WHo is More Impressive-Chuvalo or Ray Austin

[The Great John L]

I don't think Vlad has been an in-active champion.

I don’t think he’s been an in-active champion either. In fact, Wlad isn’t a champion at all. He’s a “title” holder, just like Valuev, Oleg and Briggs. If and when he unifies, then he will be a champion.

Boston Strong Boy fans should not talk about being active champions either.

Sure Vlad has been knocked down a bit. But historians know Sullivan himself was also floored by a 157 pound fighter named Charlie Mitchell who really more of a London Prize fighter then Queensberry fighter.

Title unifications that crown champions are very rare. Don King prevents title modern day title unification matches. Ironically enough he was the only man to sponsor one. The last and only fighter to win all the belts in the ring via title unification was Mike Tyson. The rest of the champions became champions by winning one fight.

There have been times before when lineal champions have retired. In all cases one match has between two contenders has decided the new champ. Lewis retired as the lineal champ. Its time to set up a match vs Vlad and another champion to re-establish the next link in the chain.

I have no axes to grind here. Vlad isn’t the greatest thing since sliced bread, but some historians simply aren't objective when talking about present day fighters.

You sure do have a hard time staying on topic...

[dempseyfire]

Ambling Alp



Joined: 16 Jul 2005
Posts: 1001

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:34 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.



GM's don't draft 210 pound linebackers? No they haven't often done that since the 1950's. (Though you may have heard of Brian Urlacher, who was a safety in college)
They also don't draft 300 pound quaterbacks running backs or wide receivers. They know that after a point, size goes from an asset to liabilty. they also know that something called skill is important. This is why even you see players in every sport in a wide variety of sizes.

As for some of you other comments in other posts concern athletes from the past:
You mention that Paul Hornung wouldn't rush for 1000 yards in a season if he played today. I agree with that. As a expert about athletes from the past, you should know that he never came close to running for 1000 yards when he played in the 1950's and 1960's.

You keep saying that pitchers in MLB throw faster. (as if the mph on a fastball is the only thing that matters when it comes to pitching).
Well, first of all, how many top pitchers today do you think throw 98 mph?

There wasn't a radar gun until the early 1960's. Interesting that several pitchers threw well over 90Mph when the radar was used in the 1960's.
You don't think that any pitchers before the 1950's threw tha fast? How could you possibly know? Their speeds weren't measured by a radar gun.

It's not like everyone was saying in the 1960's that pitchers were faster than they were in the 1950's or the 1940's.

btw, there is a famous film where they tested Bob Feller throwing a fast ball with a motorcycle driving by at 95mph. It was clear that Feller's pitch was faster. I'm surprised that an expert of athletes from way back that you haven't seen this clip.


Also it's interesting that pitchers now only pitch once every 5 games and aren't expected to go 9 innings. That is considered too hard on their arms, even with modern training. However, from the late 19th century up until the 1970's it was common to see 4 man staffs with pitchers often going 9 innings.

You are not understanding some crucial points:
Size and speed is important, but there is so much more to being a great fighter or a great athlete in most other sports.
There is such a thing as skill. And toughness. And experience. And heart. And smarts. And so on.

Yes, with a modern training regiment a person can fit faster. However, that doesn't mean that older training methods didn't work. Running does work. Situps do work. Skipping rope does work. It might have taken the fighters back then longer to get in great shape, but many did it.
Do you really think that the body fat % of todays top 10 heavyweights are lower than in most of other eras?

There are mediocre, good and great athletes both today and from years ago.

Dude you are ALL over the board on this. Still, you make a couple of good points, but you are still missing the boat on others

Let's get the baseball out of the way, and then hopefully move on, it was merely one tiny example, although a good one.
No, they had no radar guns in Fellers day, but no reasonable person believes that either he threw a ball as fast, much less faster then then MLB pitchers of today. If you really need to post references to that fact, I will, but it is a little like proving water is wet..

Brian Urlacher ? Sure, I have heard of him, and he weighs 258Lbs

Position: MLB
Height: 6-4
Weight: 258
Born: 05/25/1978
College: New Mexico
NFL Experience: 8

Line backers in the 40s and 50s ? Usually under 200 lbs

I guess a really well conditioned 195 pounder could do the job just as well huh ?
Ummmm, no.

