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

...Which is not available for public view, and thus can't be commented on.

After dealing with Mendoza constantly referring to private footage in all of your debates, I would think that you'd be willing to stick to actually citable sources.

Better yet, post it on Youtube. We could use a clearer picture.

There it is again.

I said "more skilled". That is exactly what I said. I even reposted and bolded the exact sentence in one of my previous posts, and compared it to your original sentence.

And yet you're still behaving as if I said something else.

Seriously, mcvey, wtf?


Here it is again. How is this NOT what you just said?

I mean, seriously. I don't know how else to put this. I said exactly what you just said.

We have footage of modern fighters who hold the left at waist level.

We also have footage of plenty of fighters from the early 1900s, who almost ALL held their left hands at waist level. (And their right hands, too...) Note that Jeffries's hand often seems to rise when he's actually in firing range, though, like around 1:26.

Your criticism may be technically true, but it's true of Johnson, Langford, Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Tunney...

Two things:

(1) Ruhlin barely threw any rights because he didn't see the same opportunities that you do. Which makes sense, since he understood 19th century boxing technique better than either of us, and was facing a 3D Jim Jeffries in full color rather than a grainy stop-motion man in black and white.

(2) And anyway, he throws a few. 1:15(ish), around 1:29 to the body, attempted around 2:33 (Jeffries closes too fast and it's mis-timed), another apparent attempt around 3:17 or so, though Ruhlin is partly out of the camera, so it's hard to tell if it's a right or a clinch attempt.

After that, Ruhlin is banged up, hurt, and trying to run / clinch to survive the round.

We've got something like 3 minutes of actual footage here. (Some of which is probably off chronologically). 1 minute occurs AFTER Ruhlin is hurt, and he's trying to clinch/run.

Ruhlin's punch output in general is actually very high for the era, and higher than a lot of 2-3 minute intervals in Jack Johnson film.

Having 20 pounds on an opponent doesn't automatically make you stronger. And throwing around a guy who's 20 pounds heavier is not as easy as you make it sound.

Prime Jeffries also would have been heavier than the incarnation of Johnson who faced Jeffries's corpse in Reno. Do we automatically assume that a prime Jeffries is stronger than that incarnation of Johnson? Of course not.

I didn't say "news reads." I said that you're citing a primary written source when you just asked for film.

On film, Ruhlin is indeed putting up a fight until Jeffries tags him. His punch output is reasonably high for the period. Denver Ed Martin's opinion might (or might not) apply to the fight as a whole, but it doesn't apply to the clip you asked about.

The charmingly quaint custom of fanning people with towels? Enlighten me.

I'm paraphrasing your thoughts so that I can respond to them.

The quote that you've complained about for pages and pages -- and which I reprinted above -- is almost exactly what you said. Here. I'll post it again:


mcvey: Look at the film of Jeffries stalking Ruhlin,analyse it objectively , and tell me honestly that he looks technically better than Chuvalo.

Cross_Trainer: You obviously believe that Chuvalo was (at least) as skilled as the 1890s/1900s fighters, and cited the Ruhlin/Jeffries footage to prove it.

To which you JUST ADDED the following:

mcvey: that neither Jeffries or Ruhlin exhibited skills that were in any way superior to Chuvalo's.

What on earth is your problem with my reformulation of what you said?

Since you've been accusing me of "trying to misinterpret" you for many pages now, tell me how my statement misinterprets yours.

It's almost verbatim, FFS.

That's the thing. Mendoza and I are not a "team".

There are no "teams" in the Classic forum. There is no "Team Mcvey" and "Team Mendoza". There are people with opinions about Johnson and Jeffries, some of which differ from yours.

Mendoza and I are just two people who disagree with you for completely different reasons.

What, do you expect me to suddenly drop the debate and say, "Oh horrors! I agree with Mendoza! I must be wrong!" or something?

 

It's not a question of catching up. It's a question of staying away.

As soon as Chuvalo gets to the edge of Johnson's firing range, Johnson is going to outfeint him.

--> If Chuvalo fires first (which is difficult, since he can't cover distance with his jab like Johnson can with his lunges), then Johnson counters and wraps him up.

