Johnson rated Walcott the greatest fighter of all

He called out Sonny Liston and just when that fight was on the verge of getting made he lost to Bob Cleroux who beat him by standing in front of him and actually throwing punches, which Chuvalo stopped doing for most of the fight. I wonder how he would have fought Liston. Actually I don't, I know. He would have stuck his guard up high like a shield in front of him and stayed on the end of Liston's jab all night long because as punishing as that jab would have been it was nothing compared to what would have happened to him had he gotten past it. He would have been content to stay outside, absord that jab on his guard, get hit with the occasional punch, throw and miss the occasional punch, and finally lose a clear decision but brag about how Liston couldn't put him down. After Liston died he would have come up with some lame excuse for why he didn't win. If Im saying anything inaccurate about the pattern of Chuvalo's career please correct because Ive seen this same pattern play out in tons of his fights.

He took the fight to Ali's nuts and kidneys

 

While I agree he didn't like risking being countered by faster-handed fighters, Liston wasn't that fast.

Chuvalo for his part had some pop, and that could have bothered Sonny. I'd pick Liston of course.

I do not recall Chuvalo losing any points for fouls in the first Ali fight, but he did some damage to Ali's kidney's.

Didn't Chuvalo take it to Bonavena? Bonavena was just a bit quicker than he was. I think it was ring magazine fight of the year.

So perhaps Chuvalo didn't fear punchers on Ali's or Bonavena's level, but was shy with much faster and more powerful punches.

Power and speed make many gun shy to engage.

 

No, actually i didnt look at eithers record before posting, just read the very helpful and intelligent posts on this site.

I suggested KO wins, because this is the goal of a fight, particularly in those days when most fights were not allowed to have an official winner because the fights were no Decision fights and the only way to win was by KO. Obviously a KO win doesnt leave any doubt as to the winner. I am guessing from your answer that Walcott had the better ko wins?

How about just official wins and draws. This would make it a lot closer, wouldnt it?

Actually, and here is a bit of a random off topic question i just thought of. There is a lot of talk on here about newspaper decision and Greb beating Tunney in some of the fights he isnt credited with etc. In these controversial ND fights, who was paid the winners share of the purse? Was the purse split evenly in the case of the No Decision fights (puts a bit of a different spin on Greb's failure to win any of these fights by KO) or did the fighters have certain newspapers they had to impress to win the fight (eg hometown only) so that they were paid?

 

That was the whole criticism of that fight, that Chuvalo was able to land dozens of low blows, kidney blows, and rabbit punches without so much as a point being deducted. They even had an ABC Wide World of Sports replay the week after the fight where Ali sat in studio with Howard Cosell and rewatched the fight. He complained through the entire fight and constantly pointed out where Chuvalo was fouling him (which is easily seen).

Actually if you watch that fight (which was not fight of the year) you will see it is exactly as I describe Chuvalo. He stands there with his hands high, throwing the occasional jab, as Bonavena moves around him in a circle and throws 6 or 7 punches to every one Chuvalo throws. It was Bonavena who was making a fight of it, knocked Chuvalo down twice, landed more, threw more, etc. Yet when it was over and Bonavena was awarded the plum Chuvalo whined and complained that he was robbed and that he should have won. Whatever. Ive got all the respect in the world for how Chuvalo handled the adversity life has thrown at him. He certainly got more **** thrown his way than human being deserves. But in terms of boxing alone and from that aspect of his career I think hes totally overrated (and hes not really rated that high), hes a poor sportsman (both in terms of the fact that he was dirty as hell in the ring and a whiny ***** out of it), and not really deserving of his tough guy status.

 

Johnson was no doubt more enamored of JJW's innate cleverness and guile as opposed to Louis's more straightforward destructive brilliance. Probably a case of Johnson's stylistic bias as much as his overall contempt of Louis for cultural and other reasons.

 

I've always been rather fond of Bonavena's win over Chuvalo...his decision to revert to that awkward boxing style of his instead of warring with Chuvalo dead-on like all the "experts" expected him to do. He did indeed, IMO anyway, deck George legitimately on at least one occasion....and proved that he had a good deal more cleverness and dimensional capabilities than George.

