George Foreman vs Jimmy Young

[HE Grant]

What exactly did the Ali fight prove for Young? That he could run, hide and pitter-pat his way to a maybe decision over a grossly fat, highly unmotivated and under trained, old Ali? The Young supporters are making this seem as if that borefest was some crowning achievement. In his second reign Ali looked terrible on several occasions , coming in fat and out of shape. He may have lost to Young. He was thrashed by Norton who deserved a decision over a much better conditioned and slighter younger Ali than Jimmy fought. He did absolutely nothing against Ron Lyle for ten rounds until he woke up ... Jimmy deserves credit for catching Foreman on the right night and squeeking out a decision, beating the slow footed Lyle twice and giving Norton a challanging battle when Norton was the best heavyweight in the world... again, I see him as a less consistant, less conditioned Chris Byrd at best ...

[KOJOE90]

Jimmy deserves credit for catching Foreman on the right night and squeeking out a decision, beating the slow footed Lyle twice and giving Norton a challanging battle when Norton was the best heavyweight in the world... again, I see him as a less consistant, less conditioned Chris Byrd at best ...

What would you say was the greater achievment Jimmy getting the nod over Foreman or Byrd beating Vitali Klitschko?

Jimmy twice outsmarting Ron Lyle or Byrd outsmarting David Tua?

Not trying to start an arguement here I just think you are making some very valid point but..... I feel your last sentance above is a little hard on Jimmy Young.

[HE Grant]

Jimmy beating Foreman was bigger since Vitali basically retired due to injury ..

Byrd beating Tua was much bigger than Young over Lyle since Tua was a more dangerous opponent ...

[rocky111]

I appreciate what others scored at, but I had it for Young. Yes in rounds where Ali did little and Young scored the occasional counter punch it was boring. But it was boxing as Young did it. It was a plan. Braddock was no ball of flame against Baer nor Sharkey against Maxie Schmeling. But YOung finished the better fighter and maybe should have gotton a break. He did beat Ron Lyle and George Foreman also and with the break might have stayed off of drugs and such and been a fine champion. The poor guy got no break. He was a victim of the Ali trance on the judges. I of course admit that Ali was through and in no shape (I mean he lost to a Leon Spinks of about 7 or eight fights experience), but Young had no luck from the judges.
I also have no problems with taking a point from Jimmy for his foul as Ronnie says. But to be honest I gave Ali few rounds. Jimmy didnt win big rounds, but he was boxing and waiting and countering and proved himself.

[Michael Frank]

What exactly did the Ali fight prove for Young? That he could run, hide and pitter-pat his way to a maybe decision over a grossly fat, highly unmotivated and under trained, old Ali? The Young supporters are making this seem as if that borefest was some crowning achievement. In his second reign Ali looked terrible on several occasions , coming in fat and out of shape. He may have lost to Young. He was thrashed by Norton who deserved a decision over a much better conditioned and slighter younger Ali than Jimmy fought. He did absolutely nothing against Ron Lyle for ten rounds until he woke up ... Jimmy deserves credit for catching Foreman on the right night and squeeking out a decision, beating the slow footed Lyle twice and giving Norton a challanging battle when Norton was the best heavyweight in the world... again, I see him as a less consistant, less conditioned Chris Byrd at best ...

I'm completely with He Grant here. I rooted big time for Young against Ali, thought he got jobbed on the decision . . . and then found that this was generally the way he fought everyone. Lazy, very defensive, and pity-pats. A later review made me give it to Ali, as I have to punish, in scoring, ducking out of the ring and the rest.

I like Jimmy Young very much, but for that style to take down an all-timer like Ali on a razor-thin decision would have been detrimental to boxing. And had his first defense been against Ali, Holmes, Norton, or Leon Spinks, I feel certain he would have lost. Throw Shavers and Foreman in there, too. He was a good guy but an example of a fighter who didn't even seem to want to be in the ring. Contrast that with a Hearns or a Holyfield or a Holmes, all of whom came with a desire to throw leather. Much less a Gatti or a Tyson.

Really, as Mr. Grant alludes to, if Jimmy ever had a great opportunity, he had it that night against Ali--the champ was fat and uninspired, but unfortunately, Young wasn't terribly inspired himself.