--> If Johnson fires first -- the more likely option -- Chuvalo has a split second to react before Johnson has covered the distance. And then, once again, Johnson wraps him up.

Notice what doesn't happen. Thanks to the gloves, the liberal clinch rules, and refs turning a blind eye, there's very little mid-range boxing. Nowhere in either of these exchanges can Chuvalo do what you saw against Frazier -- stand at mid-range and throw combinations.

It's either extreme range or a wrestling match with punches thrown in. And closing with a guy is a lot easier than keeping a fight at midrange even in modern times (as Ruiz showed), so it's not even like Chuvalo knows modern techniques to keep Johnson off.

We don't have film of Sullivan or Hart, though. A lot of the other guys you mentioned were punchers rather than slicksters.

Ruhlin used lateral mobility in the clip that mcvey and I have been arguing about for the last few pages. :yep

...But anyway, I don't think lateral mobility is much of an issue here. Johnson will stay stationary, because that's how he fought 90% of the time. We agree on Johnson's style.

At extreme range, low hands are a lot less of an disadvantage. The feints are to fake the other guy about about where you're going to hit. That's useful regardless of where the defender's hands start out.

It's especially helpful because fighters from Johnson's time fought at longer range than Chuvalo's contemporaries. They needed those feints because they were standing in an invisible pocket beyond combination range. They couldn't set their attacks up with a jab -- and neither could Chuvalo.

Well, yeah. But I thought you were time-machining him?

If you want Chuvalo to be born into the times, EVERYTHING changes.

By the way you're defining it, yes. If Chuvalo was born in the 1880s, but somehow received 1960s nutrition and sports training PLUS 19th century coaches, then he'd be well suited for the times.

The composite Chuvalo you described actually would be similar to Jim Jeffries, I think.

They didn't set up combinations at all, because you'd never get the opportunity to stand and throw them. You get a small window of opportunity to throw maybe one punch, and then you're in the clinch.

I think it's fundamentally sounder than today's, if you assume small gloves and liberal clinching rules. Otherwise, they wouldn't have fought that way.

Most of the modern out-skills (I assume you mean combination punching and lateral movement?) would never enter the picture against somebody like Johnson or Jeffries. As soon as you get into their range -- which is longer than yours -- they blitz forward (preceded by feints), maybe hit you, and wrap you up.

It's long-range John Ruiz. Or point karate with clinching. Take your pick.

As I said above: If you keep Chuvalo's 1960s nutrition and training, but give him late 19th century coaches from the beginning, then he does extremely well.

What areas does Time Warp Chuvalo have an advantage in, specifically? Like, what 1960s techniques and tactics would you say give him an edge?

 

Oh, for crying out loud.

I don't particularly care whether the "fight collector" is a paragon of virtue or a Mafia don. The footage is real.

Again, if you have clearer film that shows I'm wrong, post it on Youtube. It would be helpful for everybody to see it.

Yes, you've said this a lot. We get it. Johnson had great defense. Jeffries could get hit.

It has nothing to do with analyzing footage of Jeffries repeatedly closing the distance ON FILM against Ruhlin. Or counting how many punches Ruhlin throws. Or the average pace of a fight in 1900.

In the film, Ruhlin throws a lot of punches by the era's standards. That's not really debatable.

It would be incredibly tiresome to count and time-cite each punch Ruhlin throws, but I'm sorely tempted to do so if you keep insisting that he's not throwing punches when he obviously is.

But again, so what? Ruhlin is clearly throwing punches, moving well, trying to avoid the bigger puncher. He isn't fighting like he's terrified.

Ahem.

You know, mcvey, you've accused me of "telling you what you think" throughout this debate. But you've been doing the same thing.

Did I throw hissy fits about it? No. Instead, I've explained what I actually think instead of expecting you to be a mindreader.








...So to answer your question, Jeffries is not "brilliant" in that clip, and Ruhlin is not "totally outclassed". Ruhlin does an OK job of sticking and moving, given the limits of the era. But Jeffries is better, and he finally catches Ruhlin.

