Jimmy Young Waz no Moar then 1 single contender

i was talking about something more like the Hoya fight, t.

 

It was razor close though and Whitaker was getting in good shots after clinches. Both guys showed solid defense and Hoya wasn't that much effective than Whitaker was either. Inactivity during rounds didn't plague his career like it did Young though.

 

well of course. Whitaker is to Jimmy Young as gold is to cheap brass

 

Yes, I guess you could say that.

 

I tried to reply this yesterday but failed to do it due to unexplained slowness on ESB .
Having watched both of the Ramirez fights Whitaker , being the disgusting spoiler that he was deserved to lose both of their fights especially the first in which he lacked even the 2 3 seconds spurts he had in the 2nd.
Watching these 2 fights just reassured to me what I already thought , that someone who can't stop his opponents is worthless of watching unless severely undersized like Byrd , Griffin and Norris.

 

A couple of weeks ago,I remarked on a thread that Jimmy Young would have had more widespread appreciation if he'd been a fighter of a lighter weight. Some don't like their heavies to be defensive stylists. They consider explosive ko power mandatory. Even the great Cassius Clay's (His name at the time) style was derided by the more conservative purists until he became established.

 

I can't believe this thread was even started? Nothing but trash. Jimmy's no all time great, no one would say he is but his two year period showed a unique skill level that can't be questioned.
Pitter-patter puncher? The only reason he was able to have his Lyle/Lyle/Ali/Foreman/Norton success, given his style, was to, at least, hit hard enough to keep the big boys off of him and he did!
The Jimmy that fought in that 75-77 period would give a great account of himself in any era and, IMO, pull off an upset or three...
To whoever started this lame thread...take a troll hike and get lost!

 

keep on truckin frank. you are endlessly entertaining in a way that anglosaxon never was

 

Jimmy Young VS late 80s alphabet soup chumps!!


Young VS WBC Berbick - Young wide decision!

Young VS WBA Bonescrusher - Young wide decision!

Young VS IBF Tucker - Young close decision!

Young VS Ring Mag Spinks - Young close decision!

 

Not really fair Swarmer..there have been many uniquely different defensive specialists in the history of the sport. You hold it against Young because he was a heavyweight...and heavyweights to some fans are all supposed to be slugger/swarmer/bangers...except Ali, who's given that one in a million pass. It's like hating Pernell Whitaker because he wasn't Roberto Duran...or hating Locche because he wasn't Julio Cesar Chavez.

 

:good I didn't want to respond to his post because of the nonsense, I hope he wasn't serious lol.

 

False, I love defensively adept heavies. Walcott, Tunney, Corbett, Charles, Schmeling, Johnson, are all fighters that I have watched and enjoyed. I don't even mind a guy like Chris Byrd.

I just dislike Jimmy's style, that's all. Or overestimation of his ability.

 

A purely aesthetic consideration then? Just as a matter of curiousity however, how many of these names you've listed do you think would have beaten or merely survived against the George Foreman that Young beat? I'll leave you the champions mentioned for my question..and I'll opine that George Foreman would have caught and destroyed Chris Byrd..and that Ibeabuchi would have been soundly outboxed by Young...and though Wlad klitschko may have possibly decisioned Young, he wouldn't have looked very good at all in doing so and definitely wouldn't have decked or stopped Young...all in my opinion, of course.

 

I quite dislike the underestimation of young's abilities by those who simply don't like his style.

 

That version? I reckon nigh all of them would have turned the trick. Byrd perhaps not, but i'd say he has an outside chance, say 33% to do the job.

And yes, it is aesthetic.