Now you are correct, there are no 300 Lb QBs, YET, but guess what ? They are getting there.
Daunte Culpepper goes 265
Donavan McNabb goes 240
Most NFL QBs tday, go over 200lbs

Forget the 30s and 40s, QBs even in the 60s were generally in the 175 lb range.

Do you see a pattern forming here ?

As for performance, you see a steady upturn in virtually EVERY sport as the decades go by.

The reason is no mystery
40% better nutrition (in all ascending generations since the 20, 30s and 40s and up to today ) and the evolution of human physiology that resulted, and 60% better training and conditioning methods. It is beyond silly to deny that.

Now that we have established that, lets relate it back to boxing, not just HWs, but in all divisions

Just as in other sports, the performance curve in boxing as it relates to size and strength, (along with general health, flexibility and the longevity of the athlete's condition) is no different

Simply put, and in the most understandable terms fighters of equal weight across generations and era's, are NOT comparable, and to think that the 185 lb HWs, or even the 200 or so pounders before the late 50s early 60s could compete with the elite HWs of today, is ,,sorry to say, a buit silly

To suggest the otherwise is just so much rose colored and nostalgic hindsight.

Now, having said all that, the WRONG size and weight can be a liability. There is no denying that there are some fighters out there stepping into the ring anywhere from 10lbs in the lower weight classes, to 40 lbs in the heavy weight classes. But, there were overweight slugs then, and there are fatsos now. If you ant to compare them, that is another discussion.

In the end, skill and old fashioned guts do matter, but not enough to over ride the things I pointed out.

There is absolutely NO COMPARISON of boxing in the 1940s and 50s, and american football. Football in the 40s was still primarily a collegiate sport, and a fringe professional sport. On the contrary boxing in the 1930s and 40s was at its peak in popularity, with gyms in every neighborhood producing fighters. Not only was football not attracting the top athletes it does now, but in terms of some basic rules and strategies of play it didn't even fully develop to what we know now untl the late 1950s and 1960s, and even then it made further developments for the next 15 years.

It's like comparing the best skateboarders of the 1960s to the top fencers. One is a sport which has developed over hundreds of years, and in it's modern form been around for over a century, like boxing and one in its creation, development, and popularity was still in the baby stages.

Now if you want to claim that Terry Bradshaw, OJ Simpson, Jim Brown, Lawrence Taylor, Ronnie Lott, Lynn Swann, Ted Hendricks, and Earl Campbell couldn't play today, then we have an argument.

And again, I keep asking for specific examples in BOXING as to what are all of these superior training methods the top guys do today?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNZeLn29 ... MAYWEATHER

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p3DAryzGdM&NR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wujLirP9Yfw

This is Maywheather Jr, the top PFP guy in 2007. I guess they choose to not show when he's hooked up to the monitors a la Drago in Rocky 4 . .

The only thing non-old school about his training regimen is he's taken to some weight training as he's moved up to welterweight (as his body type is still naturally at 135-140). And at 147 he's considerably slower than he was at lightweight.

I will concede Mackey Shillstone have developed better ways for guys to put on healthy weight who want to move up for their body type. And he has a very specific, very expensive program that has yet to be duplicated (and Hopkins and Spinks were tall for their weight classes and had the builds to be able to add on some extra mass)

Other than that lone example, I have yet to see any proof that 2007 training is better than 50 years ago.

[Ambling Alp]

dempseyfire- You made some good points that some people don't understand. Sports usually improve a lot when they are new, and then after a period of time they plateau.
The NFL didn't even start until 1920, it was considerably better by the 1970's. However since then the difference in level of play is negligble.

Boxing and baseball at a serious professional level is much older. It steadily improved in the late 1800's and early 1900's and then plateued.

As for cosands comments:
Dude, I'm not all over the place. I was making 2 manin points:
1. The "measurable improvements" in size and speed aren't nearly as great as you think. You simply don't know enough about ahtletes from years ago.
2. There are many other factors to be considered for a boxer to be great and for an athlete to be great in most other sports.

