WHo is More Impressive-Chuvalo or Ray Austin

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 18 Mar 2007, 12:16

Following a debate with Dave V17, who claims Ray Austin would have been a top contender in the 1970s, I am glad Youtube is still around for now.

We have two fights:

Chuvalo-Foreman-I'm using this b/c it is a legit TKO loss (although George is never off his feet)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNQJzTDo9CM

And here's Wladdy-Austin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOze95-CoWw

Who looks better?

In my humble opinion, Chuvalo crushes the slow and sloppy Austin, and Foreman annihiliates the overly cautious/scared, china-chinned Klitschko

barry · Post by **barry** » 18 Mar 2007, 12:36

It is not even a question to consider...Austin has never really fought anyone other than Klitschko...and we saw what happened there and as far as heart and talent...well again...see...Klitschko-Austin.

What was this guys argument...that Austin's size would overwhelm Chuvalo? Chuvalo brutally knocks out Austin after bsuting him up...well, no it's not likely that he would bust Austin up because Austin would not be able to take that much to get busted up...regardless Chuvalo wins by easy knockout!!!

nytony · Post by **nytony** » 18 Mar 2007, 13:21

Even though Chuvalo was a bottom of the pack contender- he is still miles ahead of Austin.

I expected Austin to do better than he showed- I expected him to smother Wlad and make it uncomfortable for him- well we know what happened.

BTW- Looking at that Foreman-Chuvalo clip- I can see Rocky Marciano beating George. Based on memory I woulda said no- but seeing that clip, I changed my mind.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 18 Mar 2007, 13:33

George Chuvalo got my vote due to his superior drability, body punching and longevity at a higher level.

Amsterdam · Post by **Amsterdam** » 18 Mar 2007, 14:33

nytony wrote:Even though Chuvalo was a bottom of the pack contender- he is still miles ahead of Austin.

I expected Austin to do better than he showed- I expected him to smother Wlad and make it uncomfortable for him- well we know what happened.

BTW- Looking at that Foreman-Chuvalo clip- I can see Rocky Marciano beating George. Based on memory I woulda said no- but seeing that clip, I changed my mind.

Marciano would lose in a similiar way that Joe Frazier did, Foreman's style excells against swarmers. I would hold Frazier ahead of Marciano in ability also, they had a very similiar style.

Amsterdam · Post by **Amsterdam** » 18 Mar 2007, 14:36

KOJOE90 wrote:George Chuvalo got my vote due to his superior drability, body punching and longevity at a higher level.

No kidding, Ray Austin is a gate keeper in this PATHETIC division, where as Chuvalo was a fringe contender in one of the deepest in history.

One has an titanium jaw, the other has a glass jaw.

People amaze me when they think that the current crop of guys are superior to the ATG's of the past with "new evolved technique's". A 43+ year old Foreman wasn't doing too bad in the 90's(another deep division), a current belt holder in Shannon Briggs was lucky to get a gift decision over him.

jimglen · Post by **jimglen** » 18 Mar 2007, 15:52

EXACTLY Amsterdam...it just about knocks me out![/quote]

Amsterdam · Post by **Amsterdam** » 18 Mar 2007, 16:20

jimglen wrote:EXACTLY Amsterdam...it just about knocks me out!

[/quote]

Me as well my friend, I really wish boxing fans would study tape.

Ray Austin is as sloppy as it gets and I hope people see that when Sultan faces off with Briggs. Briggs is limited but his precision counter rights are going to be the tale of that fight.

cosand · Post by **cosand** » 18 Mar 2007, 16:37

This whole "Who is better Austin or Chuvallo" is not the best example to use if the discussion is comparing contenders from the past vs contenders of today.

For one thing, the eras are not far enough apart to make a real distinction, and the other problem, Austin in NOT, nor has he ever been a contender. he is an opponent, gatekeeper at best, who got a gift of a title eliminator, managed a draw, and fell ass backward into a title fight. In the 60s and 70s, Austin is Buster Mathis

Chuvallo was, in spite of some rose colored retrospect, largely a gatekeeper as well. He was more a part of other peoples legacy, then one who has a legacy of his own.

He was also, a guy who might have had the best chin best wind and the most raw toughness in the history of the division, and that is his claim to fame.

Chuvallo was not better because of the era, he was just better because he was better. I don't however, see him uniting the HW division in 2007

Yes, I am one of those who believe that overall, fighters today are better trained, better fed, better conditioned, stronger pound for pound and simply more physically evolved then fighters of the past. Me, and all the NFL GMs who no longer draft 210 lb linebackers, or MLB pitching coaches who no longer keep pitchers who throw 70 MPH fastballs. But for the sake of boxing, I make the distinction starting in the late 50s, early 60s.

If I am wrong, I guess i better sell a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment and electronic diagnostic equipment, and have my clients chop wood and do sit ups and squat thrusts.

Amsterdam · Post by **Amsterdam** » 18 Mar 2007, 16:47

cosand wrote:This whole "Who is better Austin or Chuvallo" is not the best example to use if the discussion is comparing contenders from the past vs contenders of today.

For one thing, the eras are not far enough apart to make a real distinction, and the other problem, Austin in NOT, nor has he ever been a contender. he is an opponent, gatekeeper at best, who got a gift of a title eliminator, managed a draw, and fell ass backward into a title fight. In the 60s and 70s, Austin is Buster Mathis

Chuvallo was, in spite of some rose colored retrospect, largely a gatekeeper as well. He was more a part of other peoples legacy, then one who has a legacy of his own.

He was also, a guy who might have had the best chin best wind and the most raw toughness in the history of the division, and that is his claim to fame.

Chuvallo was not better because of the era, he was just better because he was better. I don't however, see him uniting the HW division in 2007

Yes, I am one of those who believe that overall, fighters today are better trained, better fed, better conditioned, stronger pound for pound and simply more physically evolved then fighters of the past. Me, and all the NFL GMs who no longer draft 210 lb linebackers, or MLB pitching coaches who no longer keep pitchers who throw 70 MPH fastballs. But for the sake of boxing, I make the distinction starting in the late 50s, early 60s.

If I am wrong, I guess i better sell a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment and electronic diagnostic equipment, and have my clients chop wood and do sit ups and squat thrusts.

Modern guys are not better conditioned, at least in the HW division. They are better trained however and I will agree to that. But as for conditioning, seems many of them gas pretty easily where as the older era fighters had no trouble going 15 hard rounds.

Skills haven't really evolved much since the 30's-40's, just styles.

Klit beats Chuvalo easy, as well as Samuel Peter. The rest of these jokers are open game for Chuvalo in my opinion though.

