Who deserves to be rated higher,Ken Norton or Jimmy Young ?

This content is protected

 

I think Young has a strong case here, he possibly deserved an Ali win, has a Foreman win that Norton could never replicate, has the Shavers win that Norton probably couldn't replicate, has the 2 Lyle wins, and head to head many thought he beat Norton. If the stars had aligned themselves he'd have Ali, Foreman, Norton, Shavers and Lylex2 on his wins sheet, who has a better 6wins than that? (not many)

 

Young's performance against a fat untrained Ali in his only world championship fight in 1976 was awful.
Norton did miles better against Ali.

But Young did beat Foreman, who crushed Norton.

I prefer Norton because he at least came to fight.

 

I think Norton just sneaks it with the Ali win, the close fights with Ali and the close fight with Holmes.

Young has the Foreman and Lyle wins.

Norton beat Young.

34(11) 19(2) 2

Does not stack up to

42(33) 7(4) 1

In my opinion.

 

I think Norton just sneaks it with the Ali win, the close fights with Ali and the close fight with Holmes.

Young has the Foreman and Lyle wins.

Norton beat Young.

34(11) 19(2) 2

Does not stack up to

42(33) 7(4) 1

In my opinion.

 

:desk No. He doesn't. If you want to count the Jimmy Young specialized loss-victory, than who has a better FOUR wins than Ali, Ali, Ali and prime Holmes? But, alas, that's not an actual case. This is insanity. Jimmy Young was not a great fighter and he was not close. He is to be ranked absolutely nowhere on a greatest heavyweights list because he wasn't a great heavyweight. You have to go way, way down a list of the best heavyweights before you hit Jimmy "Don't hit me and I won't hit you" Young.

 

Seriously, when is this going to end? When? Where does the myth of Jimmy Young as a fighter come from? Why are we mentioning him with elite fighters? His career is built off of losses to the best save one win over a man who nearly died after the fight because he was so dehydrated. Like RIGHT AFTER THE FIGHT. It's not like he was healthy during the course of the whole fight then many hours later got some diarrhea. HE WAS HALLUCINATING IN THE DRESSING ROOM. That's what Jimmy Young's "legacy" is. One "great" win over a sick legend and a bunch of losses because he didn't try hard enough. Please stop this.

 

Thisa is a no=brainer really...Jimmy Young, of course. First of all, he was ROBBED vs Norton, as well as Ali...and he beat handily Norton's conquerer George Foreman. One can only speculate how well Norton would have done vs Ron Lyle...but chances are more than likely that Ken wouldn't have made it to the 3rd round, as Lyle qualified as the type of fighter that was sheer poison to Ken...a puncher. If Lyle was able to deck Foreman twice and destroy Earnie Shavers...after being decked..it stands to reason that he would have dismantles Norton in brutal fashion within 3 rounds at least. Aside from Ali, how many quality wins did Norton have? Sure, he deserves credit for being an especially effective and worthy adversery vs Ali, but then again, so was Young. Young also redeemed himself fine against Shavers and in a third bout, during Young's heyday of '75 thru '77 would have more than likely have shut out Shavers..and would there be any other likely outcome at any stage between Shavers and Norton? I don't think so. Again, it's a no-brainer...Young should be rated higher than Norton.

 

:good

 

Jimmy Young sucked against the worst version of Ali (outside of the Holmes fight and perhaps Berbick).

I mean, witness the greatness for yourselves :yep :

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sq0fX08k3oM&feature=related[/ame]


Young is awful.

 

Well not as many rational people thought Norton beat Holmes but many thought Young beat Ali and Norton (it could be a majority in both cases) and the Shavers draw is considered a robbery

You have a pet peave with Young BE, I think I prefer Norton but Young had a legit great run despite it not being too easy on the eye

 

I have zero problem with Young himself. It's this bat**** asskissing of someone whose completely telling losses and obvious negatives (no pun intended) are ignored when far more accomplished and consistent boxers and also much better "fighters" (if ya know what I mean, wink, wink, nudge, nudge) get their worst elements blown up to kingdom come like Norton and Patterson's chin and their wins and losses put under a microscope down to the finest detail to the detriment of their legacies and h2h ability. Christ almighty, Frazier gets so little benefit of the doubt, h2h for a loss to Foreman it's like he was a hapless midget and Young, who loses consistently throughout his whole goddamn career to people few even know, hell, he gets "Well, maybe he could beat a prime Holmes." And I'm the one who has an axe to grind because I find this irrational ****tardery? Nope. No axe needed for this argument.