I always thought it was the short coupled taildraggers that were 'a bit stroppy' - because the rudder didn't have the 'arm' to give leverage
I think you will find Maules, Pitts etc have a worse reputation for being longitudinally 'hard work' than the Cessnas - what makes the Cessna bum draggers 'challenging' is the sprung steel undercarriage.
I think you are confusing aft CofG with length of fuselage...its just an empty metal tube unless you shove too much stuff in it. A C185 with a CofG on the aft limit is a different beast to one flown empty. Things get REAL interesting when you select flaps 30 or 40 and the control column hits the fwd stop, and stays there until you select less flap
The 195 is a delightful aircraft - easier to fly in many respects than the 185 - the view fwd and right on the ground is near non existent and the flaps delightfully useless in that they produce no extra lift and just barely enough drag to warrant their inclusion - but a fun aeroplane that simply oozes class.
If I wanted a classic tailwheel aircraft purely as a personal get about between reasonable (length) runways I would chose the 195 - if I wanted to haul stuff and/or operate into short/rough strips it would be the 185.