In retrospects, if you took the old school skills and trained them modern with the right athletes, you'd have a nearly unbeatable combination. Most fighters today train to win in their current division, some of the older guys trained for perfection.

If Tommy Hearns wasn't technical perfection for his particular style, I don't know what is, he came only shortly after the era we are talking about for these HW's also.

cosand · Post by **cosand** » 18 Mar 2007, 16:51

Sorry..bad example..make that Jack O'Halloran, not Buster Mathis

cosand · Post by **cosand** » 18 Mar 2007, 17:03

Amsterdam

Joined: 17 Mar 2007
Posts: 28

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:47 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cosand wrote:
This whole "Who is better Austin or Chuvallo" is not the best example to use if the discussion is comparing contenders from the past vs contenders of today.

For one thing, the eras are not far enough apart to make a real distinction, and the other problem, Austin in NOT, nor has he ever been a contender. he is an opponent, gatekeeper at best, who got a gift of a title eliminator, managed a draw, and fell ass backward into a title fight. In the 60s and 70s, Austin is Buster Mathis

Chuvallo was, in spite of some rose colored retrospect, largely a gatekeeper as well. He was more a part of other peoples legacy, then one who has a legacy of his own.

He was also, a guy who might have had the best chin best wind and the most raw toughness in the history of the division, and that is his claim to fame.

Chuvallo was not better because of the era, he was just better because he was better. I don't however, see him uniting the HW division in 2007

Yes, I am one of those who believe that overall, fighters today are better trained, better fed, better conditioned, stronger pound for pound and simply more physically evolved then fighters of the past. Me, and all the NFL GMs who no longer draft 210 lb linebackers, or MLB pitching coaches who no longer keep pitchers who throw 70 MPH fastballs. But for the sake of boxing, I make the distinction starting in the late 50s, early 60s.

If I am wrong, I guess i better sell a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment and electronic diagnostic equipment, and have my clients chop wood and do sit ups and squat thrusts.

Modern guys are not better conditioned, at least in the HW division. They are better trained however and I will agree to that. But as for conditioning, seems many of them gas pretty easily where as the older era fighters had no trouble going 15 hard rounds.

Skills haven't really evolved much since the 30's-40's, just styles.

Klit beats Chuvalo easy, as well as Samuel Peter. The rest of these jokers are open game for Chuvalo in my opinion though.

In retrospects, if you took the old school skills and trained them modern with the right athletes, you'd have a nearly unbeatable combination. Most fighters today train to win in their current division, some of the older guys trained for perfection.

If Tommy Hearns wasn't technical perfection for his particular style, I don't know what is, he came only shortly after the era we are talking about for these HW's also.

You make some good points. One can only imagine a Joe Louis with his full range of muscle groups groomed, and with modern nutrition and metabolism management. good god, it's scary.

I would like to think that we are just in a bit of a flux right now. These HWs are only as good as they have had to be for the past 20 years. I see some of the HWs in their early stages looking a lot faster, better fit and all and all in better shape then those we have seen in the recent past. I am not 100% sold on Eddie Chambers, but he is a good example. Hopefully that will cause better skilled and better conditioned HWs by necessity

I think what i am talking about shows more in the lighter weight divisions. That is how you have an 112 pound fighter hitting hard enough to put his opponent, who was no slouch, in a coma. That particular thing is not a GOOD thing mind you, but you get the idea.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 18 Mar 2007, 17:27

Amsterdam wrote:
cosand wrote:This whole "Who is better Austin or Chuvallo" is not the best example to use if the discussion is comparing contenders from the past vs contenders of today.

For one thing, the eras are not far enough apart to make a real distinction, and the other problem, Austin in NOT, nor has he ever been a contender. he is an opponent, gatekeeper at best, who got a gift of a title eliminator, managed a draw, and fell ass backward into a title fight. In the 60s and 70s, Austin is Buster Mathis

Chuvallo was, in spite of some rose colored retrospect, largely a gatekeeper as well. He was more a part of other peoples legacy, then one who has a legacy of his own.

He was also, a guy who might have had the best chin best wind and the most raw toughness in the history of the division, and that is his claim to fame.

Chuvallo was not better because of the era, he was just better because he was better. I don't however, see him uniting the HW division in 2007

Yes, I am one of those who believe that overall, fighters today are better trained, better fed, better conditioned, stronger pound for pound and simply more physically evolved then fighters of the past. Me, and all the NFL GMs who no longer draft 210 lb linebackers, or MLB pitching coaches who no longer keep pitchers who throw 70 MPH fastballs. But for the sake of boxing, I make the distinction starting in the late 50s, early 60s.

If I am wrong, I guess i better sell a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment and electronic diagnostic equipment, and have my clients chop wood and do sit ups and squat thrusts.

Modern guys are not better conditioned, at least in the HW division. They are better trained however and I will agree to that. But as for conditioning, seems many of them gas pretty easily where as the older era fighters had no trouble going 15 hard rounds.

Skills haven't really evolved much since the 30's-40's, just styles.

Klit beats Chuvalo easy, as well as Samuel Peter. The rest of these jokers are open game for Chuvalo in my opinion though.

In retrospects, if you took the old school skills and trained them modern with the right athletes, you'd have a nearly unbeatable combination. Most fighters today train to win in their current division, some of the older guys trained for perfection.

If Tommy Hearns wasn't technical perfection for his particular style, I don't know what is, he came only shortly after the era we are talking about for these HW's also.

How is anybody better trained and conditioned? Prove it. Our top guys (Klitschko, Peter, Briggs etc.) have all shown serious stamina issues in 12 round fights. Frazier and Louis went hard fought 15 no problem.

Doing medicine ball exercises, weight resistance pulleys, chopping wood and simple old fashioned push-ups and pull-ups will give you all the strength you need. Having a big bench press does NOTHING for a person boxing-wise and will simly create un-neccesary bulk on a person's frame in which they'll tire quickly from the lactic acid build-up. Hasim Rahman is a perfect example, who looks like he's punching under-water by the 4th round.

The main reason you have better athletes now in the NFL and NBA is the bigger talent pool. It's the biggest sport in the U.S. by far. Most professional football players through the 1970s did it as a PART-TIME JOB. They wer tough guys but the NFL was not attracting all of the elite athletes in the U.S. like it does now. Completely uncomparable eras . . . .dunking in bastekball didn't even become common until the 1970s. Show me a boxing punch thrown now that wasn't thrown 80 years ago.

cosand · Post by **cosand** » 18 Mar 2007, 18:38

dempseyfire

Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 2212

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amsterdam wrote:
cosand wrote:
This whole "Who is better Austin or Chuvallo" is not the best example to use if the discussion is comparing contenders from the past vs contenders of today.

