Would Prime Foreman Ever Beat Jimmy Young?

Falling woefully behind on thr cards against every guy you fight who is in the top ten, including Tommy Morrison, isn't usually the sign of great stamina.

 

Maybe be the fact that he was in his forties for the Holyfield,Briggs,Morrison,Moorer fights might have had something to do with it? lol

 

Falling behind in the cards is neither a sign of great stamina-but the claim was not "great" stamina, but that Foreman did not have stamina issues in his comeback, which is absolutely true...

But just falling behind in the cards itself does not indict anyone on their stamina.
This is very basic, you should know this & admit it if your hate for Foreman doe snot impede your rationality.
He obviously was outpointed by much younger, faster men.

Now someone who loses more rounds later in a fight & throws less is likely to have stamina issues.
This happened to Holmes a number of times, more so in his second career, despite his greatness.

He was also less behind on the cards than I would have assumed against Morrison: 88-83 twice, & 86-85 through 9 rounds.
Then starched Moorer in the 10th, winning that round & the fight.
He was behind by 7, 5 & 3 rounds against Holyfield.

 

lol his stamina was even worse in the 70s (PACiNG!).

 

This sounds like a classic Foremaniac case of combining the most positive attributes of his his comeback with the most positive attributes of his prime, resulting in a superhuman entity.

 

Yes, first of all the fight was very competitive, far closer than the scorecard's read .. Far closer then the Young - Lyle fights .. it was a dramatic fight because Foreman was the big bad bully and the fight was on prime time television .. if he didn't lose interest , stayed fighting and had the rematch in a non-tropical climate I can see a focused Foreman beating Young on his jab and reach .. the mistake would be to bomb away and punch himself out ..

 

I never mentioned him having great stamina ,I said he had a pacing problem not a stamina one, and his second career proves it!

 

@Dynamicpuncher

A simple @Andre2000, as I have conversely addressed you several times, shouldn't be the straw the breaks the character limit's back.

Re 115-113 vs 115-112, my bad for not quoting that scorecard exactly. It doesn't negate the obvious point that it represents a that much closer scorecard again.

One possible permutation for that card (sans point deduction) I think could be 6-5-1 = 115-113 which is possibly what I was thinking when I typed that score. With the point deduction then applied, it could than have possibly flipped over an otherwise even round over to Young, resulting in a 115-112, 7 rounds to 5 rounds scorecard.

Obviously being relevant, I did ask you how your scores on other fights ran up against the members whose scorecards you proffered for the Foreman vs Young fight.

Any rate, I won't get bogged down in that.

Sorry, but I have to say again, you continue to circle back to already addressed and answered points, including points that have already been clearly debunked, to merely repeat those same points, verbatim, over and over again.

Here are several examples of same but by no means exhaustive.

Peralta's obviously viable record going into, between and after the Foreman fights has been clearly illuminated to you but you persist on sitting on the disproven assumption that Peralta was the much less of himself for fight 1 and even more so for the rematch due to age and accrued wear/tear.

In an attempt to support your claim that post Zaire was no different to pre–Zaire Foeman, you said he would deal with the likes of Frazier and Norton exactly as he did previously. Problem there is Foreman did rematch a net lesser version of Frazier and it took him 3 rounds longer to see Joe off. That is the correct answer, sans equivocations.

I gave you Shaver's fight (Stallings) just prior (only 3 weeks a that) to his rematch vs Young. You simply replied that you that haven't seen that fight. Neither have I nor have we seen the Shavers -Young fights. Does Stalling's 21-24-0 not speak for itself? Reaching back to the Ellis fight is moving Shavers well out of the relevant time frame in question and simply stating that he got caught cold in his next fight vs Quarry is simply deflective.

No one has said, and at the least not I, that Foreman's prime was just 2 years. I've made my position very clear on that, yet you keep repeating your own pre-worded position on that, verbatim, a position that is heavily pre-disposed. Another pertinent question that I posed to you was your quantification for the duration of Young's prime and your explanation for why Young fell off a cliff following the Nortton fight.

Same thing re the Puerto Rican heat and it's possible greater effects on Foreman. You continue to inappropriately dismiss the question of same out of hand. As you would have it, extreme heat cannot and does not affect different people in different ways. You are obviously wrong there but that's your own, firmly held, blanket preclusion and excuse for not duly addressing the legitimate proposition that Foreman was affected more than Young was.

