Explain this please, or the Jimmy Young Assault begins.

[mking55]

I will start out simple. Can anyone explain to me how Ossie Ocasio beat Jimmy Young twice in two fights in real life?

On June 9, 1978 Ocasio won a SD in 10 rounds.
On January 27, 1979 Ocasio won a UD in 10 rounds.
Why?

I have 2 guesses as to the reasons. For the 2nd fight, the fight was in Puerto Rico. Perhaps Ocasio got the hometown decision? These fights came after Young's loss to Ken Norton in a SD in a WBC Heavyweight Elimanator. Maybe Young was suffering from depression?

I bumped Ocasio from Cruiserweight to Heavyweight in the game. He was a Heavyweight when he beat Young. I fought them 100 times. The sim result was 95-3-2 for Young (90 by decision). So I did it again. This time is was 90-7-3 for Young. (83 by decision).

So my first question is if a figher won 2 fights in real life against another fighter (albeit close fights), why can he not win in the sim?

Yes, most likely Young was a better boxer than Ocasio. He was probably much, much better. But when these two tangled in the real world, he was a lesser fighter.

Why does the sim 'fail' in this matchup? Is Young rated too highly?

[djday45]

One big factor is that I would say that Young had just entered his "Post Prime" stage.
Post 1978 the best fighter Young would beat again would be John L Gardner. He would go onto lose (apart from Ocasio) to Dokes, Page, Tucker, Cooney and even non entiites such as Cuillo and Philip Brown over the next couple of years.
It was widely considered for example that Cooney stopped a fighter on the slide.

You cannot over estimate the "time" in which too boxers fight. All too often one or both are not in their peak years.

I would say in this matchup Ocasio would be pre prime and Young post prime.

I am not saying of course this is the only factor but it tis a large one and must be taken into account.

rgds
Dean

[mking55]

Sorry Dean. I don't buy the post-prime.

The first fight against Ocasio was just 7 months after losing to Norton. The 2nd fight 6 months after the 1st.

His loss to Ocasio was just 15 months after his greatest victory against Foreman.

Young's career was from 1969 to 1988. Ten years is a long post-prime.

Let me throw this out. Maybe he was the type of fighter who excelled against excellent competition but couldn't win (except Foreman). When fighting mere mortals, he fought like a mere mortal.

[dmh44]

Two words: "fat" and "unmotivated". Young was coming off a split decision loss to Ken Norton and was near the top of the rankings. He came into both Ocasio fights with a big spare tire around his waist, and was outhustled by the younger fighter both times. For replaying the fights, Young probably should be considered both "post-prime" and out of condition in some fashion.
Young definitely is not rated too highly. His prime was rather short (roughly 1974 to 1977), but during his prime he drew with Shavers, decisioned Lyle twice, lost a controversial decision to Ali (who was overweight and post-prime), beat a 28 year old Foreman (an accomplishment he never got enough credit for), and lost the sqeaker to Norton. He essentially fought three of the four best heavyweights of the era (all except Frazier) to a standstill.

[Heavyweight]

Young was one of the best fighters of the 70's. Jimmy felt he was robbed in both the Ali (I agree with him) and Norton (I disagree with him) fights. Between the Norton and Ocasio fights Jimmy decided he had enough of it. He kept fighting merely for money, his heart was no longer really ever in it.

[PittPanther]

Let the Assault begin!

[mking55]

Originally posted by dmh44
His prime was rather short (roughly 1974 to 1977), but during his prime he drew with Shavers, decisioned Lyle twice, lost a controversial decision to Ali (who was overweight and post-prime), beat a 28 year old Foreman (an accomplishment he never got enough credit for), and lost the sqeaker to Norton. He essentially fought three of the four best heavyweights of the era (all except Frazier) to a standstill.

Objection. You are saying the 5 best heavyweights of the era are Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Muhammad Ali, Earnie Shavers, and Ron Lyle. I will subscribe to the 1st three, but Lyle and Shavers?

You are going to have to convince me that Lyle deserves to be called that. He lost to Jerry Quarry. (And Lynn Ball). What strikes me when looking at boxrec.com is that he started his professional career at the age of 30? Is this correct? And the Ron Lyle era was not long enough to be an era.

Shavers? Which one? The good and dangerous one, or the one who seemed to lose when it was time to win? And how do you lose to Bob Stallings and claim to be a top 5 of the era? And Shavers beat Young a year before the draw with Young.