For one thing, the eras are not far enough apart to make a real distinction, and the other problem, Austin in NOT, nor has he ever been a contender. he is an opponent, gatekeeper at best, who got a gift of a title eliminator, managed a draw, and fell ass backward into a title fight. In the 60s and 70s, Austin is Buster Mathis

Chuvallo was, in spite of some rose colored retrospect, largely a gatekeeper as well. He was more a part of other peoples legacy, then one who has a legacy of his own.

He was also, a guy who might have had the best chin best wind and the most raw toughness in the history of the division, and that is his claim to fame.

Chuvallo was not better because of the era, he was just better because he was better. I don't however, see him uniting the HW division in 2007

Yes, I am one of those who believe that overall, fighters today are better trained, better fed, better conditioned, stronger pound for pound and simply more physically evolved then fighters of the past. Me, and all the NFL GMs who no longer draft 210 lb linebackers, or MLB pitching coaches who no longer keep pitchers who throw 70 MPH fastballs. But for the sake of boxing, I make the distinction starting in the late 50s, early 60s.

If I am wrong, I guess i better sell a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment and electronic diagnostic equipment, and have my clients chop wood and do sit ups and squat thrusts.

Modern guys are not better conditioned, at least in the HW division. They are better trained however and I will agree to that. But as for conditioning, seems many of them gas pretty easily where as the older era fighters had no trouble going 15 hard rounds.

Skills haven't really evolved much since the 30's-40's, just styles.

Klit beats Chuvalo easy, as well as Samuel Peter. The rest of these jokers are open game for Chuvalo in my opinion though.

In retrospects, if you took the old school skills and trained them modern with the right athletes, you'd have a nearly unbeatable combination. Most fighters today train to win in their current division, some of the older guys trained for perfection.

If Tommy Hearns wasn't technical perfection for his particular style, I don't know what is, he came only shortly after the era we are talking about for these HW's also.

How is anybody better trained and conditioned? Prove it. Our top guys (Klitschko, Peter, Briggs etc.) have all shown serious stamina issues in 12 round fights. Frazier and Louis went hard fought 15 no problem.

Doing medicine ball exercises, weight resistance pulleys, chopping wood and simple old fashioned push-ups and pull-ups will give you all the strength you need. Having a big bench press does NOTHING for a person boxing-wise and will simly create un-neccesary bulk on a person's frame in which they'll tire quickly from the lactic acid build-up. Hasim Rahman is a perfect example, who looks like he's punching under-water by the 4th round.

The main reason you have better athletes now in the NFL and NBA is the bigger talent pool. It's the biggest sport in the U.S. by far. Most professional football players through the 1970s did it as a PART-TIME JOB. They wer tough guys but the NFL was not attracting all of the elite athletes in the U.S. like it does now. Completely uncomparable eras . . . .dunking in bastekball didn't even become common until the 1970s. Show me a boxing punch thrown now that wasn't thrown 80 years ago

It is very much a case of apples and oranges, but i'll get back to that.

First off, 'Louis and Frazier" dont belong in the same sentance when it comes to this subject. VERY different eras

Second, don’t act like fighters from the 30s and 40s or even 50s fought 15 rounds, and then went out dancing. Quite the contrary. SRR was arguably one of the best conditioned fighters of his time, and he once almost died of exhaustion after 12 rounds. There are coutless other examples.

Third, no one is talking about "boxing punches" By training, I am talking about "training methods" not punches. there are hoever, modern methods related to that too, but that is another discussion we can have another time if you like

But yes, you are correct, elite fighters from from other eras did show a great deal of endurance, but this is where the appleas and oranges comes in.

Fighters from the 30s, needless to say, fought fighters from the 30s. Others fighters with the same conditioning methods as they used.

The evolution of the modern athlete, and even the evolution of non athletic human physiology is so apparent and self evident, I am amazed that this is even a question.

Athletes run faster, jump higher, run longer distances faster, swim faster, lift more weight. Bigger athletes are faster and more agile then athletes half their size 60 years ago. Athletes can remain active years longer then in the past
Why ?
Simple
“Muscle groups”, sodium levels. Potassium levels, ROIs, BMIs, and metabolism management and modern nutrition were unheard of prior to the late 50s and early 60s

If you havent been to an elite boxing gym and a sports medicine facility in a while, you should check one out. I Guarantee you will be amazed at what you see.

To think that you could put a fighter, regardless of the division, from the days when fighters trained on wood chopping and pancakes with a modern athelete, is simply not correct, any more then Babe Ruth could have hit the number of home runs he hit, facing 98 MPH fastballs, or Paul Horning could rush for 1000 yards in a modern NFL season.

Settting aside HWs for a moment, the fact is that there is more athletic abilty and strength packed into a 150, 170, or even 220 lb body today, then was ever thought possible 50 or 60 years ago. I know the school of though that doesnt translate to success in boxing, and that good old meat and potato old timers were too tough to need all that new fangled stuff, but that is simply nostalgic romanticized wishful thinking

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 18 Mar 2007, 19:05

cosand wrote:
dempseyfire

Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 2212

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amsterdam wrote:
cosand wrote:
This whole "Who is better Austin or Chuvallo" is not the best example to use if the discussion is comparing contenders from the past vs contenders of today.

For one thing, the eras are not far enough apart to make a real distinction, and the other problem, Austin in NOT, nor has he ever been a contender. he is an opponent, gatekeeper at best, who got a gift of a title eliminator, managed a draw, and fell ass backward into a title fight. In the 60s and 70s, Austin is Buster Mathis

Chuvallo was, in spite of some rose colored retrospect, largely a gatekeeper as well. He was more a part of other peoples legacy, then one who has a legacy of his own.

He was also, a guy who might have had the best chin best wind and the most raw toughness in the history of the division, and that is his claim to fame.

Chuvallo was not better because of the era, he was just better because he was better. I don't however, see him uniting the HW division in 2007

Yes, I am one of those who believe that overall, fighters today are better trained, better fed, better conditioned, stronger pound for pound and simply more physically evolved then fighters of the past. Me, and all the NFL GMs who no longer draft 210 lb linebackers, or MLB pitching coaches who no longer keep pitchers who throw 70 MPH fastballs. But for the sake of boxing, I make the distinction starting in the late 50s, early 60s.

If I am wrong, I guess i better sell a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment and electronic diagnostic equipment, and have my clients chop wood and do sit ups and squat thrusts.

Modern guys are not better conditioned, at least in the HW division. They are better trained however and I will agree to that. But as for conditioning, seems many of them gas pretty easily where as the older era fighters had no trouble going 15 hard rounds.