As to the obvious rationale for same, Foreman was clearly the larger and far more heavily muscled man. Now that still might count for something given more moderate temperatures but, in extreme heat, it can be reasoned that Foreman became that much more worse off again than Young. I see you didn't even address Foreman's collapse from exhaustion from dehydration immediately following the fight.

I haven't insinuated anything. Of course, I am stating that Young did exactly the same things that Foreman was deducted a point for - and, again, I've already described those obvious infractions in detail.

So, I framed you as likely being in the minority in your views that post Zaire Foreman wasn't mentally addled in some measure (have you not seen the circus that was the Toronto 5?) and somewhat less than the best version of his prime self. Also add that he was in the throes of modifying his game which wasn't always to his net advantage.

You basically acknowledged being in the minority in that regard but then you suggested that the majority are simply wrong, disportionately disposed to making excuses due to Foreman's popularity. So, it seems that you will defer to what you believe to be consensus opinion when it suits you but not so much when it doesn't.

I know you are unwaveringly pre-disposed to the proposition that post Zaire Foreman was no different to pre-Zaire Foreman but, imo, your arguments in support aren't holding up nearly as well you seem to think they are.

I might elect to bail on this discussion or at least not reply in as much detail going forward - certainly, I shouldn't have to repeat myself. Your repeated circling back to completely unchanged points/positions already well dealt with without actually taking on board any of the previous counters posited is hardly productive. The discussion, including ever increasing post size and now posts broken into two, is now very much poking its head into the realm of Chaos Theory, -

 

Ok but forgive me there's so much that's been posted in here and i have to keep deleting posts to make room for this reply i overlooked it it's not like i'm deliberately doing it on purpose.

@Andre2000

It represents what i was saying that Young won in the region of 4 points and the scorecard is also very similar to the judge who scored 116-112.

The point is that i cannot fathom how Young only won by a single point on one of the judges scorecards especially when Foreman had a point deducted and was knocked down.

The fight was competitive which i haven't denied but it was still a very clear win for Young without any debate.

Certainly not a 1 point fight in my view or i would gather in alot of peoples minds.

So overall the point i'm making is that the 116-112 scorecard would be more in line with what most people saw.

118-111 is a bit too wide and 115-114 is too close.

So meeting in the middle of those two cards seems about right.

What i can tell you is that in the scorecard thread amongst the most notable and knowledgeable posters in that thread we normally do agree most of the time.

And i would say in regards to the Foreman/Young fight that most of the opinions on that fight saw Young as a clear winner with no debate.

I never said Peralta was much less than himself for the rematch.

I said Peralta was still a very viable fighter but obviously he would have some miles on the clock being 36 years old with almost 100 fights what fighter wouldn't be logically.

But i also said Foreman was green for the 1st fight and improved in the rematch.

Everything i've said above is quite fair i think.

Frazier fought a different fight in the rematch by fighting on the backfoot in a more defensive countering punching style.

So whilst Foreman was fighting the same opponent it wasn't the same style he was fighting against. Hence the result isn't going to be exactly the same as Frazier tried to make adjustments.

Foreman did alter his style somewhat after Zaire in a attempt to pace himself better so the Foreman before and after Zaire didn't have exactly the same style no.

But that's not the argument i'm putting forth.

My argument is against the people that claim Foreman was well under par and mentally shot after losing to Ali.

And i didn't see any evidence of that apart from the Lyle fight where he looked rusty after a lay off understandably. But he couldn't of been that mentally shot if he showed that much courage and mental fortitude to win that very tough fight.

Nor was Foreman under par after that disposing of all his opponents early without ever looking troubled.

I'd say Young started to reach his prime in 1974 but i believe he actually peaked between 1975-1977.

As for why he fell of a cliff ? i have no idea.

I know he underestimated Ocasio in their 1st meeting and came in out of shape. And for whatever reason his form just dipped after that and his desire to be a top contender was no longer there.

And from that point on he got into a mentality of just being an opponent for upcoming prospects for the remainder of his career.

Well i can't judge his form on fights i haven't seen.

The loss to Stallings does look bad on paper but maybe it was one of those anomalies where a journeyman fighter has a bad style match for a notable fighter.

Kind of like Mark Wills beating Greg Page twice.