No reasonable person believe that Feller was as fast as todays pitchers? Umm, yes many do. Virtually any baseball historian would tell you that if Bob Feller was pitching today that he would be one of the fastest and one of the best. It was proven on film that he could throw faster than 95 mph. That would make him one of, if not the fastest pithcers today.
When the radar gun became popular in the 1960's several pithcers could throw well over 90 mph. Maybe you have heard of Koufax,Drysdale,Gibson, and McDowell to name a few.
The pitcher's from before the 1960's couldn't throw that fastt? Funny that in the 1960's the current pitchers at the time weren't considered faster than their predecessors.
What a coinicidence that as soon as the radar gun was invented that the pitchers all of a sudden became faster.

In the 1970s; Nolan Ryan was timed at over 100. Gossage was consistently in the high 90's. Seaver, Carlton,Guidry to name a few routinely were well in the mid 90's.

You never answered my point that why with all this great trianing that pitchers don't have the endurance that they did years ago?

The only reason I brought up Urlacher was becasue you mentioned 210 pound linebackers don't get drated. Urlacher was about that size when he was in college.

You name a couple of big quarterbacks in the NFL as some sort of proof that bigger is better. Both are injury prone and neither are the best quaterbacks in the NFL when they are healthy.
How many of todays quarterbacks are better than Joe Montana? He weighed less than 200 and played until the mid 1990's.
Doug Flutie would have been considered small for the 1960's and he played until after he was 40 and just retired a couple of years ago.


You say that quarterbacks in the 1960's were in the 175 pound range? No they weren't. Most NFL quarterbacks in the 1960's were close to 200 pounds. Look it up.

"Skill and old fashioned guts do matter, but not enough to override the thats I pointed out"

How stupid is that. You can be in tremendous physical condition, but you still have to have skill. Sure, if everyting else is close, than the bigger man will probably win. Skill, and guts,a smarts and many other things are just as important.

Watch fights between 2 top 10 heavyweights in the 1970's (or a period before that for that matter) and see how much more active the fighters were. Sure there were bad fights, and some fights had a lot of clinches, but overall, they were a lot busier in a fight.
Nowadays, usually guys loading up, trying to throw one big punch.

How many great heavyweight fights have their been in the last 10 years?

Roy Jones won the heavyweight title at under 200 pounds. Byrd, who couldn't crack an egg, was the IBF champ for a few years and wasn't much more than 200. It certainly isn't illogical to think that a Dempsey, Louis, Marciano etc. who could punch and who had the intangibles would be on top today, even if they were under 200 pounds.

[The Great John L]

When the radar gun became popular in the 1960's several pithcers could throw well over 90 mph. Maybe you have heard of Koufax,Drysdale,Gibson, and McDowell to name a few.

I was an Indians fan growing up in the 60’s and McDowell was an amazing pitcher before his drinking got the better of him. I recall that he was actually clocked at over 100MPH several times during games in the late 60’s. I believe that the same is true of Koufax as well.

Of course, the radar guns back then weren’t as evolved as “modern” radar guns, so I guess those things don’t count.

You never answered my point that why with all this great trianing that pitchers don't have the endurance that they did years ago?

No one ever seems to be able to answer that one. The usual excuse is that the teams are limiting the innings to protect their investments, and there may be some truth to that. But just thinking about all of the 300+ inning years of hard throwers like Lolich, Seaver, Ryan and Carlton not to mention the pioneers of the sport like Mathewson, Young, Johnson, and Vance, makes you wonder if maybe there’s something that we’ve forgotten. There are quite a few BB historians who think that Vance may have been the hardest thrower in BB history.

[perrycarter]

Chuvalo was 100 times better than Austin is.

Chuvalo had wins over Yvon Durrelle, Mike DeJohn, Cleveland Williams, Doug Jones, Jerry Quarry.

It is a no contest. Not even close.

Austin has never beaten anyone good. The highlights of his record are draws against fringe contenders like Ibragimov, Whitaker, and Donald. Those fights are not impressive. Austin would have been a whipping boy for any of the top 70's contenders, including Chuvalo.