Skills haven't really evolved much since the 30's-40's, just styles.

Klit beats Chuvalo easy, as well as Samuel Peter. The rest of these jokers are open game for Chuvalo in my opinion though.

In retrospects, if you took the old school skills and trained them modern with the right athletes, you'd have a nearly unbeatable combination. Most fighters today train to win in their current division, some of the older guys trained for perfection.

If Tommy Hearns wasn't technical perfection for his particular style, I don't know what is, he came only shortly after the era we are talking about for these HW's also.

How is anybody better trained and conditioned? Prove it. Our top guys (Klitschko, Peter, Briggs etc.) have all shown serious stamina issues in 12 round fights. Frazier and Louis went hard fought 15 no problem.

Doing medicine ball exercises, weight resistance pulleys, chopping wood and simple old fashioned push-ups and pull-ups will give you all the strength you need. Having a big bench press does NOTHING for a person boxing-wise and will simly create un-neccesary bulk on a person's frame in which they'll tire quickly from the lactic acid build-up. Hasim Rahman is a perfect example, who looks like he's punching under-water by the 4th round.

The main reason you have better athletes now in the NFL and NBA is the bigger talent pool. It's the biggest sport in the U.S. by far. Most professional football players through the 1970s did it as a PART-TIME JOB. They wer tough guys but the NFL was not attracting all of the elite athletes in the U.S. like it does now. Completely uncomparable eras . . . .dunking in bastekball didn't even become common until the 1970s. Show me a boxing punch thrown now that wasn't thrown 80 years ago
It is very much a case of apples and oranges, but i'll get back to that.

First off, 'Louis and Frazier" dont belong in the same sentance when it comes to this subject. VERY different eras

Second, don’t act like fighters from the 30s and 40s or even 50s fought 15 rounds, and then went out dancing. Quite the contrary. SRR was arguably one of the best conditioned fighters of his time, and he once almost died of exhaustion after 12 rounds. There are coutless other examples.

Third, no one is talking about "boxing punches" By training, I am talking about "training methods" not punches. there are hoever, modern methods related to that too, but that is another discussion we can have another time if you like

But yes, you are correct, elite fighters from from other eras did show a great deal of endurance, but this is where the appleas and oranges comes in.

Fighters from the 30s, needless to say, fought fighters from the 30s. Others fighters with the same conditioning methods as they used.

The evolution of the modern athlete, and even the evolution of non athletic human physiology is so apparent and self evident, I am amazed that this is even a question.

Athletes run faster, jump higher, run longer distances faster, swim faster, lift more weight. Bigger athletes are faster and more agile then athletes half their size 60 years ago. Athletes can remain active years longer then in the past
Why ?
Simple
“Muscle groups”, sodium levels. Potassium levels, ROIs, BMIs, and metabolism management and modern nutrition were unheard of prior to the late 50s and early 60s

If you havent been to an elite boxing gym and a sports medicine facility in a while, you should check one out. I Guarantee you will be amazed at what you see.

To think that you could put a fighter, regardless of the division, from the days when fighters trained on wood chopping and pancakes with a modern athelete, is simply not correct, any more then Babe Ruth could have hit the number of home runs he hit, facing 98 MPH fastballs, or Paul Horning could rush for 1000 yards in a modern NFL season.

Settting aside HWs for a moment, the fact is that there is more athletic abilty and strength packed into a 150, 170, or even 220 lb body today, then was ever thought possible 50 or 60 years ago. I know the school of though that doesnt translate to success in boxing, and that good old meat and potato old timers were too tough to need all that new fangled stuff, but that is simply nostalgic romanticized wishful thinking

This is a load of bull-larky my friend.

There is no noticeable evolution of the "non-athletic physiology" in an 100 time span. That whole idea is a myth. Me and my peers are stronger, faster, etc. than my grandad and his buddies b/c he's two generations removed? That is a completely ludicrous statement, and makes no scientific sense from a genetic standpoint or any other standpoint.

Ive been in several boxing gyms in the past 5 years. I saw no 'eye-opening' anything that I didn't see 20 years ago, except the kids overall are less disciplined and carry more attitude. Potassium levels??? LOL . . . so fightes of the past didn't know the nutritional benefits of bananas?

Muscle groups . . .you don't think trainers in the 1920s knew about the idea of different exercises for different parts of the body. Just look at any old-time grainy footage of Dempsey and co training and they didn't things for the legs, abs, arms, shoulders etc. Just b/c people put a new name to something doesn't mean it's a new concept.

And Robinson went 15 hard rounds a load of times. Extreme heat made a past-it Robinson collapse, so to cite that as some lack of stamina is absurd.

Next I'm sure you'll bring up Olympic times, baseball stats etc. You have people breaking records for 2 main reasons:

1) A Greater pool of participation equating to more overall talent. As I stated before, basketball and football are much more popular and take their pickings from a much larger talent pool than 40 years ago. Ditto with most Olympic sports

2) Changes in equipment that affect the game (not too relevant to boxing b/c you still have two guys with gloves on in a ring) Put Gale Sayers in modern shoes running on modern turf and I have no doubt he is a top running back in the NFL. Ditto with Jim Brown. Ditto with the top track runners of the 40s. They were running on dirt tracks with absolute crap for footwear. Look at the shoes Jesss Owens co. wore. They are big socks compared to today's shoes.

And ptichers like Bob Fellar wre throwing 98 mph fastballs in the 1930s . . .so don't know where you're going from there.

cosand · Post by **cosand** » 18 Mar 2007, 19:50

dempseyfire Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:05 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cosand wrote:
Quote:
dempseyfire

Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 2212

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amsterdam wrote:
cosand wrote:
This whole "Who is better Austin or Chuvallo" is not the best example to use if the discussion is comparing contenders from the past vs contenders of today.

For one thing, the eras are not far enough apart to make a real distinction, and the other problem, Austin in NOT, nor has he ever been a contender. he is an opponent, gatekeeper at best, who got a gift of a title eliminator, managed a draw, and fell ass backward into a title fight. In the 60s and 70s, Austin is Buster Mathis

Chuvallo was, in spite of some rose colored retrospect, largely a gatekeeper as well. He was more a part of other peoples legacy, then one who has a legacy of his own.

He was also, a guy who might have had the best chin best wind and the most raw toughness in the history of the division, and that is his claim to fame.

Chuvallo was not better because of the era, he was just better because he was better. I don't however, see him uniting the HW division in 2007

Yes, I am one of those who believe that overall, fighters today are better trained, better fed, better conditioned, stronger pound for pound and simply more physically evolved then fighters of the past. Me, and all the NFL GMs who no longer draft 210 lb linebackers, or MLB pitching coaches who no longer keep pitchers who throw 70 MPH fastballs. But for the sake of boxing, I make the distinction starting in the late 50s, early 60s.