Or maybe Shavers underestimated him.

I can't answer that question without analysing the actual footage.

All i know from the reports i've seen in regards to the Young/Shavers 2 fight.

Is that Young was dropped early like he was in their 1st meeting, only this time he had more experience and savvy to weather the storm and then come on strong late on in the fight.

So it would imply that Young had started to improve as a fighter.

But you don't mention that Young also would do better in more normal conditions and you only apply to Foreman that's my issue.

I never said the heat didn't effect Foreman but it's not like Young is from a hot climate and had an advantage in the regard.

Foreman is from Texas which is one of the hottest states in America so Foreman is more used to being in very hot weather overall.

Obviously for whatever reason the heat got to him more in the Young fight. But that doesn't take away from Young's victory, as they were both neutral in regards to neither having an advantage at the location of where the fight took place.

Yes i have seen the Toronto 5 that was complete rubbish i agree.

But that wasn't Foreman's form when he went on his string of early stoppage victories prior to the Young fight.

Foreman's old style also got himself stopped in 8 rounds against a still good version of Ali but an Ali who was also past his best aswell.

So Foreman had to learn how to pace himself better against more durable opponents.

I didn't see any evidence of Foreman being mentally shot in his early stoppage victories prior to the Young fight. And i recently watched the Frazier 2, LeDoux, fights not that long ago so they are quite fresh in the memory.

I stated my opinion on Foreman's career between 1976-1977 i never once stated the vast majority of people are wrong.

It's simply my opinion i've never stated my opinion as a fact it's just the way i see it.

I feel like i have put forth solid arguments and i don't see that i've posted anything in this thread that is wrong in regards to not being reasonable.

Lastly the reason the posts were broken into two is because there's too many characters.

So maybe it's a sign for me to bail out on this conversation aswell because it's giving me a headache anyway.

 

@Andre2000

No hard feelings BTW i don't want to argue with you and i have nothing against you.

You seem like a knowledgeable poster we just see things differently on this subject.

If you want to reply to my previous post with any last points that's fine but to be honest but i'm just mentally drained with this whole subject now.

Just to come to some type of compromise so we can atleast end this on a good note.

Yes a more aggressive Foreman prior to Zaire would be more dangerous to Young in the first half of the fight and no one truly knows what would happen.

So i'm going to see myself out of this thread now good talking to you.

 

While by no means do I agree with noneck's viewpoints... where the **** are you getting 22 years from? It says he's been here since 2012. Is my math seriously off, or is it actually 14 years? I'm genuinely curious how you arrived at 22.

 

There is a very good explanation.
Amongst focusing pedantically on minutia on other posts, my braaiaiain made a very basic math error.
Why would you not be confident you could catch it?

And why the !@#$#^&* would this miniscule issue trigger a cascade of implied profanities?

I do enjoy these icons.
Tone is lost on the Internet, hopefully you were not really upset or traumatized about my basic error.

 

No, I wasn't upset or "traumatized", and I certainly wasn't suggesting you were incapable of making a basic math error. I just found it amusing that you confidently cited "22 years" when the profile right there says 2012.

As for the "cascade of implied profanities," I believe there was exactly one. Apparently even pointing out that 2012 was 14 years ago requires a trigger warning now.

 

1) I thought you would comprehend I was jokingly overstating things re: "traumatized".
2) It was one profanity, I was thinking of characters.I misspoke, my bad!
3) I wonder if you are projecting that I was remotely "triggered": of course cursing about something that is a mere factual matter seems angry & hostile.
4) I never indicated nor implied you did not think I was capable of making a basic error.
For the record, my braaiaian likely read his join date as 2002.
5) I did not say 24 years "confidently", just neutrally.
Unlike the routine & almost invariable interpretation of being upset & maybe enraged...if someone writes "where the @#%$ are you getting _____"(fill in any trivial fact that should never trigger any anger or negative emotions).

6) I am fine with & appreciate you or anyone pointing out basic errors.
I am detail oriented too, but everyone at least occasionally makes basic mistakes-which I *want* corrected.
That would never make me at all unhappy, let alone cursing.

 

No worries. I’m more than happy to rest on what I’ve already written.

We live to discuss boxing, a sport we both obviously enjoy, peacefully again on another day.

However, there is just one more significant counterpoint that I do need put out there…nah, I’m just kidding.