[DaveV17]

asdf

[Ambling Alp]

No not every fighter from the 1970's (or the 1960's when Chuvalo was in his prime) was good. However, Chuvalo himself was pretty good. He was a good pressure fighter and had one of the best chins in the history of boxing.

He wasn't just a fringe contender. He was in the top 10 6 different years in his career, in an era that had a lot of depth. 3 times he was in the top 5. Has Ray Austin done this?

Sure, you can spin it and make Chuvalo not look that good .You can knock the 5 wins that were mentioned. (DeJohn,Durelle,Jones,Williams,Quarry) I agree that a win over Durelle and Williams at that stage in Williams career isn't that big of a deal. I don't see how you can say that Jones was sliding. He won his next 5 fights and loss a close fight to Terrell.
Chuvalo's wins are far superior than anyone Ray Austin ever beat. Who is the best fighter he ever beat, the legendary Owen Beck?

You keep bringing up his loss to Corletti and and that he had 11 losses before he fought Ali. Take a hard look at each of those losses. Almost all of them were either early in his career and/or against top contenders. Some were close decisons.
He gave Patterson a great fight in the Fight of the Year. How close has Ray Austin ever came to being in a fight that was the Fight of the Year?

Yes Chuvalo did lose to Corletti and that should be held against him when rating him. However, that should be factored in the context of a guy had over 90 fights in his career. No way that Chuvalo would have been kncoked by Attila Levin like Austin was. No way that Chuvalo would have been knocked out by the punches that Klitschko knocked Austin out with.

[dempseyfire]

No not every fighter from the 1970's (or the 1960's when Chuvalo was in his prime) was good. However, Chuvalo himself was pretty good. He was a good pressure fighter and had one of the best chins in the history of boxing.

He wasn't just a fringe contender. He was in the top 10 6 different years in his career, in an era that had a lot of depth. 3 times he was in the top 5. Has Ray Austin done this?

Sure, you can spin it and make Chuvalo not look that good .You can knock the 5 wins that were mentioned. (DeJohn,Durelle,Jones,Williams,Quarry) I agree that a win over Durelle and Williams at that stage in Williams career isn't that big of a deal. I don't see how you can say that Jones was sliding. He won his next 5 fights and loss a close fight to Terrell.
Chuvalo's wins are far superior than anyone Ray Austin ever beat. Who is the best fighter he ever beat, the legendary Owen Beck?

You keep bringing up his loss to Corletti and and that he had 11 losses before he fought Ali. Take a hard look at each of those losses. Almost all of them were either early in his career and/or against top contenders. Some were close decisons.
He gave Patterson a great fight in the Fight of the Year. How close has Ray Austin ever came to being in a fight that was the Fight of the Year?

Yes Chuvalo did lose to Corletti and that should be held against him when rating him. However, that should be factored in the context of a guy had over 90 fights in his career. No way that Chuvalo would have been kncoked by Attila Levin like Austin was. No way that Chuvalo would have been knocked out by the punches that Klitschko knocked Austin out with.

You can't just look at his wins and losses. The guy was in a very deep era, and he gave some great fighters very tough fights. Watch Patterson-Chuvalo, then any fight by Ray Austin and tell me Austin is in his class . . .it's not my lying eyes trust me.

No-one is saying he was a great boxer (although he wasn't the clumsy oaf some make him out to be) He had a stiff jab, outstanding chin, good punching power, extremely strong, amazing stamina-he never stopped coming forward and banging the body. Facing Chuvalo, you knew you had to be at the top of your game, in-shape, and be willing to endure a lot of pain. I'm not saying this b/c I love 70s fighters (you won't see me championing the merits of Chuck Wepner or Jean Pierre Coopman anytime soon) I'm saying this b/c I saw the shots Ali, Patterson, Folley etc. took in their victories over Chuvalo and they were punishing)

Do opponents have this feeling facing flabby Ray Austin? I don't think so.

[DaveV17]

asdf

[dempseyfire]

Ambling Alp,
Jones was going downhill when Chuvalo beat him. I know Jones won 5 in a row afterward, but he didn't exactly beat world class competition. Then he stepped it up and started to lose regularly.