If I am wrong, I guess i better sell a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment and electronic diagnostic equipment, and have my clients chop wood and do sit ups and squat thrusts.

Modern guys are not better conditioned, at least in the HW division. They are better trained however and I will agree to that. But as for conditioning, seems many of them gas pretty easily where as the older era fighters had no trouble going 15 hard rounds.

Skills haven't really evolved much since the 30's-40's, just styles.

Klit beats Chuvalo easy, as well as Samuel Peter. The rest of these jokers are open game for Chuvalo in my opinion though.

In retrospects, if you took the old school skills and trained them modern with the right athletes, you'd have a nearly unbeatable combination. Most fighters today train to win in their current division, some of the older guys trained for perfection.

If Tommy Hearns wasn't technical perfection for his particular style, I don't know what is, he came only shortly after the era we are talking about for these HW's also.

How is anybody better trained and conditioned? Prove it. Our top guys (Klitschko, Peter, Briggs etc.) have all shown serious stamina issues in 12 round fights. Frazier and Louis went hard fought 15 no problem.

Doing medicine ball exercises, weight resistance pulleys, chopping wood and simple old fashioned push-ups and pull-ups will give you all the strength you need. Having a big bench press does NOTHING for a person boxing-wise and will simly create un-neccesary bulk on a person's frame in which they'll tire quickly from the lactic acid build-up. Hasim Rahman is a perfect example, who looks like he's punching under-water by the 4th round.

The main reason you have better athletes now in the NFL and NBA is the bigger talent pool. It's the biggest sport in the U.S. by far. Most professional football players through the 1970s did it as a PART-TIME JOB. They wer tough guys but the NFL was not attracting all of the elite athletes in the U.S. like it does now. Completely uncomparable eras . . . .dunking in bastekball didn't even become common until the 1970s. Show me a boxing punch thrown now that wasn't thrown 80 years ago

It is very much a case of apples and oranges, but i'll get back to that.

First off, 'Louis and Frazier" dont belong in the same sentance when it comes to this subject. VERY different eras

Second, don’t act like fighters from the 30s and 40s or even 50s fought 15 rounds, and then went out dancing. Quite the contrary. SRR was arguably one of the best conditioned fighters of his time, and he once almost died of exhaustion after 12 rounds. There are coutless other examples.

Third, no one is talking about "boxing punches" By training, I am talking about "training methods" not punches. there are hoever, modern methods related to that too, but that is another discussion we can have another time if you like

But yes, you are correct, elite fighters from from other eras did show a great deal of endurance, but this is where the appleas and oranges comes in.

Fighters from the 30s, needless to say, fought fighters from the 30s. Others fighters with the same conditioning methods as they used.

The evolution of the modern athlete, and even the evolution of non athletic human physiology is so apparent and self evident, I am amazed that this is even a question.

Athletes run faster, jump higher, run longer distances faster, swim faster, lift more weight. Bigger athletes are faster and more agile then athletes half their size 60 years ago. Athletes can remain active years longer then in the past
Why ?
Simple
“Muscle groups”, sodium levels. Potassium levels, ROIs, BMIs, and metabolism management and modern nutrition were unheard of prior to the late 50s and early 60s

If you havent been to an elite boxing gym and a sports medicine facility in a while, you should check one out. I Guarantee you will be amazed at what you see.

To think that you could put a fighter, regardless of the division, from the days when fighters trained on wood chopping and pancakes with a modern athelete, is simply not correct, any more then Babe Ruth could have hit the number of home runs he hit, facing 98 MPH fastballs, or Paul Horning could rush for 1000 yards in a modern NFL season.

Settting aside HWs for a moment, the fact is that there is more athletic abilty and strength packed into a 150, 170, or even 220 lb body today, then was ever thought possible 50 or 60 years ago. I know the school of though that doesnt translate to success in boxing, and that good old meat and potato old timers were too tough to need all that new fangled stuff, but that is simply nostalgic romanticized wishful thinking

This is a load of bull-larky my friend.

There is no noticeable evolution of the "non-athletic physiology" in an 100 time span. That whole idea is a myth. Me and my peers are stronger, faster, etc. than my grandad and his buddies b/c he's two generations removed? That is a completely ludicrous statement, and makes no scientific sense from a genetic standpoint or any other standpoint.

Ive been in several boxing gyms in the past 5 years. I saw no 'eye-opening' anything that I didn't see 20 years ago, except the kids overall are less disciplined and carry more attitude. Potassium levels??? LOL . . . so fightes of the past didn't know the nutritional benefits of bananas?

Muscle groups . . .you don't think trainers in the 1920s knew about the idea of different exercises for different parts of the body. Just look at any old-time grainy footage of Dempsey and co training and they didn't things for the legs, abs, arms, shoulders etc. Just b/c people put a new name to something doesn't mean it's a new concept.

And Robinson went 15 hard rounds a load of times. Extreme heat made a past-it Robinson collapse, so to cite that as some lack of stamina is absurd.

Next I'm sure you'll bring up Olympic times, baseball stats etc. You have people breaking records for 2 main reasons:

1) A Greater pool of participation equating to more overall talent. As I stated before, basketball and football are much more popular and take their pickings from a much larger talent pool than 40 years ago. Ditto with most Olympic sports

2) Changes in equipment that affect the game (not too relevant to boxing b/c you still have two guys with gloves on in a ring) Put Gale Sayers in modern shoes running on modern turf and I have no doubt he is a top running back in the NFL. Ditto with Jim Brown. Ditto with the top track runners of the 40s. They were running on dirt tracks with absolute crap for footwear. Look at the shoes Jesss Owens co. wore. They are big socks compared to today's shoes.

And ptichers like Bob Fellar wre throwing 98 mph fastballs in the 1930s . . .so don't know where you're going from there.

So i guess you haven’t noticed that kids are bigger and taller then their parents, and that even at the HS sports level, records drop like flies huh ?
I can only suggest you look into it a little deeper.
Myth ?
Hardly

Bananas ? Yes, that is about the extent of what they know, and that is not even a scratch of what it involves.
Here is a quick lesson in human physiology and sports history for you. Potasium and sodium in the proper proportions, equal ..are you ready ? ELECTROLITES. This was discovered more or less at tha same time in the 60s at the University of Florida and the university of Oklahoma. (they dispute who was first) Electrolites allow the body to re-hydrate 50 to 75 times faster, and thus allow the body to accept oxegyn and to level off amino acids, and allow for more efficient training and to RECOVER faster, NOT just when you take them in, but LONG term. Can you guess the well known product was created based on this discovery ? I bet you can huh ? Here is a hint though, Joe Louis never had it.
That too is just the front end of how nutrition is managed, but I will leave you to your own research if you like. Again, FAR from a myth.

