Jimmy Young: W 34 (11 ko's) | L 19 | D 2 | Total 56RazorKO wrote: Well it was a choice between Schemling and Young for 19th, but I went for Young as in my view he beat Ali on a decision as well as having wins over Lyle and Foreman. He also should of got the decision over Shavers and maybe Norton as well.
Most of Youngs losses came when he was past it and hooked on drugs, and even then he went the distance with furture champs Tubbs, Tucker and Dokes. He beat Foreman when Foreman was thought as invincible since Ali when Foreman smashed Frazier into semi-retirement, he gave Shavers a very good fight, only to be robbed with a draw and has wins over Lyle twice.Friedie wrote:Jimmy Young: W 34 (11 ko's) | L 19 | D 2 | Total 56RazorKO wrote: Well it was a choice between Schemling and Young for 19th, but I went for Young as in my view he beat Ali on a decision as well as having wins over Lyle and Foreman. He also should of got the decision over Shavers and maybe Norton as well.
M. Schmeling: W 56 (40 ko's) | L 10 | D 4 | Total 70
sorry...couldn't resist. ;)
Seems you know rather little about Max Schmeling if you reduce him to the 1936 Louis fight, when a past-prime Schmeling pulled a huge upset.RazorKO wrote:Most of Youngs losses came when he was past it and hooked on drugs, and even then he went the distance with furture champs Tubbs, Tucker and Dokes. He beat Foreman when Foreman was thought as invincible since Ali when Foreman smashed Frazier into semi-retirement, he gave Shavers a very good fight, only to be robbed with a draw and has wins over Lyle twice.Friedie wrote:Jimmy Young: W 34 (11 ko's) | L 19 | D 2 | Total 56RazorKO wrote: Well it was a choice between Schemling and Young for 19th, but I went for Young as in my view he beat Ali on a decision as well as having wins over Lyle and Foreman. He also should of got the decision over Shavers and maybe Norton as well.
M. Schmeling: W 56 (40 ko's) | L 10 | D 4 | Total 70
sorry...couldn't resist. ;)
The Ali and Norton fight were also close fights and the only thing that may of cost Young the Ali fight was when he stuck his head under the ropes. Schemling however has one great win over Louis, and only to be brutalised in the rematch, Max also won the title on a low blow which to me isnt impressive when compared to Young's achievements.
RazorKO wrote:Most of Youngs losses came when he was past it and hooked on drugs, and even then he went the distance with furture champs Tubbs, Tucker and Dokes. He beat Foreman when Foreman was thought as invincible since Ali when Foreman smashed Frazier into semi-retirement, he gave Shavers a very good fight, only to be robbed with a draw and has wins over Lyle twice.Friedie wrote:Jimmy Young: W 34 (11 ko's) | L 19 | D 2 | Total 56RazorKO wrote: Well it was a choice between Schemling and Young for 19th, but I went for Young as in my view he beat Ali on a decision as well as having wins over Lyle and Foreman. He also should of got the decision over Shavers and maybe Norton as well.
M. Schmeling: W 56 (40 ko's) | L 10 | D 4 | Total 70
sorry...couldn't resist. ;)
The Ali and Norton fight were also close fights and the only thing that may of cost Young the Ali fight was when he stuck his head under the ropes. Schemling however has one great win over Louis, and only to be brutalised in the rematch, Max also won the title on a low blow which to me isnt impressive when compared to Young's achievements.
Young beat Foreman and Lyle, fought pretty much even with Ali and Norton, and most think he was jobbed against Shavers in their rematch. Not exactly the SAME as winning an undisputed HW championship and beating Joe Louis, but Young’s accomplishments certainly could be compared to Schmelings.pundit wrote:Of course not.Friedie wrote: Max was undisputed Champion when there was only one title at hand. I don't think Youngs achievements can be compared with that.
Schmeling was widely recognized as the world's best heavyweight from 1931-33, a strong period of heavyweight boxing.Ambling Alp wrote:If you give Young a break and only count his best years (1974-1977) then he would probably belong in the top 20 and would deserve to be ahead of Schmeling. At his best, he was one of the best pure boxers in the histroy of the heavyweight division.
On the other hand, Schmeling was good for a much longer period of time. For his total career, Young doesn't deserve to be in the top 20.
I guess that depends on the specific years. There was that guy named Louis during the 30’s. Of course, I think Young at his best would have been a VERY difficult fight for Louis. Or just about any other HW in history.Ambling Alp wrote:If Young was fighting in the 1930's, Young would have been the top heavyweight.
Gotta agree with that!Ambling Alp wrote: If Schmeling was fighting in the mid-1970's, Schmeling wouldn't be.
I don't think at all Young could have been the top heayvweight in the 1930s. In the early 1930s Schmeling and Sharkey would have been ahead of him, in the late 1930s Louis.Ambling Alp wrote:Pundit,
That's not really a fair comparison.
The early 1930's certainly wasn't as good as the period that Young was fighting in.
If Young was fighting in the 1930's, Young would have been the top heavyweight. If Schmeling was fighting in the mid-1970's, Schmeling wouldn't be.
.... and he would still have been behind Schmeling and Sharkey. Plus Young struggled badly with Earnie Shavers, so by no means am I certain that I would put Young ahead of Max Baer.Ambling Alp wrote:First of all, I want to calrify something I wrote earlier. I think Young would have been the best heavyweight in the early 1930's not the entire decade of the 1930's.
