Jimmy Young Replaces Ali In Zaire...

While it's not esssential more space is always preferrable when you're backpedalling. The same goes for a fast canvas. There's just no getting away from this.

For me, this coupled with Foreman's greater confidence and killer instinct in Zaire probably would have made the difference. Can never say for sure, though.

And that's just about what I have to say about this.

 

Oh so Young's fat and disinterested when he lost, I see? When the heck did someone like him have the time or money to be 'fat and disinterested' anyway? It's not as if he was raking in millions and his motivation was at an all-time low. But Foreman, denied a title shot throughout 1976, promised one in 77, taking one or two warm up fights beforehand, and probably more past his best weight than Young was vs Ocasio, was in his absolute mental and physical prime was he? :huh

 

Yes. He was more so than Frasier I'd agree and on par with Liston in that respect. However, Joe was very much regarded as a man who loved the heat of combat, who actually welcomed being 'hit'. All-of-a-sudden, he thinks "**** I don't think I want to be hit like that again" perhaps.


Right, I'm off to feed the Larry Holmes's in the park with the kids. :hi:

 

Careful he don't bite ya!

Joe loved being hit vs Foster and co, but being hit vs Foreman and say a Liston is another matter altogether. Surely NOBODY would wecome that, well excepting Ali maybe

 

I feel the same way...Young would win minus the rope-a-dope..less dramatic but the wrong style for George and his wide swings

 

Isn't it interesting though, that Foreman used his jab a lot in his post-comeback career, but not against Young? I think that had to do with the fact that, when he did jab, it was ineffective and opened him up to counter shots. Prime or not prime, Foreman was not good at being in a good position after punching, which is why Ali was able to land at such ludicriously high percentage rates in the Rumble even when Ali was himself stationary and thus unable to work the angles.

It's also interesting to compare Foreman-Young with Foreman's other comeback fights. Against Frazier, Foreman was able to put up a VERY high workrate and land a lot of punches even though Frazier was doing a relatively good job of being evasive. Foreman also was able to throw a very long series of power shots at the end of the LeDoux and Denis fights. Against Young, though, he couldn't even get into a position to do that for most of the fight.

The claim that Foreman was not the same boxer after the Rumble is based on three things, which are in ascending order of the emphasis people tend to put on them: 1) his terrible performance in "Foreman Versus Five" where he looked mentally unstable; 2) his loss to Jimmy Young where he lost almost every round and 3) his general unstable mental condition in his personal life.

Now, 1) can hardly apply to the Young fight. It was still very close to the Rumble, but Foreman wouldn't fight Young for another two years, during which he had some of his best wins and a long series of knockouts against very tough boxers. Foreman looked much better in all of his legitimate comeback fights than in Foreman Versus Five.

3) cannot be said to apply by default. Sugar Ray Robinson was a wife-beating ***** during much of his career. Carlos Monzon was a fully fledged sociopath. Ali, while scoring some of his career defining wins, had a sexual and marital life the likes of which usually are only found in cheesy American elite soaps-operas: just look at the background to the Thrilla In Manilla, for instance. Just because Foreman was sleeping with four or five women a day in early 1977 and was filled with a burning desire to kill Muhammad Ali, does not mean he wasn't mentally still a destroyer. If nothing else, one has to explain why he looked no worse in his other comeback fights; if Young set him off mentally in an unusual way in 1977, then why not in 1974?

So 2) seems to be the only real reason to say that Foreman was a greatly diminished boxer, but in the absence of any other evidence, doesn't it just suggest that Young's style was perfect to beat Foreman? Especially considering, in general, boxers like Young tend to beat sluggers like Foreman. The glove matches the hand, so to speak, so without any other good reason it's fair to say that Young just happened to carry Foreman's details around in his address book.

Was Foreman's standing in the boxing world seriously reduced after the Rumble? Sure. Was his talent and mentality reduced? I don't think so. Foreman learnt a lot of new skills from Gil Clancy, one of boxing's most learned scholars and most adept trainers. Foreman showed a fighting heart against Lyle that he wouldn't show again until the Holyfield match. Foreman dealt handily with a Frazier who fought the best strategy he possibly could, while Foreman used a high-workrate approach that it would be impossible for any boxer to pull off unless he was hungry. His performances against LeDoux and Denis were at least no worse than his wins against similar awkward determined boxers before his three title wins, all of which were against boxers incomparable with LeDoux or Denis.

The claim "Foreman was never the same again" might be a true description of his personal life after Zaire, although I expect he wasn't exactly a happy clean-living sort before then either. Foreman was an intensely gloomy depressed self-destructive mentally-unstable man BEFORE the Ali fight. Losing to Ali just gave him one more reason to be the man he'd always been before then. And while Foreman talks about not being able to sleep at night after the Ali fight, he also talks about being extremely paranoid BEFORE the Ali fight.

He landed a few punches, but they were arm punches. As I said, he didn't land any big clean punches. As in his prime, Foreman needed a stationary target in order to finish his man off, since it was only then that his (amazing) ability to position his feet in order to translate his pure physical strength into awesome power came into play.

When was the other time he staggered Young?

Again, this is an axiom that people chuck around with no basis. It's like the "Ali never got hit in the 1960s" cheshnut. At the very least, we can say that Foreman was a slightly lesser boxer in the ring in 1977, in which case we can reasonably say that Young's dominant performance in 1977 would probably be downgraded to a closer decision in 1974. So Young might not win nearly every round, but he would win a clear-cut decision.