Speaking of bananas, there is a means to determine ideal body weight for a fighter to dry out to involving eating banans, but no, they didn’t know about that testt in the 30s either.

As for SRR..Ummm...didn’t Joey Maxim fight in the same heat that night ?
Why didnt he almost have a organ shutdown...i''l give you a hint...he obviously had better prepared nutritionally, and the ironic part of it is, at the time, he had no way of even knowing it. It was by chance, but it was no accident.

And no..they did NOT know the methods for isolating muscle groups in the way we do taday, not even close. they among other things, thought abs were abs. Today we know different, and those who develop all 3 groups properly, don’t get KOd from a left to the liver.

Athletes exel today because of "Equipment" ? Ahhhh...so it's the shoes !!!!
LOL
tell me where I can pick up a pair that would make me rush like Reggie Bush, and I'll be the oldest walk on in NFL history
LOL..sorry, but that's just funny

A 98 MPH fastball in the 30s ? Do tell !!!
Sorry, Not Feller, not Johnson and NO one from the 30s or 40s, and most likely not the 50s

We will never agree on this, that is obvious, but just so i understand and am clear on your point of view, ....

You belive, that if we ghad a time machine, and we could warp ..say SRR or joe louis, as they were in their prime to 2007, thet would not only duplicate, but EXCEED what the achieved then,,,today ?

Ummm...is that what your saying ?

Caramn Basillio in his famous sarcastic and satirical way summed this up the best.
He was asked by a reporter back in the 890s from a Syracuse TV station in an interview to compare himself with Harvin Hagler.
He took a puff on his cigar and said "well, he is a lot younger then me, but I still think I can take him"
This was followed by dead silence and a nervous smile form the reporter.
Carmen then said "Waddaya nuts" ?
By that, he said exactly what I am saying now.
Pretty much sums it up i think.

cosand · Post by **cosand** » 18 Mar 2007, 20:01

By the way, in case you couldnt guess what the product was that was created based on the Potasium/sodium research.....it is called Gatoraid.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 18 Mar 2007, 22:47

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 18 Mar 2007, 22:58

cosand wrote:
dempseyfire Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:05 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cosand wrote:
Quote:
dempseyfire

Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 2212

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amsterdam wrote:
cosand wrote:
This whole "Who is better Austin or Chuvallo" is not the best example to use if the discussion is comparing contenders from the past vs contenders of today.

For one thing, the eras are not far enough apart to make a real distinction, and the other problem, Austin in NOT, nor has he ever been a contender. he is an opponent, gatekeeper at best, who got a gift of a title eliminator, managed a draw, and fell ass backward into a title fight. In the 60s and 70s, Austin is Buster Mathis

Chuvallo was, in spite of some rose colored retrospect, largely a gatekeeper as well. He was more a part of other peoples legacy, then one who has a legacy of his own.

He was also, a guy who might have had the best chin best wind and the most raw toughness in the history of the division, and that is his claim to fame.

Chuvallo was not better because of the era, he was just better because he was better. I don't however, see him uniting the HW division in 2007

Yes, I am one of those who believe that overall, fighters today are better trained, better fed, better conditioned, stronger pound for pound and simply more physically evolved then fighters of the past. Me, and all the NFL GMs who no longer draft 210 lb linebackers, or MLB pitching coaches who no longer keep pitchers who throw 70 MPH fastballs. But for the sake of boxing, I make the distinction starting in the late 50s, early 60s.

If I am wrong, I guess i better sell a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment and electronic diagnostic equipment, and have my clients chop wood and do sit ups and squat thrusts.

Modern guys are not better conditioned, at least in the HW division. They are better trained however and I will agree to that. But as for conditioning, seems many of them gas pretty easily where as the older era fighters had no trouble going 15 hard rounds.

Skills haven't really evolved much since the 30's-40's, just styles.

Klit beats Chuvalo easy, as well as Samuel Peter. The rest of these jokers are open game for Chuvalo in my opinion though.

In retrospects, if you took the old school skills and trained them modern with the right athletes, you'd have a nearly unbeatable combination. Most fighters today train to win in their current division, some of the older guys trained for perfection.

If Tommy Hearns wasn't technical perfection for his particular style, I don't know what is, he came only shortly after the era we are talking about for these HW's also.

How is anybody better trained and conditioned? Prove it. Our top guys (Klitschko, Peter, Briggs etc.) have all shown serious stamina issues in 12 round fights. Frazier and Louis went hard fought 15 no problem.

Doing medicine ball exercises, weight resistance pulleys, chopping wood and simple old fashioned push-ups and pull-ups will give you all the strength you need. Having a big bench press does NOTHING for a person boxing-wise and will simly create un-neccesary bulk on a person's frame in which they'll tire quickly from the lactic acid build-up. Hasim Rahman is a perfect example, who looks like he's punching under-water by the 4th round.

The main reason you have better athletes now in the NFL and NBA is the bigger talent pool. It's the biggest sport in the U.S. by far. Most professional football players through the 1970s did it as a PART-TIME JOB. They wer tough guys but the NFL was not attracting all of the elite athletes in the U.S. like it does now. Completely uncomparable eras . . . .dunking in bastekball didn't even become common until the 1970s. Show me a boxing punch thrown now that wasn't thrown 80 years ago

It is very much a case of apples and oranges, but i'll get back to that.

First off, 'Louis and Frazier" dont belong in the same sentance when it comes to this subject. VERY different eras

Second, don’t act like fighters from the 30s and 40s or even 50s fought 15 rounds, and then went out dancing. Quite the contrary. SRR was arguably one of the best conditioned fighters of his time, and he once almost died of exhaustion after 12 rounds. There are coutless other examples.

Third, no one is talking about "boxing punches" By training, I am talking about "training methods" not punches. there are hoever, modern methods related to that too, but that is another discussion we can have another time if you like

But yes, you are correct, elite fighters from from other eras did show a great deal of endurance, but this is where the appleas and oranges comes in.

Fighters from the 30s, needless to say, fought fighters from the 30s. Others fighters with the same conditioning methods as they used.

The evolution of the modern athlete, and even the evolution of non athletic human physiology is so apparent and self evident, I am amazed that this is even a question.