Then once again, I'm overwhelmed by the pointlessness of your initial request for Jeffries showing strength/skill/nimbleness/whatever on film.

You KNEW that Ruhlin was the only good film available of Jeffries. But whenever somebody shows you anything on the Ruhlin film, you say that Ruhlin was scared/too small/whatever.

So why ask for it?

Good. Then you shouldn't have complained that I was in "bad company".

I haven't called you a liar, and I'm not going to do it to Mendoza, either. It's impolite and catty.

And YES, Mendoza should post the footage.

Good! Great! Then you didn't need to make comments about me and Mendoza being a "team", or warn me that I was in bad company.

This is becoming ridiculous.

My posts are up there for everybody to see. They clearly show that I didn't misinterpret what you said about Ruhlin and Jeffries. So I'll just leave them up there.

If you have some private version of the English language that differs from everybody else's, you should share it. Because I'm not a mind-reader, and don't intend to try.

 

So, I've asked Mcvey for cites on film. In the spirit of fair play, I'm going to ask the same from you about the Moran fight.

Here's the Moran footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSFnFS1snmk


Which points in time is Johnson hitting on the break?

 

But again, what does this have to do with anything?

The footage is what it is. "Fight collector" lying about it being remastered is irrelevant.

You asked which FIGHT clip showed Jeffries to be nimble of foot. You even underlined it and used all caps like I just did. "Ruhlin" was the only possible answer to that question.

Now that you say you expected Bummy to use a training clip, your request looks even more pointless.

Okay.

Welp, my analysis is up there for the rest of the forum to critique. I don't think your responses have really poked many holes in it, especially since your reply depended on footage that you haven't posted. I'll leave it to everybody else to decide who's correct.

You asked for Jeffries displaying strength in a filmed fight, which basically meant the Ruhlin footage. I cited Jeffries shoving Ruhlin. You said that you weren't impressed because Ruhlin was 20 pounds lighter than Jeffries.

So again, I'm wondering why you'd make such a pointless request. You already knew Ruhlin's weight.

If shoving a 20-pounds-lighter man around doesn't impress you, then why ask for Jeffries demonstrating his strength against a 20-pounds-lighter man?

Post a link so everybody can see it. I don't know what it'll prove, since we're discussing the film, but have at it.

Um, no. I'm saying that Ruhlin is fighting back in the film you asked for. He's not having a panic attack on film for the 3 minutes of action there. Whether he was privately feeling scared isn't important, since he was fighting effectively on film.

A distinction without a difference.

Unless you expect me to go "Oh no! I agree with Mendoza on something! Better change my opinion so I'm no longer wrong/evil/bad/whatever!", your comment is completely pointless.

...Which I have not examined in great depth. So I'm obviously not going to call Mendoza a liar.

It is when I don't have the evidence in front of me.

Great. I believe you.

So don't act like it matters by admonishing me for agreeing with Mendoza.

I'm not going to play guessing games like we're both eight years old. Nor am I going to read your mind.

If you have a relevant piece of information to contribute, post it.

That...is not a very productive attitude for an internet debate.

Maybe you should concentrate less on trying to frustrate me, and more on actually making a case.

 

Maybe.

It's a very simple question. Mendoza just has to give a specific point in the film where it happens.

Well, yeah. Most fighters were dirty back then by our standards. Moran, Johnson, Moran, Ketchel, Jeffries, whomever. But since Mendoza actually referred to the footage specifically, I wanted to see where he was looking.

Um, no. In fact, that's exactly what were supposed to do in a public discussion thread. :huh

 

My above post was made way to hasty :happy

 

CT,

It is on film. I am 100% certain of that, but I'm not sure its this you tube. I am traveling now and don't have time to watch it. Will respond later. When I show McVey film, expect him to go off tangent as usual.

Johnson was DQ'd for going low, and hit on the breaks in other fights If you read his DQ win over Ferguson, it appears Jack landed a few on or below the belt line before Ferguson fouled back.

 

Sure. Just like youve seen Langford Hague, and just like you saw Johnson knock Burns down on the break, and just like a half dozen or more other times youve been busted lying about what youve "seen" Maybe the point is you just see what you want to see.