And, if a fighter has a 20-year career like Young, you can't be considered great if your 'prime' was 3 or 4 years. Greatness requires a sustained period of excellence in my opinion. Even very-goodness requires that.

[ThBeatnik]

Actually, I believe he's referring to Ali, Foreman, Norton, and Frazier.

At some point, Young stopped taking his training seriously. He became fat and lethargic. He had zero stamina. Naturally, even such a great defensive fighter as Young was not going to be able to win consistently as long as he was in such terrible physical shape.

[dempsonny]

I don't think he beat Ali, he should have been disqualified in that fight for repeatedly sticking his head through the ropes so Ali couldn't hit him, and Ali didn't. He ran away the whole fight.

[wildhawke11]

he ran LOL
Maybe Jim had been watching some of Clays videos :-)

[djday45]

The point is as others have pointed out that Young was no longer the top of his game either mentally or physically by the Ocasio fights.
You have mentioned his "20 year career" as if to point out that it would be too early for him to be post prime and also it is too close to the Norton fight for him to be post prime.

But my point is that many times an actual loss can cause the fighter to lose heart and for many different reasons never be the same fighter again.
Many fighters rebound from a loss or series of losses to be just as good as before, other fighters never recover or as the famous saying goes "become old overnight". this happens more than you would think.

A fighters prime years cannot be put into a generic formula, because each fighter is totally different. too illustrate this point I will give you a few examples.

Jersey Joe Walcott - Here is a guy who fought through the thirties and did not achieve too much, but he got better with age. I would say his prime began in the mid forties and before that date was beginning/pre prime for a very long time.
He stayed at his prime until after the first Marciano fight. By the time of the second Marciano fight I would put him at post prime as he had seemed to lose heart and the first fight had taken so much from him.

Gerry Cooney - I would say he reached his prime when feasting on the old trio of Norton, Lyle and Young and this lasted until the Holmes fight which seemed to suck all the belief out of Gerry. After Holmes I would say Cooney would be post prime.

Sugar Ray Robinson - Robinson had a long prime which lasted until the mid to late fifties. He then went into a slow downwood spiral being post prime by the early sixties, quikckly going to end after that. He could still beat most guys because he was Sugar Ray but he was not the fighter of old.

Mike Tyson - He went quickly from beginining to Pre Prime but was prime by the time of the Berbick fight. He stayed at his prime until after the Spinks fight. But due to many factors Personality, Don King, the loss of Jim Jacobs, Kevin Rooney and earlier D'Amato, His terrible marriage, his love of women etc,etc he had lost his focus by the time of the Douglas fight and should be considered Post prime from then on. Post Prime he was still VERY dangerous but not the same force, sometime over the last few years he went to end career stage.

All these different examples show boxing is as much a mental game as a physical one. The Confidence of a fighter can not be over estimated and one loss with some character types can shatter that.
Jimmy Young's prime cannot be measured by age, career length or any other simple measure. It much be evaluated by his results only.
One last classic recent example - Hamed.

Rgds
Dean

[Cap]

Well said, Dean. That sums up things nicely.

Cap

[Nocramj]

I just wanted to post a thought or two on the Jimmy Young thing.

First of all I think we hit it in saying that by the time he fought Ocasio he was post prime and fat and extremely unmotivated. He would remain unmotivated for the rest of his career with the exception of the Cooney fight. But as is often the case, all the training in the world couldn't turn back time the night he fought Cooney.

Another thing to remember is that all the great fighters of the 70's were hitting post prime. I think it would be accurate to say that the night Young fought Norton both fighters were post prime. Norton would never beat a top fighter after that night and with the exception of rounds 9 thru 15 against Holmes, he would never again put together a good fight. Cobb, Ledoux, Cooney and Shavers would all be disapointing outings for Kenny.

Shavers, Lyle, Foreman, Ali, Young, Norton, Frazier....All, by 1977, were unable to beat a top contender unless they were fighting each other. All above average to great fighters who had beaten the tar out of each other. Shavers would have two great right hands against Larry Holmes. Ali would win a sparring match against Leon Spinks ( a man he would have taken out in 5 just a few years earlier) and then with the effects of Parkinsons already present fight two horrible fights against Holmes and Berbick ( Holmes later admiting that he took it easy on Ali because they were such friends) Lyle , to his credit got out before taking too many beatings. Cooney was enough. Frazier did the same although Foreman and Ali beat him up enough for three lifetimes.