Athletes run faster, jump higher, run longer distances faster, swim faster, lift more weight. Bigger athletes are faster and more agile then athletes half their size 60 years ago. Athletes can remain active years longer then in the past
Why ?
Simple
“Muscle groups”, sodium levels. Potassium levels, ROIs, BMIs, and metabolism management and modern nutrition were unheard of prior to the late 50s and early 60s

If you havent been to an elite boxing gym and a sports medicine facility in a while, you should check one out. I Guarantee you will be amazed at what you see.

To think that you could put a fighter, regardless of the division, from the days when fighters trained on wood chopping and pancakes with a modern athelete, is simply not correct, any more then Babe Ruth could have hit the number of home runs he hit, facing 98 MPH fastballs, or Paul Horning could rush for 1000 yards in a modern NFL season.

Settting aside HWs for a moment, the fact is that there is more athletic abilty and strength packed into a 150, 170, or even 220 lb body today, then was ever thought possible 50 or 60 years ago. I know the school of though that doesnt translate to success in boxing, and that good old meat and potato old timers were too tough to need all that new fangled stuff, but that is simply nostalgic romanticized wishful thinking

This is a load of bull-larky my friend.

There is no noticeable evolution of the "non-athletic physiology" in an 100 time span. That whole idea is a myth. Me and my peers are stronger, faster, etc. than my grandad and his buddies b/c he's two generations removed? That is a completely ludicrous statement, and makes no scientific sense from a genetic standpoint or any other standpoint.

Ive been in several boxing gyms in the past 5 years. I saw no 'eye-opening' anything that I didn't see 20 years ago, except the kids overall are less disciplined and carry more attitude. Potassium levels??? LOL . . . so fightes of the past didn't know the nutritional benefits of bananas?

Muscle groups . . .you don't think trainers in the 1920s knew about the idea of different exercises for different parts of the body. Just look at any old-time grainy footage of Dempsey and co training and they didn't things for the legs, abs, arms, shoulders etc. Just b/c people put a new name to something doesn't mean it's a new concept.

And Robinson went 15 hard rounds a load of times. Extreme heat made a past-it Robinson collapse, so to cite that as some lack of stamina is absurd.

Next I'm sure you'll bring up Olympic times, baseball stats etc. You have people breaking records for 2 main reasons:

1) A Greater pool of participation equating to more overall talent. As I stated before, basketball and football are much more popular and take their pickings from a much larger talent pool than 40 years ago. Ditto with most Olympic sports

2) Changes in equipment that affect the game (not too relevant to boxing b/c you still have two guys with gloves on in a ring) Put Gale Sayers in modern shoes running on modern turf and I have no doubt he is a top running back in the NFL. Ditto with Jim Brown. Ditto with the top track runners of the 40s. They were running on dirt tracks with absolute crap for footwear. Look at the shoes Jesss Owens co. wore. They are big socks compared to today's shoes.

And ptichers like Bob Fellar wre throwing 98 mph fastballs in the 1930s . . .so don't know where you're going from there.
So i guess you haven’t noticed that kids are bigger and taller then their parents, and that even at the HS sports level, records drop like flies huh ?
I can only suggest you look into it a little deeper.
Myth ?
Hardly

Bananas ? Yes, that is about the extent of what they know, and that is not even a scratch of what it involves.
Here is a quick lesson in human physiology and sports history for you. Potasium and sodium in the proper proportions, equal ..are you ready ? ELECTROLITES. This was discovered more or less at tha same time in the 60s at the University of Florida and the university of Oklahoma. (they dispute who was first) Electrolites allow the body to re-hydrate 50 to 75 times faster, and thus allow the body to accept oxegyn and to level off amino acids, and allow for more efficient training and to RECOVER faster, NOT just when you take them in, but LONG term. Can you guess the well known product was created based on this discovery ? I bet you can huh ? Here is a hint though, Joe Louis never had it.
That too is just the front end of how nutrition is managed, but I will leave you to your own research if you like. Again, FAR from a myth.

Speaking of bananas, there is a means to determine ideal body weight for a fighter to dry out to involving eating banans, but no, they didn’t know about that testt in the 30s either.

As for SRR..Ummm...didn’t Joey Maxim fight in the same heat that night ?
Why didnt he almost have a organ shutdown...i''l give you a hint...he obviously had better prepared nutritionally, and the ironic part of it is, at the time, he had no way of even knowing it. It was by chance, but it was no accident.

And no..they did NOT know the methods for isolating muscle groups in the way we do taday, not even close. they among other things, thought abs were abs. Today we know different, and those who develop all 3 groups properly, don’t get KOd from a left to the liver.

Athletes exel today because of "Equipment" ? Ahhhh...so it's the shoes !!!!
LOL
tell me where I can pick up a pair that would make me rush like Reggie Bush, and I'll be the oldest walk on in NFL history
LOL..sorry, but that's just funny

A 98 MPH fastball in the 30s ? Do tell !!!
Sorry, Not Feller, not Johnson and NO one from the 30s or 40s, and most likely not the 50s

We will never agree on this, that is obvious, but just so i understand and am clear on your point of view, ....

You belive, that if we ghad a time machine, and we could warp ..say SRR or joe louis, as they were in their prime to 2007, thet would not only duplicate, but EXCEED what the achieved then,,,today ?

Ummm...is that what your saying ?

Caramn Basillio in his famous sarcastic and satirical way summed this up the best.
He was asked by a reporter back in the 890s from a Syracuse TV station in an interview to compare himself with Harvin Hagler.
He took a puff on his cigar and said "well, he is a lot younger then me, but I still think I can take him"
This was followed by dead silence and a nervous smile form the reporter.
Carmen then said "Waddaya nuts" ?
By that, he said exactly what I am saying now.
Pretty much sums it up i think.

Yes, I believe Joe Louis knocks out every champion we have masquearading right now. Ditto with Robinson. They were superior b/c they had better teachers, were in better condition, and came from much deeper talent pools (boxing has been declining the past 30 plus years as opposed to football and basketball)

But apparently, the guys now have every advantage b/c of Gatoraide (even though during a fight every top trainer still gives their fighter "old fashioned" H2O . . .please explain that one . . .if you are saying they have a great advantage b/c they drink Gatoraide while training. . .well . . .I don't even know how to respond to that one)

Since apparently back in the day they got knocked out from body shots all the time b/c they didn't know about training muscle groups, show me one special abdominal exercise fighters use today which they didn't do in Dempsey's time . . .since everything is so much more advanced . . .I'm asking you to simply prove it. All you have to do is look at the results. Fighters like Taylor, Tarver, and all the HW 'champs' fatigue heavily during 12 round fights, whereas Robinson, Frazier, Louis, Armstrong, Zale etc. went 15 excruciating rounds on a regular basis. The proof is in the pudding.
You mention Marvin Hagler . . . .a very old school guy who did an old school training regiment. I know several people who worked out at his gym in Brockton. There were no special machines or fancy engineered diets. Just lots of bag work, skip rope, TONS of road work, sparring, and exercises guys have done for decades.