By the way, I love to watch Doug Jones fight, one of the best technical fighters I have seen. His defence and punching techniques are text book from what I have seen. I have to chalk up his loss to Chuvalo as due to size and strength. Doug weighed 184, George was at 215. I don't think anyone would argue that Chuvalo had more skill than Jones so maybe this fight demonstrates that size and strength are hard to overcome.

dempseyfire,
I thought Chuvalo gave Ali a tough fight in the first one. I haven't seen the second one recently so I won't comment on that one. Chuyalo was the kind of guy who would always give Ali problems. He was aggressive and Ali had nothing to keep him away. Ali ran into the same thing with Norton and Spinks. I think Chuvalo was a good fighter, I don't think he was clumsy. He was much smoother than a Bonavena type.

But Ray Austin is still 6-6, 245, and he has shown that he can fight for 10-12 rounds. Austin is not an easy fight for most boxers in history. Unless the boxer can punch like WK, Austin through size, aggressiveness and awkwardness could give anyone a tough time.

You are way too hung up on his size. There have been tons of HW fighters his size who were a helluva lot more athletic than Austin, and they were mere journeyman . . . just as Austin is in this very weak era.

And you cited his aggressiveness . . . Austin has never been known for being aggressive. He's often fought in a 'sparring partner' type mentality . . fighting enough to frustrate the other guy but not really pushing to distinguish himself . . .that's why he has so many draws.

[Ambling Alp]

Ray Austin is big and that is about it. He isn't that athletic, and has very little punching power. Saprring partner is a good way to describe him.

Chuvalo was much, much better.
He gave a great effort against Ali, but was totally out classed in their first fight. I have no idea what Dave17 is talking about when he says "Ali had nothing to keep him away." Ali hit him with jabs and combinations throughout the fight. Because Chuvalo was so aggressive, he was occasionally able to get to Ali. However, this certainly wasn't a close fight. Chuvalo won at most 3 of the 15 rounds. This certainly wasn't an embarrassment against a prime Ali.

He goes on to say that Ali had the same trouble with Norton and Spinks. Well hello, Ali was 36 when he fought Spinks. He wasn't remotely the fighter that he had once been.
Norton didn't give Ali problems becasue of agression; Ali had less trouble with more aggressive fighters than Norton. He had more trouble with Norton than Norton because of Norton's unique multidimensional style. He boxed a little, occasionally tried to be aggressive and pressure, and occasionally tried to go for the big knockout punch.

As for Jones being past it when he lost to Chuvalo, I just don't see it. True he lost a close fight to Billy Daniels before the Chuvalo fight, but only did he win the 5 fights right after he lost to Chuvalo, he gave Terrell a tough fight. Terrell may have been the 2nd best heavyweight in the world at the time. It was a decent win for Chuvalo, certainly more impressive than anything Ray Austin ever did.

The bottom line is that Bonavena and Chuvalo were top 10 fighters for several years at a time when the heavyweight division was especially tough. Austin isn't even a top 10 heavyweight in a weak era.

[DaveV17]

asdf

[DaveV17]

asdf

[The Great John L]

Not sure why I’m even commenting on this topic again, but here goes.

Chuvalo lost 13 times in his first 50 fights, which to novice or younger boxing fans might mean that he really wasn’t very good. Along the way he also beat some pretty good fighters, as mentioned by a few earlier posters. But just for laughs, let’s look at who he lost to.

King
Baker
McMurtry
Cleroux
Erskine
Foley
Patterson
Terrell
Corletti
Ali
Bonavena

If I have to explain who any of these guys are, then you shouldn’t be posting in this thread. The weakest of the bunch was probably King, who was 31-10 when George fought him in his 7th(!!!) pro fight. A few were not at their best, and Corletti wasn’t anything to write home about. Now take a minute to go look at Austin’s resume.

Of course detractors will only point to the losses, ignoring the wins, and completely missing the point of how fighters improve by fighting quality opponents. I guess that’s understandable since there are so few HWs who make any effort to fight quality opponents more than a few times in their entire careers.

I mean no disrespect for Austin, who is from my neck of the woods, and who really is a pretty good HW, but he’s just not comparable to Chuvalo. If he fights 10-15 more fights against world class HWs and wins 5 or 6 of those fights, then we can start to compare them. But until then, I think even Austin would agree that this is a silly topic.