I tend to think, however, that the extreme height in Africa combined with Foreman being more aggressive would mean that Foreman would tire around the 11th to 13th round, leading to the possibility of him either quitting or getting knocked down and being unable to get up in the championship rounds. Those 3 extra championship rounds benefit Young, not Foreman.

 

Yep. He lost because he was fat and disinterested. Or against Ali, where he totally bottled it and didn't know what to do. Young's appaling performance against Ali has no relevance to Young-Foreman, though.

Young was never a real fan of fighting. That's why he adopted his cautious style, which was both a blessing and a curse. His motivation was always very patchy.

Would you agree that, in general, counter-punching boxers were tougher for Foreman that swarmers like Frazier and Norton? And punchers, when they were difficult (like Lyle) were difficult because they were good at landing counter-punches?

If so, why the hell would Foreman be any less than anxious when dealing with Young (the counter-punching boxer to end all counter-punching boxers) in a hot country with a title fight on the horizon?

 

Fair enough. I think, however, that Foreman trying to be a killer against someone like Young is just going to get him into trouble. The best way to beat someone like Young, if you're a big puncher with an 82" reach and a height advantage, is to patiently press forward behind a constant but snappy (in terms of bringing the left hand back quickly) jab, then throwing BIG body punches whenever the opportunity was there. Then chances to stop Young, as Foreman found in the 7th, would present themselves far more often, since a tired boxer is always easier to find than a non-tired one.

The problem is, while there is certainly a strategy for Foreman to win this, I suspect a 1974 Foreman had neither the mindset nor the willingness to constantly fight in a technically sound way that would be required to pull such a strategy off. You don't KO an "on" Young by waiting to land one big combination, but by working constantly to make such an opportunity happen.

 

Why he would lose interest in a fight where he was promised a shot at Holmes were he to win? It's not as if he'd been champ before either and had silk sheets to fart in if he lost anyway.

This sounds like the kind of spiel that usually belongs to Roberto Duran fans. So, when he was sparked by Shavers for example- was he not motivated? And if not, how do you know this?

Yes, definitely. I said earlier I give Young a good chance of beating any Foreman, but the version in 77 wasn't as good or as busy as the 1973 model, especially in the first half of a fight. And I think if the earlier model had him in trouble like in San Juan, he'd stop him.

It's the same as Holmes nearly getting stopped, by a generally regarded non-puncher, like Snipes. He had one eye on the Cooney millions. Or, if you like, the same as Young vs Ocasio when he had one eye on Holmes. Either way, Young and Foreman weren't at their best.

 

"I was asking God to help my soul,all he had to do was push me with his little finger " Jimmy Young, in a Sports Illustrated interview,discussing the seventh round against Foreman.

 

The outcome would have been the same in my view. Young embarrassed Foreman.

 

Well, it's hardly great preparation for fighting any top contender is it? George had signed a four-fight contract with one of the big US telly networks and fought less than two months after his last contest.

What did Foreman learn from Clancy exactly? Showing heart against Lyle is hardly a good example. He suggested using the jab more, but George only did that sparingly, and that was because of the fact that Foreman showed great promise with it in his younger days. But Foreman seemed to oft-ignore him anyway. It was Charlie Shipes that shaped Foreman's comeback and strategy (if we dare call it such) not Clancy, who was around for fight time and a few days before but that's about it.

I agree with this, but this was 'Ali' we're talking here. And it was 'Ali' the personality, the bloke who virtually the world wanted to win in the other corner, not someone that had the style to diminish the popularity of heavyweight boxing. The magnitude of the event got to him- and well as Ali's blows of course.

In the same round. Young nearly goes down in the centre of the ring. Young himself said he was in big trouble and thought he would be stopped.

 

I'm not sure Young was EVER properly motivated. It's not that he was entirely unprofessional: he would work hard if he had to, but he never had the aggression of a warrior.

Of course, you can say that Ossie Ocasio was better than a 1977 George Foreman, but that's an unusual conclusion.

How often do you think Foreman would be able to get Young in trouble? It is notable that he only caught Young with a big enough shot once in 12 rounds and even that wasn't the result of a stylistic weakness in Young: there's nothing about Young and Foreman that necessitates that Foreman is going to find plenty of left hooks to the temple.

Oddly enough, one factor I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned by the pro-Foreman crowd is the ref. The ref in the 1977 fight (Waldemar Schmitt I think) took a very tough line on rough-house tactics, while the ref in the Rumble gave Ali an open checkbook when it came to manhandling Foreman. It's impossible to know how that ref would react to Young, but most disliked him because of how cautiously he fought.

Foreman was a much more consistent fighter than Young though, surely? Also, between 1974 and 1977, Foreman learnt and improved upon a lot of skills that would be vital to defeating Young, eg. feinting, head-movement and parrying the jab.

 

Re: Round 7:

He caught him a few times that round, twice with big shots and Young wobbles at first, after an exchange on the ropes and some holding Foreman lands again and Young nearly touches down, ring centre.



I agree with the point about referee Schmidtt. He did penalise George a lot, I think he deducted a point too. But he probably preferred a clean fight, which is fair enough I suppose.



I think Foreman starts the fight in San Juan a lot slower than he would in 73/74. Ok maybe he'd be even more open to Jimmy's counters but he'd be more willing to jab and work his win in in the first four or five stanzas.

 

More of the Sports Illustrated interview with Young. "When he caught me with that punch,I asked God to help my soul,George did not know it ,but while I was standing,I was out cold.He could have pushed me over with his little finger,how I survived the round I will never know".Young did NOT hit the floor as I said ,my memory was playing tricks ,but he was out of it, as he states.