Strongly disagree. In the 1910s a bum called Jess Willard was heavyweight champion for several years. In the 1960s there was too little competition -- first Liston, then Ali dominating the plot. 1990s can be argued, as can 1950s, but I still rank the 1930s substantially higher. Louis, Sharkey, Schmeling, Baer, Braddock, Schaaf, Carnera, Stribling, Levinsky, Gains, Uzcudun, Risko, Loughran --in terms of depth this is surpassed only by the 1970s.I don't think the 1930's was the second best decade in heavyweight history. Not only is it far behind the 1970's, it is behind the 1990's, the 1960's, and the 1910-1919 decade. It's not far ahead of the 1950's, the 1920's or the 1980's.
Neither nor in my book.As for Young being the #7 fighter in the 1970's I don't quite agree with that. At his best he was better than Quarry and was about even with Norton.
NOT behind Norton.Schmeling would also rank behind Ali,Foreman,Frazier,Norton, and Holmes had he fought in their era.
Prime Schmeling was at least as hard to hit as Young (unless you went below the belt as Sharkey). He had no obvious flaw -- good foot- and handspeed, great jab, superb defense, excellent timing, perfect stamina --and his counter-punching skills are top 5 ATG. So I don't know how you come to assess better boxing skills with Young. Plus Schmeling was a smart, thinking fighter who figured his opponents out and could change track in the middle of a bout if he needed.Except for punching power, Young (at his best) was better than Schmeling in most areas. He was faster, much harder to hit, had at least as good of a chin, and had better all around boxing skills.
Hmmm, let’s see the 60’s had Liston, Ali, Patterson, Johannsen, Machen, Foley, Williams, Chuvalo, Cooper, Bonavena, Frazier, Ellis, Terrell, Quarry, etc. I could go on, but I won’t. I think this sounds better than the 30’s, but of course that just an opnion…pundit wrote:Strongly disagree. In the 1910s a bum called Jess Willard was heavyweight champion for several years. In the 1960s there was too little competition -- first Liston, then Ali dominating the plot. 1990s can be argued, as can 1950s, but I still rank the 1930s substantially higher. Louis, Sharkey, Schmeling, Baer, Braddock, Schaaf, Carnera, Stribling, Levinsky, Gains, Uzcudun, Risko, Loughran --in terms of depth this is surpassed only by the 1970s.
Jess Willard may have been the champion during the 1910-1919 period but he wasn't anywhere near the best heavyweight. This decade had Johnson, Langford,Jeanette, McVey ,Wills, as well as Dempsey at the end of it. There was also some good fighters such as Frank Fulton,Billy Miske and Gunboat Smith. This decade was loaded. If it wasn't for boxing politics regarding who got title shots this would be remembered as a great era.pundit wrote:.... and he would still have been behind Schmeling and Sharkey. Plus Young struggled badly with Earnie Shavers, so by no means am I certain that I would put Young ahead of Max Baer.Ambling Alp wrote:First of all, I want to calrify something I wrote earlier. I think Young would have been the best heavyweight in the early 1930's not the entire decade of the 1930's.
Strongly disagree. In the 1910s a bum called Jess Willard was heavyweight champion for several years. In the 1960s there was too little competition -- first Liston, then Ali dominating the plot. 1990s can be argued, as can 1950s, but I still rank the 1930s substantially higher. Louis, Sharkey, Schmeling, Baer, Braddock, Schaaf, Carnera, Stribling, Levinsky, Gains, Uzcudun, Risko, Loughran --in terms of depth this is surpassed only by the 1970s.I don't think the 1930's was the second best decade in heavyweight history. Not only is it far behind the 1970's, it is behind the 1990's, the 1960's, and the 1910-1919 decade. It's not far ahead of the 1950's, the 1920's or the 1980's.
Neither nor in my book.As for Young being the #7 fighter in the 1970's I don't quite agree with that. At his best he was better than Quarry and was about even with Norton.
NOT behind Norton.Schmeling would also rank behind Ali,Foreman,Frazier,Norton, and Holmes had he fought in their era.
Prime Schmeling was at least as hard to hit as Young (unless you went below the belt as Sharkey). He had no obvious flaw -- good foot- and handspeed, great jab, superb defense, excellent timing, perfect stamina --and his counter-punching skills are top 5 ATG. So I don't know how you come to assess better boxing skills with Young. Plus Schmeling was a smart, thinking fighter who figured his opponents out and could change track in the middle of a bout if he needed.Except for punching power, Young (at his best) was better than Schmeling in most areas. He was faster, much harder to hit, had at least as good of a chin, and had better all around boxing skills.
I consider this comparison simply inadequate. Schmeling is a clear-cut ATG who wrote heavyweight history more than once, Young is not.
Now you compare Schmelings "worst" (Baer, Louis II) with Youngs "best"; that's not very fair.Ambling Alp wrote: However, if you are just talking about Young at his best, then it's a different story.
Schmeling was as good defensively as Young? Are you kidding? Schmeling couldn't even avoid the punches from Max Baer that you could see a mile away.
Schmeling had no obvious flaw? Well for starters, he was clueless when he got hurt. In both the Baer and 2nd Louis fights, he had absolutely no idea what to do when he was hurt. Instead of trying to clinch, dance away, or catch them coming in, he walked right into Baer and Louis and practically invited them to hit him. He couldn't have made it any easier for Baer and Louis to finish him off.
Johnson and Langford are the one that realy count, but Langford was frozen out. Doesn't compare with the 30s.Ambling Alp wrote: Jess Willard may have been the champion during the 1910-1919 period but he wasn't anywhere near the best heavyweight. This decade had Johnson, Langford,Jeanette, McVey ,Wills, as well as Dempsey at the end of it. There was also some good fighters such as Frank Fulton,Billy Miske and Gunboat Smith. This decade was loaded. If it wasn't for boxing politics regarding who got title shots this would be remembered as a great era.
Of course I can compare the 1930s with the 90sThe 1990's had Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe, and good fighters such as Moorer, Mercer, and Ruddock. I can't believe you think the 1930's even compares to this.