 

The goal of a fight is to win by KO? There are a LOT of fans, fighters, trainers, promoters, etc throughout history that would disagree. Boxing is a sport, not a street fight. I don't care who had the better KO wins. I care who had the better wins. Who fought and actually beat the better fighters. Joe Walcott being lucky to get a draw against a very green Sam Langford is nowhere near as impressive as an old half blind Greb beating a prime Mickey Walker. Sorry its just not.

Again, why would I adhere to some false, useless stat just to make Walcott look more competitive? ND bouts were the rule of the day. Ive been a staunch defender of the legitimacy of ND bouts when thoroughly researched and will continue to be. I know them to be legitimate fights with legitimate results beyond question so why would I throw Greb's or anyone elses results who fought in that era. Its ridiculous. The criticisms of ND bouts are beyond asinine and Ive never seen anyone who researched them for any amount of time in any detail who would simply throw them out. If you think Greb's ND results aren't legitimate then come back here with the bouts you question and make a case for why we shouldn't trust the consensus. Something tells me I will be waiting a long time because one of two things will happen: Youll actually read about those bouts in detail from numerous sources and come over to my side, or more likely you wont read about them and wont be able to formulate an argument worth anything and wont return to the topic. Or you will just keep questioning the results of ND bouts without attempting to answer your own questions one way or another.

I don't think you understand how fighters were paid back then. I cant think of a single instance in any of Greb's fights in which the size of the purse was dictated by who won the fight. Your purse was generally dictated in one of two ways: 1. If you were well known enough and popular enough you could demand a guarantee, i.e. "I want $3000 plus travel expenses." That fighter would get $3000 win, lose, or draw and regardless of whether the gate was substantial enough to pay him (of course some promoters who didn't make money at the gate would duck out on this obligation but that's a different discussion), hence the "guarantee". Fighters liked guarantees but not many had the drawing power or name recognition to demand them. The other way fighters usually got paid was on a percentage basis. Fighters didn't like this because they could get the shaft but promoters loved it because if they took a bath on the gate so did the fighters. So a promoter might sign two fighters, maybe one fighter is more popular than the other so he signs fighter A. for 40% and fighter B. for 20%. If the gate makes $6,000 fighter A. makes $2400 win lose or draw, and fighter B. makes $1200 win lose or draw. The remaining balance is used by the promoter to pay expenses, tax, and himself when all is said and done. So this bizarre conspiratorial idea that maybe Greb was buying newspaper votes so he could win the winners share of the purse has no real basis in fact. Gambling revolved around newspaper decisions but keep in mind. Bookies are not in the habit of just throwing their money around for no reason at lost causes. If you place a bet on a fight and that bet is based on the result of a few writers opinions, or a handful of writers both men on either side of the bet have to have either a reasonable expectation of honesty to even make the bet worthwhile (or the entire system collapses after the first time) OR there would have to a be certainty as to the outcome (which makes for pretty weak betting and low returns). Furthermore its patently ridiculous to suggest that every single time out Greb was having to cover his ass in ND fights by paying off 3 or 4 newspapermen in every town. Where was all of this money coming from?? You've seen the guys record, he was uncommonly active. Do the math. The guy had 300 fights. Most towns had at least two newspapers, some had many more than that. For newspaper man to risk his reputation, job, and legal repercussions (not to mention a possible beating or death at the hands of losing gamblers) he is going to have to be paid enough to make it worth it for him to lie. Do the math. Take all of those ND fights, multiplied by all of the opinions who voted for Greb, times some figure in 1910s/20s that you think would prompt a newspaperman to falsify his story and then tell me where you think Greb got those thousands of dollars to pay off all of those people. Its ridiculous. Then come back here and explain to me how his actual decision fights jive so well with the results of his ND bouts. Can you explain that? The guy got all of these gift ND bouts but suddenly learned how to fight for real in decision bouts? Or would you then like to change your conspiracy theory and suggest that maybe all of those opponents in ND bouts werent really trying that hard because they weren't really fights BUT somehow when actually trying hard in decision bouts got dominated as well... Sorry but the argument doesnt hold up to scrutiny.