[DaveV17]

asdf

[The Great John L]

Maybe some of you should brush up on your history? Chuvalo's ability as a fighter has been pumped up recently. Like an Austin, he was not regarded as much in his day. Chuvalo is respected now, Austin probably wil be too in 25-30 years.

Did you read my post? Compare the names in the resume, and if you don’t recognize the names in Chuvalo’s resume, do a little research.

Congratulations on finding some disparaging media reports on Chuvalo. So what? Look hard enough you’ll find them on every fighter. We’re talking about his entire career. No one is saying Chuvalo was one of the best fighters ever, but Austin needs a few more accomplishments before he’s in the Chuvalo category.

Aren’t you the one who was critical of Chuvalo losing to Corletti? You might want to check the guys who have beaten Austin before you’re too critical of Corletti.

[dempseyfire]

Did you read this?

This is from the November, 1961 issue of Boxing Illustrated Wrestling News (page 11) coverage of the George Chuvalo - Robert Cleroux fight.

"Just as it takes two to Tango, so it takes two to make a fight. And Chuvalo wouldn't fight! Instead of waging his usual slam-bang, aggressive battle, the Toronto fighter tried to set a new speed record - going backward. So when Cleroux got tired of chasing him, the bout turned into a bore. The only "highlight" of the tug-o-war came when frustrated winner Cleroux twice grabbed Chuavalo and hurled him bodily to the canvas. But even that didn't get George angry enough to open up."

This is from the September, 1966 issue, page 28 after the Chuvalo - Bonavena fight.

"What lies ahead for Chuvalo? He has failed in virtually every enterprise in the ring. Ungerman (manager) has said that if George proves unequal to achievement of high goals he would give him a job in his poultry business in Toronto.

From The Ring, November, 1970, Page 53:

"His (Cooper's) chief rival has always been Canadian George Chuvalo, but never has a promoter been able to induce these two fighters into the same ring. Now it is too late, Chuvalo's defeat by George Foreman in New York has show George the gate. He (Chuvalo) is through."

Maybe some of you should brush up on your history? Chuvalo's ability as a fighter has been pumped up recently. Like an Austin, he was not regarded as much in his day. Chuvalo is respected now, Austin probably wil be too in 25-30 years.

Dave, those qoutes mean nothing. As for the Cleroux write-up, they even say "instead of his usual slam-bang style" . . .when a fighter fought as often as Chuvalo did, you are going to have some off-nights

The post-Bonavena comment just points to the fact that Chuvalo had lost every big fight he'd been in up to that point, which is true and no-one disputes that (although this was written before the Quarry bout). In any case, fight writers will often be a little too doomish after fighter's losses . . .just look at what was written about Wladimir Klitschko post-Brewster (MUCH worse than what you're finding about George), and now he's the number 1 HW!!!

The Foreman comment just states that Chuvalo was over the hill by the early 70s, which is also true.

You can find just as many articles citing Chuvalo's exciting style, toughness, and tenacity in the ring.

[DaveV17]

asdf

[Ambling Alp]

You might not consider the 1960's and 1970's a "magical" time in the heavyweight divison. How anyone can not think that it wasn't a great era in the heavyweight divison is simply mind boggling. How can you watch the fights we now have in the heavyweight divison and possibly be impressed? How many great or even really good heavyweight fights have their been since Holyfield-Tyson? Please name them.

Yes, you can pick a few of Chuvalo's fights early in his career and make a case that he wasn't that good. However, if you do a thorough job of evaluating you will look at the entire career. The guy had over 90 fights. You shouldn't just cherrypick a few of his 90 plus fights and come to the conclusion he wasn't very good. You add up the plusses and the minuses of his career.

I like how you now spin Chuvalo's win over Jones in a way that somehow makes the size of todays heavyweights seem so important. You yourself haven't even seen the Chuvalo-Jones fight. How can you say that chuvalo only won because he used his size?