EVen today, I can't think of many fighters who use many "high tech" fitness regimes. Freddie Roach uses old school methods (Toney jumped on with Billy Blanks' "state of the art" regimen and that did GREAT for him), as does Emmanuel Steward. The only guys I can think that have been known to partake in a good deal of "modern super scientific training regimens" are Holyfield, De la Hoya, and a few others . . . .not suprisingly, guys who have been known to fade down the stretch.

I'm not arguing that sports science has not grown and evolved. But it's effects on the sport of boxing, in terms of producing a superior fighter, are mute. Boxing has been around in one form or another for hundreds of years, and it's not magic that enabled guys 100 years ago to go 15,20, and 45 hard rounds. They had tried and proven training methods which WORKED.

cosand · Post by **cosand** » 18 Mar 2007, 23:00

I don't consider Ray Austin to be a great fighter, just a fighter who today is about the same as Chuvalo was in his era.

That's a tough claim to make. Austin has been KDd, KOd, TKOd and KTFO.
Chuvallo get puched, jabbed, beat and hammered by monster punchers, and was never off his feet.

You are saying that Chuvalo would beat Ray Austin and Sam Peter easily

Someone said Chuvallo would beat Peter easilly ?
Ummm....I doubt that very much
I think Chuvallo would slug it out with Peter, test every angle to get inside, and have an outside semi long shot puchers chance to win, and for sure go the distance if he didnt.
But to claim he would walk through Peter is just plain silly

Take off the rose colored glasses and hold the old timers to the same standards as you hold the modern fighters.

That I do agree with 100%.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 18 Mar 2007, 23:12

cosand · Post by **cosand** » 18 Mar 2007, 23:43

DaveV17

Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 81

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:12 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just watched the two videos. Cuvalo - Foreman and Austin - Klitschko. I don't criticize fighters. I'll be positive. Wlad and Austin looked like they moved better and had better skills than Foreman and Chuvalo. They were also much bigger.

BTW, Austin has only been stopped twice. Being stopped by Wlad K. is no disgrace. He is an excellent offensive fighter.

All that is true, but i am willing to bet Wlad could throw left hooks at Chuvallo all night long, and George would just grin and fire back.

Hey, I am the guy who always defends the modern day fighter, but in this case, it's just that Austin and Chuvallo is not a good mix for me to be able to do thatt in this case.

Chuvallo was a one of a kind, or at very least a rare breed.
I was at ringside as a kid when he fought Mike DeJohn.

Jesus H Christ !

DeJohn had under rated power, although a year or two past his prime, and he hit George with everything including the kitchen sink. He landed at least four clean shots to George's head in the first round, and George litterally laughed in his face.
Decked him twice and at one point had him backed into the ropes and almost sent him over the top rope.

Chuvallo went the distance with Ali, twice, KOd Quarry, lost by a sliver to Paterson and would have been champ had he not been totally robbed against Terrell.

If you want to compare a modern day fighter with Chuvallo, Austin is just not a good choice

generic screen name · Post by **generic screen name** » 18 Mar 2007, 23:49

Austin has no chin. He went down on the first hard punch Wlad thew.

Amsterdam · Post by **Amsterdam** » 19 Mar 2007, 00:06

DaveV17 wrote:I just watched the two videos. Cuvalo - Foreman and Austin - Klitschko. I don't criticize fighters. I'll be positive. Wlad and Austin looked like they moved better and had better skills than Foreman and Chuvalo. They were also much bigger.

BTW, Austin has only been stopped twice. Being stopped by Wlad K. is no disgrace. He is an excellent offensive fighter.

They don't move better and being stopped by Wlad K. is certainly not a disgrace, it's the way he was stopped that was a disgrace. Chris Byrd was stopped by Wlad K. after eating his best shots, he also wasn't ktfo, Austin was almost KTFO from a punch that wouldn't qualify as anything serious from Wlad K's arsenal.

By the way, in my opinion Foreman seemingly moved as well as Wlad K, he just doesn't have Wlad's quickness and he also used a workable jab there, his style was of the more crude slugger cut anyway.

You are way off base here if you think Austin is decent, that guy is as sloppy as they come and Foreman would have taken him out within the first minute.

Do I need to remind that a current belt holder in Shannon Briggs recieved a very lucky decision over a 47 year old Foreman?

Amsterdam · Post by **Amsterdam** » 19 Mar 2007, 00:16

cosand wrote:
DaveV17

Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 81

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:12 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just watched the two videos. Cuvalo - Foreman and Austin - Klitschko. I don't criticize fighters. I'll be positive. Wlad and Austin looked like they moved better and had better skills than Foreman and Chuvalo. They were also much bigger.

BTW, Austin has only been stopped twice. Being stopped by Wlad K. is no disgrace. He is an excellent offensive fighter.

All that is true, but i am willing to bet Wlad could throw left hooks at Chuvallo all night long, and George would just grin and fire back.

Hey, I am the guy who always defends the modern day fighter, but in this case, it's just that Austin and Chuvallo is not a good mix for me to be able to do thatt in this case.

Chuvallo was a one of a kind, or at very least a rare breed.
I was at ringside as a kid when he fought Mike DeJohn.

Jesus H Christ !

DeJohn had under rated power, although a year or two past his prime, and he hit George with everything including the kitchen sink. He landed at least four clean shots to George's head in the first round, and George litterally laughed in his face.
Decked him twice and at one point had him backed into the ropes and almost sent him over the top rope.

Chuvallo went the distance with Ali, twice, KOd Quarry, lost by a sliver to Paterson and would have been champ had he not been totally robbed against Terrell.

If you want to compare a modern day fighter with Chuvallo, Austin is just not a good choice

Austin is a non factor in any division, his doesn't use his size well and is not very quick, he has average stamina and a glass chin/piss defence combination.

Chuvalo was solid and against Foreman he was past his best, Foreman was also a horrible styles match up for him and was arguably a top 3 HW puncher, he had immense power.

My guess is that Chuvalo would lose easily to Klit and Peter, but he'd own your Barrett and Guinn class and then he'd be very competitive with the in between class and would probably beat some of them. I personally can't see Liakhovich or Ibragimov beating Chuvalo, they can't hurt him and he'd outwork them easily, probably KOing Ibragimov.

Shannon Briggs would get outworked due to his stamina issue's, Maskaev, please. So Klit and Peter are the only guys I think would dominate Chuvalo.