutes of Fitz vs Corbett, and studied the match via a slow motion DVR to pick on on the finer points which are sometimes obscured by a very old film, and the sun!

When you are as fast as Corbett, you don't have to be text book. Ali isn't text book either, he was rather un-orthodox.

Gans has good skills. The films are out there . Speaking of films, they got a lot better post 1905.

 

It nice to have a guy who watches the films, and understands styles in the conversation.

Johnson was a much better in-fighter than out fighter. He''s not going to mug Chavalo like he did to very short and light fighters in Burns and Ketchel. And with his low guard, and sometimes stationary style, he is there to be hit.

Johnson wasn't a great out fighter in terms of sticking and moving, and he had a relatively short reach of 74". Johnson was in fact out landed by Frank Moran in the mid to long range on the surviving footage I have seen. You can probably pick up 10 minutes or so of the action on you tube. In the Moran match, Johnson does his best work up close.

 

Thank you. Much appreciated. :good

I actually remember the account you wrote up years ago of the Corbett/Fitzsimmons fight. Before it went up on youtube. It was good stuff.

I actually disagree with this. Johnson's style was fine for outfighting. Where it lacked was mid-range combination punching.

(Combination punching really only developed after the gloves got bigger. Jeffries, Fitz, and the rest would have the same problem in the 1960s that Johnson would).

Johnson's low hands and stationary approach to boxing would work just fine at extreme range. The liberal clinch rules mean that you either have to be all the way out, or all the way in.

That's the thing about turn of the century boxing: the opponent only gets one shot. After that, Johnson wraps you up.

Chuvalo couldn't exploit Johnson's invitingly low hands consistently under late 19th century rules. Why? Because Johnson would NEVER stand at mid-range and let Chuvalo throw combinations. Every one of Johnson's punches -- all those weird, awkward skip steps -- are designed to cover distance really quickly. Johnson sets his punches up with feints from long range. After that, he lunges from outside combination range, and then throws a punch that puts him in a clinch advantage.

Once the fight gets to clinching range, it's over. Johnson (and Jeffries) drilled wrestling and clinch-fighting like mad. Their punch arsenals are designed to slip into the clinch effectively. Their infighting strategies focus on aggressive clinch wrestling. Chuvalo, by contrast, built his career in a refereed version of the sport with larger gloves.

Remember that even Burns and Ketchel had experience with that sort of thing. So did Moran, Flynn, and the other Johnson victims. Chuvalo didn't.

Oh, Chuvalo might have his moments. But Johnson's going to tie him in knots on the inside, and out-feint him at extreme range. Chuvalo's fast, snappy jab is an inferior weapon for this sort of distance control game compared to Johnson's left lunge.

Chuvalo will never reach his mid-range sweet spot. Johnson won't let him.

Moran knew how to play the game like Johnson did, though. He built his style around the small gloves and clinching rules just like Papa Jack. Chuvalo didn't.

 

Yep. Improper form today. Standard back then. Probably flowed from the different foot positioning.

Well, technically Corbett was textbook. Just a very different (and now obsolete) textbook.

But to get back to your main point --

I agree with you that Corbett's reflexes, and speed (plus his cerebral approach to boxing) would allow him to exploit his "weird" old-timey style against a lot of modern fighters. Moreso than Jeffries or Johnson, for instance.

Yeah, there's a definite improvement as the 20th century continues. In film and modern skill.

 

Taken from my review of the fight, which was posted here a while back.

Corbett in attack. More hard shots by Corbett, then spirited clinching! BAM! Big right hand by Corbett. Another one. A quick left in the blink of an eye, then a right. Fitzsimmons in retreat to a corner. 1-2 by Corbett. A clinch. Then a left and hard right by Corbett. Fitzsimmons' head snaps back and forth. A hard hook to the body by Corbett. Fitz down on one knee clinching for 3-4 seconds timed by me. Referee Siler starts the count. Siler is restringing Corbett and escorting him away from Fitzsimmons. There was no neutral corner rule!! It seems like Siler is being partial to Fitzsimons here. Was this in the rules?

