Jimmy Young was an excellent fighter

NoYoung didn't blow it, the judges did!

 

There was no clear robbery here. It is the classic close fight that could of gone either way. Thankfully that meant in the more sane 70s, any benefit of the doubt went to the marketable figure.

Boxing could not do anything with Jimmy Young as World Champ, but even then, an ancient Ali had an aura that helped keep the Heavyweights in the mainstream.

 

I had Young winning pretty cleanly, the fight was ugly but anyone watching it without being biased had Young the winner. Giving it to Ali anyway because he's more popular is BS and not choking on Young's behalf.

 

And boxing also means fighting, facing your opponent, and not running all over the place.....

 

Young literally and figuratively did not have Walcott's hunger. Which is ironic in that Young, in my opinion was more talented, but lacked the dedication of a Walcott.

 

The last time you checked on anything ,will be the first.:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

Close the show means winning without doubt, not koing your opponent.

Young was NOT prepared to go that extra mile ,even against men illtrained and palpably past their best.
Stop reaching? Im not reaching, none of you Young boosters have shown me a thing that gives me pause to change my opinion of him.

Posters say if he had gotten the decision against Ali and Norton?

Well he didnt and 3 judges thought he lost against Ali.

If Hagler had shown more urgency against Leonard?

If his corner hadnt been so laid back and had lit a fire under his arse?

If ODH hadnt turned runner against Tito?

Ditto Walcott in the first Louis fight.

If Conn hadnt let his heart rule his head against Louis?

If Dempsey had imediately gone to a neutral corner against Tunney?

If,If ,If ,If, If.Ad nauseum

"Of all the words of tongue and pen ,the saddest are these ,it might have been".

John Greenleaf Whittier.

 

Comparing Young to Walcott? Oh boy.

Walcott's record is an indication of the tough times and little opportunity he had. Not eating and having a big family while being a boxer of the great depression era wasn't easy, especially when adding how mis-managed he was. His blossom of the late 40's is no illusion or mystery. It's quite clear. Walcott was a superb boxer. And realistically the second man to beat Joe Louis.

 

Walcott won the title at 38 with one of the most perfectly executed left hooks ever filmed,and against a man who had beaten him twice allready.
A man who , at 30 ,was 8 years his junior , a man who had floored him for a count of 9 in their last fight.Walcott had the self belief and balls to
acheive his goal.
Young at 28 had the chance to put the decision against a fat , 35 year old Ali beyond doubt by upping his work rate and keeping his body inside the ropes,he did not do it.
He was the architect of his own downfall.

 

Go watch the Norton fight and get back to me. You're overreacting as if he's Cory Spinks against Mayorga, even the Ali fight wasn't like that.

Spacebar.

Use it and get back to me.

 

You just did a Young ,put your body through the ropes to avoid punishment.

 

During the post fight press conference after Norton III Ali very literally hung his head and declared he did not win the fight.

Dropping names isn't going to help but you quote Dundee. How about we quote ol' Ferdie Pacheco while we're at it?

Jimym Young wasn't 56-5 because he was thrown to the wolves without a group of millionaires backing him from the very start.

You act as if Young's record somehow reflects his ability and best wins when he actually gave a ****, at the same time ignoring that if every close decision Ali ever had went against him he'd have another 4 or 5 losses on his record as well.

 

Boy McVey, you sure do get creative when you don't take your pills for a few days.