So much misinformation! You need to have lived through that time to understand. After being koed by Ali as he was it made perfect sense to try to fix what was broken. In comes Gil Clancy. What was the issue? Foreman not pacing himself, fighting in a frenzy, and petering out after 5-7 rounds. In order to beat Ali, who was the champion, George had to change since his normal style did not come close to beating Ali. So it made PERFECT sense. Something had to change or he would never be able to beat Ali. Regarding the bout with Young the bout was one sided. Only round seven where George hurt Young terribly with a wild left hook did it look like the tide had turned. It hadn't and Young coasted to a win. George like many huge punchers all through boxing history could be outboxed by tricky boxers. They don't come trickier than Jimmy Young. Young was not a great fighter but at his best he made opponents look like fools.
Perry, we are all fully aware that you lived through those times. I lived through those times as i am sure many on here did but i don't declare it in every post as though it makes my opinion more valid. Tbh, it is a shame you are living through these times.
As someone alluded to earlier, Foreman was only helped as much as he allowed himself to be helped. My memory's sketchy on the specifics here, but I recall watching an interview with Foreman where he talked about the change in training under Clancy - Gil wanted him to focus more on speed and agility (speed bag, double-end bag, skipping rope, etc) and take a break from the heavy resistance work; but Foreman said he liked the feeling of his arms getting pumped up from heavy work, so he went back to chopping trees and beating on the heavy bag and wound up gassing. Bottom line - he wasn't blaming Clancy for his performances, but knew he fell victim to his own stubbornness.