 

To go out on a limb a bit you talk about old timers you have to rate the man, not the era he lived in. Just because Corbett didn't jab like Floyd Mayweather does not mean he couldn't. Necessity is the motherhood of invention.

Dare I use a WWI example? The old method of advancing to attack wasn't working. It was suicide to advance with no cover into the machine guns. Armies on both sides had to adapt and came up with trenches to protect their positions, armored tanks, and flame throwers to counter the tanks.

If a modern jab was around in the 1890's, the fighters would adapt. Some more than others. In the case of Corbett and Jeffries, both were flexible, athletic, and quick. So I believe they could adapt. In Johnson's case the new rules against clinching and hitting would take away from some of his best stuff.

 

How was Chuvalo better than average? He wasnt. He often lost to even C level opponents so lets not pretend hes got greatness in his blood, he doesnt. The closest Chuvalo ever got to greatness was when he was getting beaten up by it.

Why compare a not prime Johnson of the Hart fight (and Hart may have been better than Chuvalo) to the best Chuvalo? Odd way to match them but youre bias against Johnson is well documented so its understandable coming from you. But lets explore the idea that Hart outworked Johnson: In what alternate universe was Chuvalo a high output fighter like Hart? He never was. You say Johnson wouldnt be able to hug and mug Chuvalo. Why not? Plenty of other fighters did.

What version of Chuvalo beats Jack Johnson? Would it be the 1950s version that lost to Pat McMurtry, Howard King, and Bob Baker? Would it be the early 1960s version that was easily outboxed by Pete Rademacher, Zora Folley, Joe Erskine, and beaten 2 out 3 by Bob Cleroux? Was it the mid 1960s version that lost to Floyd Patterson, Muhammad Ali, Oscar Bonavena, Ernie Terrell, and the legendary Eduardo Corletti? Was it the late 1960s version that was hammered into submission by Frazier or dominated by Mathis? Or was it the early 1970s version that was pounded out by Foreman and dominated by Ali? I mean, when your two best wins are a fluky stoppage over Jerry Quarry (who himself had a hard time winning the big ones and who had dominated the Chuvalo fight turning Georges face into hamburger) and Doug Jones it doesnt really bolster the argument that Chuvalo has anything more than a snowballs chance in hell of beat Jack Johnson.

 

George Chuvalo would have done very well in my honest opinion. Very tough guy, strong, decent overall skills... would have looked even more impressive in those more primitive times.

At 6' and about 200 Lbs, he'd be plenty big enough in this era. He was only stopped twice in 93 pro fights... LKOby4 to Joe Frazier and LKOby3 to George Foreman... he'd be more than durable enough. 64 of his 73 wins were by stoppage, he'd have more than enough power.

He always gave his all, didn't mind fighting dirty if he felt he had to. He was once DQd for head butting... LDQ5 Joe Erskine in 1961.

He lost some close fights (some very close) to good fighters like-

Howard King SD, he also stopped King in 7
Bob Baker
Bob Cleroux SD x2, he also beat Cleroux
Zora Folley
Floyd Patterson
Ernie Terrell
Oscar Bonavena
...and some others

He beat-

Alex Mitlif
Frankie Daniels, KO
Yvon Durelle, KO
Willi Besmanoff, KO x3
Mike DeJohn
Doug Jones, KO
Joe Bygraves
Manuel Ramos, KO
Jerry Quary, KO
Cleveland Williams
...and some others

He also drew with Tony Alongi

He lost lop-sided decisions to-

Muhammad Ali x2, Buster Mathis Sr, and Jimmy Ellis (closer than the fights with Ali and Mathis though)

This resume might not look like much but I still think he'd do very well.

 

Yeah, but Corbett's been throwing punches differently his entire life. Intelligent though he is, I don't see him morphing into a modern fighter with the same proficiency as a boxing slickster from 2014.

It would be a better idea to stick to his strengths -- a style that works best at range and in the leadup to the clinch -- and try to minimize his weaknesses with 1890s orthodox techniques applied creatively. Don't you think?

If a modern jab was around in the 1890s, Corbett and company would beat the crap out of the guy using it. :yep

It's the 1950s/60s rules and gloves that really mess things up for Corbett.