It's good that you are so knowledgeable about Ali. Please tell me, how many rounds you think Ali lost against Chuvalo? And no Ali didn't knock him down or stop him, but no one claims that Ali was as hard of a puncher as Frazier or Foreman.
Now Ali didn't even win the 2nd fight against Norton? Norton himself has said that Ali won that one. And no Norton didn't have success against Ali simply by pressuring him. As mentioned before, Norton had a very unique style that caused Ali a lot of problems. Name any other heavyweight in history and I will name at least one opponent who gave them a lot of trouble. Norton himself has also said that he wouldn't have beaten Ali in his prime in the 1960's.

So Austin was the same age that Ali was when he lost to Spinks. (Do you seriously think Ali would have had any trouble with Spinks when he was remotley close to his prime?)I'm sorry, I guess I never saw the "prime" Austin. Just when would that have been?

You keep saying that Chuvalo wasn't highly regarded when he was active. Not true at all.

Chuvalo was ranked in the top 10 in Ring Magazine for the years 1963,1964,1965,1966,1968, and 1970. 3 times he was in the top 5.
Clearly Chuvalo was considered a pretty good fighter for several years.

Ray Austin has never been considered very good. In 10, 20, 30 years he won't be considered that good either.

[DaveV17]

asdf

[dempseyfire]

I did look at your list of Chuvalo's losses. I see names like McMurtry, Corletti, and there is another that you neglected to mention, Pete Rademacher. I have no problem recognizing any of the names, but I am not overwhelmed by the names either. I don't consider the 60s or 70s as some magical era in heavyweight boxing. There were good and bad just like at any other time. I am not trying to put Chuvalo down, I am just trying to make some of you aware that when fighters retire and are gone for awhile they get respect that they often did not get while they were active. Austin will get his respect too.

I can assure you no-one is ever going to remember or eulogise Ray Austin . . .

[Ambling Alp]

Alp,
Please show me proof that Norton said Ali won the second fight. I have read a few interviews in which Norton said that Ali never beat him. Norton has also said that Ali knows he never beat him. I never saw Ali beat Norton and I saw all 3 fights. The second one was the closest, Norton won the first one big, the third was one of the worst robberies in history. Norton won at least 10 rounds.

That's your only response?
Well, I have heard Norton say that he didn't win the 2nd fight in interviews. Not sure where exactly, may be been in the They were Kings Video. Almost everyone thinks Ali won the 2nd fight. However, it doesn't surprise me that someone who apparently thinks Chuvalo gave Ali a lot of trouble doesn't think Ali won the 2nd fight and thinks the 3rd was a robbery.
And no, the 3rd fight wasn't a robbery. It was close fight, with many close rounds, could have gone either way. Norton said right after the fight that he thought he won 9 or 10 rounds in the 3rd fight. You give him "at least 10". How surprising.
Ali was past it, Norton fought ok but not great. It wasn't that great of a fight, although by today's standards it would be considered thrilling.

Nice that you ducked everything else.

[dempseyfire]

Alp,
Please show me proof that Norton said Ali won the second fight. I have read a few interviews in which Norton said that Ali never beat him. Norton has also said that Ali knows he never beat him. I never saw Ali beat Norton and I saw all 3 fights. The second one was the closest, Norton won the first one big, the third was one of the worst robberies in history. Norton won at least 10 rounds.

That's your only response?
Well, I have heard Norton say that he didn't win the 2nd fight in interviews. Not sure where exactly, may be been in the They were Kings Video. Almost everyone thinks Ali won the 2nd fight. However, it doesn't surprise me that someone who apparently thinks Chuvalo gave Ali a lot of trouble doesn't think Ali won the 2nd fight and thinks the 3rd was a robbery.
And no, the 3rd fight wasn't a robbery. It was close fight, with many close rounds, could have gone either way. Norton said right after the fight that he thought he won 9 or 10 rounds in the 3rd fight. You give him "at least 10". How surprising.
Ali was past it, Norton fought ok but not great. It wasn't that great of a fight, although by today's standards it would be considered thrilling.

Nice that you ducked everything else.

We have to disagree there Alp. Their 3rd fight was a very bad decision.

The 2nd fight was very close. You could score it a point for either man.

[Ambling Alp]

This thread started out about Chuvalo and Austin. Now we are talking about Ali-Norton. I guess we have beaten it to death.

[DaveV17]

awer