While I scored the Foreman fight for Young, it was probably based on the underdog instinct. To me, frankly, Foreman made the fight, and Young's simply surviving got him the win maybe unjustly, IMO.

[hagler04]

Jimmy beating Foreman was bigger since Vitali basically retired due to injury ..

Byrd beating Tua was much bigger than Young over Lyle since Tua was a more dangerous opponent ...

Tua more dangerous than Lyle? In what fashion?

Perhaps Tua had a better chin but since Young couldn't punch that's a non-issue. Lyle was far more skilled than the (vastly overrated) Samoan.

[HE Grant]

Tua was a two handed slugger, much faster with a much better chin ... other than that, nothing ...

[hawk5ins]

for purposes of me being lazy in trying to search for this info as it pertains to the Jimmy Young discussion in the Randy Gordon thread!

Hawk

[bodyblow]

Tua a two handed slugger? PLEASE! He had a hell of a left hook but that is all he threw with conviction. If you took his hook away he had nothing left. Period. Hes probably the most one dimensional fighter Ive ever seen in that regard. When you can shut a guy down completely by taking away one punch from his arsenal thats pretty limited.

[tedsares]

Tua a two handed slugger? PLEASE! He had a hell of a left hook but that is all he threw with conviction. If you took his hook away he had nothing left. Period. Hes probably the most one dimensional fighter Ive ever seen in that regard. When you can shut a guy down completely by taking away one punch from his arsenal thats pretty limited.

Agreed. Without his hook, he is nothing except a guy with avery solid chin.

[Michael Frank]

Jimmy deserves credit for catching Foreman on the right night and squeeking out a decision, beating the slow footed Lyle twice and giving Norton a challanging battle when Norton was the best heavyweight in the world... again, I see him as a less consistant, less conditioned Chris Byrd at best ...

Not trying to disagree with KOJOE90 for any particular reason, but as I re-read HE Grant's last sentence above, I think it perfectly describes Jimmy Young. For the nth time, he was I guy I liked, but this is accurate.

[Phillyfan]

the well conditioned byrd was stopped 4 times, the "unconditioned" Jimmy young only failed to go the distance twice and one of those was a cut against cooney. not bad when going up against foreman, lyle, norton, ali, shavers, page, dokes......
Byrd was an excellent boxer, but you also have to look at his competition, golata, mccline, oquendo, tua, klitschko.
Jimmy fought, beat, or held his own against hall of fame heavyweights.

[Phillyfan]

This is one of those "yeahbutt" threads.
jimmy beat foreman
yeah but this was a damaged foreman
jimmy went the distance with Ali
yeah but Ali was out of shape and took him lightly
jimmy beat ron lyle twice
yeah but lyle was never champion
jimmy went the distance with shavers and some thought won
yeah but shavers isn't any good past 5 rounds
jimmy went the distance with norton and some thought won
yeah but..........and so on and so on.
I'm not saying jimmy was the best, not by a long shot. But he was a master of his craft and deserves more credit for his accomplishments I think more than criticism for his shortcommings. Just my opinion...

[hawk5ins]

Boxing guys talk about how great and deep the 70's heavyweights were, is Young's name not always included?

Ali
Foreman
Frazier
Norton
Quarry
Young
Shavers
Lyle
and at the tail end
Holmes

I think being part of that group and routinely being mentioned in that listing, is indeed giving Young Credit. Being a part of arguably the greatest Heavyweight Era ever? Sounds pretty impressive from where I stand.

Apparently, it's simpy not enough for some.

Hawk

[Phillyfan]

Its enough for me. But I don't see youngs name routinely mentioned. Its funny though, usually when people mention the heavies you named, I throw Jimmys name in and they almost always agree.

[hawk5ins]

name is NOT routinely mentioned when the depth of the 70's Heavies is discussed.

Heck when making the case for how strong and deep that era was, I've seen it get stretched to include Bonavena and Bugner.

Young is Always included.

Hawk

[Michael Frank]

Young's place in the 1970s at his best was "one of the top contenders." And, he is ALWAYS mentioned in the flock of top 70s heavies.

