Could Jimmy Young have beaten Muhammad Ali in a rematch?

100% agree...and have been saying that for years.

 

I'm guessing Jimmy Young fans would love this tactic then ..........

This content is protected

 

Truth is, a lot of us are very critical of Muhammad Ali and some of his tactics: excessive clinching, pushing the opponents' heads down, laying on the ropes and trying to nick rounds with showboating. He stunk the place out at times.

If he'd stuck his upper body or head out of the ring we'd call him out on that too.

But he didn't.

 

Absolute nonsense, though. Ali is roundly critisised for his holding, even though that must be said to be a more accepted spoiling tactic than sticking your head through the ropes.

 

Hence why the 70s era is grossly overrated

 

Two from this "grossly overrated" era would go on to become champion and top contender respectively in their 40's twenty years later. So either it wasn't all that bad or the 90's were absolute shite.

 

The decision in favor of Muhammad Ali in his bout with Jimmy Young wasn't that bad. The bout was reasonably close and could have gone either way. But the lopsided scores in favor of Ali in the bout were absolutely terrible.

- Chuck Johnston

 

Maybe grossly was an overstatement.

 

The downside of the 70's was the closing stages 77-79 where a seriously declined champion wanted to hold on to the crown without taking on the best challengers and the title then splitting up.

But the plus side was that everybody faced just about everybody else and fans got to see some of the most classic battles of boxing history stuffed into one decade and one division. Not only FOTC, Zaire and Manilla, but also Ali-Norton II, Holmes-Norton, Foreman-Lyle and Lyle-Shavers.

And one can only speculate how the top 70's guys would do against the best of other eras (well, not only perhaps since we do know that old versions of Foreman and Holmes did well in the 90's), but it's quite indisputable that it was a good mix of styles. Boxers like Ali and Holmes, pressure fighters like Frazier and Norton (in his way) and punchers like Foreman and Shavers (not that much in terms of overall ability, but god could the man punch).

 

To me the only really important fighters of 77-79 were Holmes, Norton, Young, Shavers, Weaver (Weaver of course became important only at the tail end of that time frame), Tate. Ali was too far past it and Spinks' victories didn't really mean much considering how fast he faded afterward.

 

Jimmy would have adjusted in the rematch. Instead of ducking his head through the ropes, he would have fought from the ring apron and gradually extended the distance so he was hiding behind a chair in the fourth row.

 

Don't agree with you take on Donald Curry. Absolutely agree with your take on an Ali v Young rematch. Nicely articulated.

 

Ali was already beaten the first time. It is true that Ali always performed much better in rematches, but not here would it happen. Young was in his prime, too athletic, and too slippery. Ali wouldn't be able to nail him. I do agree that Ali would have taken a rematch much more seriously and would lose in a respectable fashion. But Ali by this point was getting worse, not better. Great fight in my opinion.

 

I don' t think so ,Young had it on a plate but declined to put forth a championship effort. There is a reason he was always a," nearly man".

 

He did not have a champions mentality imo.