I don't really get the "spin on Greb's failure to win by KO." There was no mystery there. There was no cloak and dagger. No tinfoil hat conspiracy. Its well documented that Greb broke his hands and wrists several times throughout his career. He was very vocal that a bad break could keep out of the ring and keep him from earning so he fought to outpoint his man. This wasn't a secret. If the point of boxing were to score KOs Greb wouldn't have been champion and wouldn't have been as highly regarded in his era or today as he was/is. But like I said above, boxing is a sport. In most sports you score points in some manner and Greb was extremely good at scoring LOTS of points.

 

Have you ever boxed in your life or done anything that requires physical effort ? The way you dismiss fighters like Chuvalo you really seem to have no regard or understanding of the toughness and heart and effort shown.

Chuvalo was a limited fighter.
I've seen him plodding forward with his face all busted up, trying his hardest to dig in body punches against his opponents, with his eyes shut. He even knocked your boy Quarry out that way, because he didn't give up. He was still going for it in the 6th and 7th round.

Chuvalo isn't as bad as you make him out to be. Yes, fighters make excuses. Most of us don't take them seriously, so there's no need to get indignant about it.

Well, generally I don't think Walcott is remembered for his losses. Generally he's highly regarded because he was a little guy and capable of knocking out much bigger men, and he was in fact a world champion too.

 

Personally, I tend to value KOs more, but that's not a hard and fast rule. Depends on the fight.

A KO is more final. A distance fight just ends when it ends. Fair enough, the winner might be fairly deserving and unanimous but sometimes the losing fighter was actually coming on strong and winning in the last few rounds, for example. Tough sh!t obviously, under the rules he should have done better. But I think anyone can see the essential difference in how a KO proves a point of superiority in a more final way IN MANY CASES (in other cases the reverse might be true even). This isn't even taking into account the subjectivity of scoring, differences of opinion, and unfair decisions.
The old prize fights were all finish fights. Decisions were an addition.

I'm no expert on the era but I completely agree with this.
Langford had actually lost to Dave Holly a few months earlier, and Holly wasn't a big man either.
Draw verdicts were more common around that time too, and from reports it is doubtful Walcott was quite equal in the fight.

Walker was on a good run when he faced Greb, had not tasted defeat for about 3 fights and had been active.

 

Doesn't Johnson have a point here?

Walcott might well have been the most destructive fighter the ring ever saw, in a pound for pound sense.

When do you next expect to see a welterweight duff up the top light heavyweights, and some good heavyweight contenders.

You might suggest Mickey Walker, but the difference is that he had grown into something bigger than a welterweight, when he got round to doing it!

 

Okay, I've seen Ali ***** about Terell fighting dirty too. Terell says Ali poked him in the eye. In the 2nd Frazier fight, Ali clinched Frazier behind the head. I think Futch said something like 70+ times.

Ali won the Chuvalo fight, but you can't say Chuvalo opted out of the action

I have not seen that one in a while. By memory Bonavena was faster and more agile. The scoring was close, so perhaps Chuvalo had reason to argue?

Referee: Arthur Mercante 4-4
Judge: Tony Rossi 3-7
Judge: Tony Castellano 4-5

"Oscar Bonavena, 203, used his left hook like a buzzsaw to chop down George Chuvalo, 215, for a majority 10 round decision at MSG Thursday night. Although there were no knockdowns in the fight, Bonavena, a 9-5 underdog, staggered Chuvalo in the 2nd and 4th rounds and even claimed to have inflicted the first knockdown of the Canadian's career in the 4th. Bonavena drove Chuvalo back on his haunches in the 4th with a series of rights to the head and were it not for the ropes which checked his backward lurch, Chuvalo might have hit the canvas." -United Press International

Many ringside observers felt Chuvalo had done enough to get the decision, forcing the action in most rounds and hurting the Argentine several times with slashing hooks to the body and head. More than once Bonavena took blows that almost had his knee touch canvas.

Unofficial UPI scorecard - 7-2-1 Bonavena
Unofficial AP scorecard - 4-4-2 Draw

Unofficial ringside poll of sportswriters had 5 for Bonavena, 4 for Chuvalo and 3 had it even

Post fight comments:

"I thought I won it 6-4. He's a mauler, hard to fight, tough and heavy-handed. I'd love a return bout." -George Chuvalo

"I did knock him down even though they didn't count it." -Oscar Bonavena