Calling him a "great" or assigning him any place in the alltime list better than about #40 would be going too far.

[Michael Frank]

the well conditioned byrd was stopped 4 times, the "unconditioned" Jimmy young only failed to go the distance twice and one of those was a cut against cooney. not bad when going up against foreman, lyle, norton, ali, shavers, page, dokes......
Byrd was an excellent boxer, but you also have to look at his competition, golata, mccline, oquendo, tua, klitschko.
Jimmy fought, beat, or held his own against hall of fame heavyweights.

This stating that Young was stopped only X times is being very selective as to what criteria we should evaluate on. Heck, Young lost 19 times, including 10 times through 1980.

Byrd, whom I cannot stand watching, has only 5 losses, 3 of which were in the last 2 years. Meaning he lost twice in his prime.

His record, anyway, is far better than Young's.

[hawk5ins]

And I'm not saying I agree or disagree with anything, until I understand what it is supposed to mean:

"His (Chris Byrd's) record, anyway, is far better than Young's."

What is this based on? Who had more wins and losses?

Young had many more losses than Byrd. That is obvious.

But are we comparing quality of opp here? Whether the fighters each guy faced, were in THeir primes? The Record of Young and Byrd DURING thier primes?

What is the basis for Byrd's record being FAR BETTER than Youngs?

In Looking at WHO each faced and WHO each Beat and WHEN they each fought them, It seems to me that the scale is tipped in favor of Young. A Draw with Shavers, 2 wins over a prime Lyle, a close loss to a past his prime Ali, a win over Foreman and a c-hair loss to Norton, would seem to outweigh the wins on Byrd's resume.

But again, i need clarification on what criteria being used.

Hawk

[bodyblow]

I would also argue that at least 2 or three of the names on Byrds record should have been losses for Byrd. Golota being the most glaring.

[Phillyfan]

This stating that Young was stopped only X times is being very selective as to what criteria we should evaluate on. Heck, Young lost 19 times, including 10 times through 1980.

Byrd, whom I cannot stand watching, has only 5 losses, 3 of which were in the last 2 years. Meaning he lost twice in his prime.

His record, anyway, is far better than Young's.

Heck michael, if you're going by records well then vinny maddalone is also better than young. What criteria are you baseing your byrd vs young comparison?

[Phillyfan]

Young's place in the 1970s at his best was "one of the top contenders." And, he is ALWAYS mentioned in the flock of top 70s heavies.

Calling him a "great" or assigning him any place in the alltime list better than about #40 would be going too far.

I was blasted earlier for exaggerating, don't you think "ALWAYS" is a bit of an exaggration. I don't "ALWAYS" see jimmys name mentioned. And why the quotes around "great". who are you quoteing?

[Michael Frank]

And I'm not saying I agree or disagree with anything, until I understand what it is supposed to mean:

"His (Chris Byrd's) record, anyway, is far better than Young's."

What is this based on? Who had more wins and losses?

Young had many more losses than Byrd. That is obvious.

But are we comparing quality of opp here? Whether the fighters each guy faced, were in THeir primes? The Record of Young and Byrd DURING thier primes?

What is the basis for Byrd's record being FAR BETTER than Youngs?

In Looking at WHO each faced and WHO each Beat and WHEN they each fought them, It seems to me that the scale is tipped in favor of Young. A Draw with Shavers, 2 wins over a prime Lyle, a close loss to a past his prime Ali, a win over Foreman and a c-hair loss to Norton, would seem to outweigh the wins on Byrd's resume.

But again, i need clarification on what criteria being used.

Hawk

My response was in regard to a post that Young was better than Byrd on the matter of KO defeats. To me, if you're going to cite strictly numbers, that was selective; and on W-L, which is more correct, Byrd looks far better. That was it, nothing about quality of competition there.

[Michael Frank]

I was blasted earlier for exaggerating, don't you think "ALWAYS" is a bit of an exaggration. I don't "ALWAYS" see jimmys name mentioned. And why the quotes around "great". who are you quoteing?

I always see Young's name in any list of the top 70s heavies. What lists is he NOT on for the 1970s??

