George Chuvalo: Where did he stand

[Zodiak_Killer]

I just hate that you can't have any discussion about Tyson without someone saying, "No hed lose because Buster Douglas beat him."

Sugar Ray Robinson lost to Jake LaMotta. Does that mean Miguel Cotto would beat him?

haha, yeah, thats fair.
Fighters can lose sometimes, shit happens. I love Tyson.

Styles make fights tho. And I think Chuvalo has the stuff to make this one a good one. Regardless of Doug.

 

[Tam-Tam]

I just hate that you can't have any discussion about Tyson without someone saying, "No hed lose because Buster Douglas beat him."

Sugar Ray Robinson lost to Jake LaMotta. Does that mean Miguel Cotto would beat him?

Jake LaMotta is a HOF fighter and one of the greatest middleweights who ever lived. I know where you're coming from here, but you're guilty of ignorance as well, if you're assuming LaMotta to be some kind of inferior fighter to Miguel Cotto.

 

[bradlee180]

I just hate that you can't have any discussion about Tyson without someone saying, "No hed lose because Buster Douglas beat him."

Sugar Ray Robinson lost to Jake LaMotta. Does that mean Miguel Cotto would beat him?

Well, the most significant difference between Tyson/Douglas and Sugar Ray Robinson/LaMotta is that only 3 weeks after Lamotta's big win over a prime Sugar Ray Robinson, Sugar Ray beat Lamotta in a rematch. 6 fights total, Ray took 5 of them.

If the ref hadn't stopped that last fight in the 13th rd, Lamotta would have been off his feet too as Lamotta stood there helpless against the ring-ropes getting the living hell beaten out of him. It was a good stoppage.

Tyson doesn't have that redemption regarding Douglas, and neither Jake nor Ray blasted each other out of there nor had 1-sided dominations over 1 another unlike the Tyson/Douglas classic.

What the heck?: Let's throw in that in that fight, Tyson DID knock out Buster BEFORE Buster knocked out Tyson!

 

[Seano]

Jake LaMotta is a HOF fighter and one of the greatest middleweights who ever lived. I know where you're coming from here, but you're guilty of ignorance as well, if you're assuming LaMotta to be some kind of inferior fighter to Miguel Cotto.

Lamotta wasn't one of the best MWs who ever lived.

But, your last sentence is what I'm talking about. You misunderstood a bit. I was saying that its stupid to assume that because a certain style worked versus this guy, the same thing will happen when every fghter uses the same style.

See how programmed you are to take offense at someone suggesting a modern fighter is comparable to a fighter of the past?

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

I think that's going off on a tangent. The guy's point is that there's no sense in judging fighters on their worst performances, or making exceptions out to be as rules. And frankly, I agree 100%. Greatness is more about the high of the highs than the low of the lows.

 

[Tam-Tam]

It's got absolutely nothing to do with a boxer of the past, but it does have everything to do with a boxer of quality and thats what Jake LaMotta was. Douglas and LaMotta are comparable in that they both were world champion boxers. Thats about it.

Getting beat by LaMotta means a whole lot less about your quality as a fighter, as it does getting beaten by James Douglas, IMO.

You accuse me of mindlessly defending boxers of the past, yet in another thread I've got some mook saying the basically the opposite. Kinda shits on both your theories, I believe.

 

[Zodiak_Killer]

I think that's going off on a tangent. The guy's point is that there's no sense in judging fighters on their worst performances, or making exceptions out to be as rules. And frankly, I agree 100%. Greatness is more about the high of the highs than the low of the lows.

Man, the people in this forum are so level headed.
Its kind of freaky, like the twilight zone.

 

[Tam-Tam]

I think that's going off on a tangent. The guy's point is that there's no sense in judging fighters on their worst performances, or making exceptions out to be as rules. And frankly, I agree 100%. Greatness is more about the high of the highs than the low of the lows.

Who misunderstood his point?

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Who misunderstood his point?

My post was directed towards Bradley but some other posts snuck in. Not saying anyone misunderstood, but the whole thing about Tyson not having redemption like Robinson did is a bit off topic in terms or irrelevant of this Tyson/Chuvalo discussion.

 

[Seano]

Who misunderstood his point?

You did. 100%.

 

[Seano]

It's got absolutely nothing to do with a boxer of the past, but it does have everything to do with a boxer of quality and thats what Jake LaMotta was. Douglas and LaMotta are comparable in that they both were world champion boxers. Thats about it.

Getting beat by LaMotta means a whole lot less about your quality as a fighter, as it does getting beaten by James Douglas, IMO.

You accuse me of mindlessly defending boxers of the past, yet in another thread I've got some mook saying the basically the opposite. Kinda shits on both your theories, I believe.

Youre doing it in this very post. Look how pissy you get about Lamotta and Douglas.

I didn't compare douglas and lamotta. I compared a situation. A fighter losing to a lesser opponent.

Unless you think Robinson = Tyson.

 

[Kid McCoy]

Actually, every mythical matchup is about probabilities, not absolutes.

Aint it the truth.

 

[Sinister]

I don't see it. I believe sometimes people think that the older fighters would have faired better against fighters of younger generations. If you're dropping decisions to Pat McMurtry, Pete Rademacher and Bob Cleroux you aren't going to be a world beater in any era.

It has nothing to do with George being an "older Fighter", but rather the kind of guy who would test Mike's constitution and not be backed up. Young Goerge Foreman had size on an aged version of Chuvalo, and we all know Joe Frazier's constitution.

We're talking these two guys at their peak, and I'm talking about their specific characteristics. Not getting into the "who beat who and why and how". In fact, I'm saying Chuvalo's loss to Foreman is less applicable, to Frazier is debatable, but nowhere do I use Mike's losses to discredit him either as some are suggesting is going on here.

A lot of great Fighters, great Boxers even, say their scariest opponent is the guy who takes everything they have and still comes after them. Some guys like this get out-boxed, but hardly ever out-toughed or out-manned. I agree with Tam this fight would be a monumentally hard night at the office for George, but it's absurd to think this is an easy night at the office for Mike IMO as well.

 

[prontostar]

Every generation has that guy that is known for his chin.

IMO, beng known for your chin means you get hit alot.

Chuvalo would never have been a top guy in any era. Even today.

what about when they used to fight more than 15 rounds...?