[Phillyfan]

[QUOTE=Michael Frank]

Much as I hate to say it, Lyle and Shavers were both inconsistent fighters whom Quarry beat, and Young's style could be effective against such types. Foreman, Ali, Holmes, Holy, and this ilk were quite a bit better, and more versatile, than Lyle and Shavers. I see all of them beating a prime Young.

QUOTE]


I guess add byrd to the list too. I disagree with your opinion but we'll never know. You say foreman and Ali beat a prime young. Well, they fought. And jimmy more than held his own. Thats history. You can't change it. You can't rewrite history and say it wasn't a prime foreman. That was the foreman that showed up, that was the foreman jimmy faced.

[Phillyfan]

My response was in regard to a post that Young was better than Byrd on the matter of KO defeats. To me, if you're going to cite strictly numbers, that was selective; and on W-L, which is more correct, Byrd looks far better. That was it, nothing about quality of competition there.

where did i say young was better than byrd on the matter of KO defeats? I was pointing out the "unconditioned" jimmy young was rarely stopped so I didn't understand the uncondition chris byrd comparison.

[Phillyfan]

.

World shaker? No. Cagey dangerous, crafty vet worthy of respect, absolutely.

best,
Ron

This I can live with. to say jimmy would have lost to leon spinks, byrd, or holyfield, that i take exception to. to say a prime foreman or ali would have wiped the floor with him, I also take exception to. I think foreman was in his prime and there's just no evidence to prove he wasn't when he fought jimmy. Ali in his prime easily wins a decision, he was too quick. But if you study youngs record and see he was rarely stopped, even by the best of the 70's fighters, you could conclude its not an easy night for Ali either.
As for todays fighters, all i can say is when I took jimmy to the grant/golata fight, he was laughing at them.
was jimmy "great"? At times yes, other times he stunk up the joint. Was Jimmy a top 40 all time? Maybe, maybe not, but in his prime, jimmy young could give any heavyweight fits.

[hawk5ins]

"to say jimmy would have lost to leon spinks, byrd, or holyfield, that i take exception to."

Does this mean that Leon Spinks and Evander Holyfield are on the same level as a fighter somehow?

Wow.

And as far as Re-writing history, to say that Young "more than held his own with Ali" and NOT clarify that Ali was NOT in HIS prime, is this not a BIT misleading?

Heck, I have already read in THIS thread, comments such as:

"He easily outpointed Ali every round."

"Young handled norton, who handled a prime Ali."

I've read Holyfield being compared to Leon Spinksand the Holyfield who lost to Chris Byrd being not that much different than I GUESS the Norton who lost beat Young, (although to be honest, that one simply confused me.)

Apparently Foreman HAD to be as good when he faced Young, as he was prior to losing to Ali, becuase of the results and performances agianst Joe Frazier in the second fight and the wildly entertaining but almost comically sloppy, bout with Ron Lyle.

Oy.

Too much.

My head hurts.

Let's instead talk abou the Eagles finally making it to the Superbowl BECUASE of Garcia and Terrell Owens and NOT Donovan McNabb.

I really want to finish that conversation some day.

Hawk

[Chuck1052]

I didn't have any objection to giving Muhammad Ali or Jimmy Young the decision in their bout, but the lopsided scoring in favor of Ali was an outrage. Ali has getting the benefit of the scoring even in a round in which he covered up and threw very few punches while Young was fairly active and the aggressor.

- Chuck Johnston

[hagler04]

Young was not a great fighter to watch but he could handle big, hard hitting fast Heavyweights. Byrd could handle the slow plodders (Tua, Golota (who I think Byrd clearly beat actually), McCline, old Holyfield) but he showed throughout his career his rope-a-dope was ineffective vs C grade guys with a semblance of handspeed (Oquendo, Williams, his 175 debut)

I don't see the puffed-up Byrd ever hanging 15 with Ken Norton or 12 with Foreman. Maybe he survives Shavers but I can see the Ibeabuchi scenario happening all over again there. But I see Young easily beating everyone Byrd beat, and not needing razor thin decisions over the likes of McCline and Oquendo. Both would lose to Klitshko b/c the Scared One eats up light-hitting defensive boxers with his own cautionary power hitting.