Young on the other hand did not have a KO punch. So as his skill and desire left him, he became easy fodder for a young and motivated Ocasio who didn't have to fear getting KO'd.

For the record. Young in his prime vs Ocasio in his prime. Young wins 98 out of a 100.

[djday45]

To be fair, I just put Young - Ocasio in the scheduler and Young still beats Ocasio the majority of the time with the weight difference turned off and Young at post prime.

Maybe the problem is Ocasio being underated by the game rather than Jimmy being overated?


rgds
Dean

[mking55]

A lot of interesting points here, and many I agree with. I buy the brief prime bit. But with Jimmy Young, what 'top' fighters did he beat in this 'prime'? Foreman and Lyle. End of story. This does not make a career I hope.

I think I understand what my 'issues' are with the game. There are 2 of them. And when I say 'issues', I don't mean a complaint, just some things I need to resolve or have others resolve for me.

1. Overall rating. Obviously, because that's what gets me started. To me it relates to overall career performance. If a fighter has 100 fights and was prime for a 15 fight period when he was great, I do not believe that makes him a great fighter. I think you have to account for the 'whole'.

2. If a fighter is rated too highly (or lowly for that matter), if you schedule a fight and leave it to chance for conditioning, they win too much. It is a question of balance (apologies to the Moody Blues), and how you want to use the game. For example, I can fight Young vs. Ocasio. I can make Young post-prime and fat slob and Ocasio can be prime and virile. Ocasio should win. To me, who cares? They did that in real life and Ocasio won.

I want to fight Young vs. Abe Simon (or someone else). I don't want the top of the line Young all the time. I want the most likely Young. I want the element of chance based on the facts and history of the fighter. (I hope that makes sense).

Maybe that is not how this sim is supposed to be. I am not complaining. I am asking.

I really cannot grasp at this point what the definitive answer to my question is. Or maybe even what my question is. I will try.

Does a fighters ratings encompass his whole career, with the different stages factored in? Or, do I manually need to adjust the fighter for each fight? If Jimmy Young fought half his career at post-prime, do I need to set him up at post-prime for half his fights (extreme example)? Am I expecting something that isn't if I let a fighter fight at 'prime'? Do I then get the fighter at his best regardless if he had a short prime or a long prime?

Okay, my question is more than one. And I also realize that in one way or another I keep asking it in different posts. But I think that's the ultimate question for me at this point. It is what I want to understand. Maybe later the question will change.

[Cap]

Ossie Ocasio was at best a B level fighter (based on the old Ring Magazine ratings system). If Young doesn't lose to him, then he should be downgraded further in the pre-fight arrangements. Young was a guy with some talent. No genius. He ducked under the ropes against an aging Ali. He fought a waiting game with Foreman, knowing Foreman would run out of gas. He never really impressed me much. He was the Willie Meehan or Arturo Godoy of his day. I'd rate him about a 7 or less, and I'm in a generous mood.

Cap

[Heavyweight]

I have all of Young's fights on tape. In his very short peak he was a great fighter. The Ali fight even if he lost a point for all his idiocy with the ropes could have went either way. Ali had no idea how to fight him. Young had an incredible intangible it's hard to mirror with computer ratings. He was a master at taking away the other fighters greatest strength. He beat Lyle twice, no one beat a prime Lyle except great or near great fighters- Quarry, Foreman,Ali,Young twice. Young beat Foreman without question. He might have been the only other guy besides Ali and Holmes that could have beaten Foreman between all the fighters from 1965-1980. The Norton fight was a good one. Norton was not past his prime in 1977-1978. I have everyone of his fights and he had the same skill set he always had. Norton was never serious about fighting after the Holmes loss, it's obvious watching him and he even says so in his book.

[jabbo]

Young was hog fat when he fought Ocasio.

Lyle was VERY old when he fought Ball.

Of the heavyweights active since 1960, I rank Quarry and Lyle around 12-15.

Young and Shavers are in the high-20s, low 30s, I would guess.

Young was a Chris Byrd type at his best. He got fat and turned into an opponent.

Ocasio really has no significant wins on his record as a heavyweight other than the two Young wins. He was busy and awkward.

Bob

[cubedrum]

For real accuracy you need to have Young at the career stage end, and conditioning badly overweight or aging and inconsistent. My results on 1000 bouts with Young at badly overweight and career end as follows.
453-405-142 in favor of Ocasio. This is using the weight difference adjustment too. If you make Ocasio the hometown favorite the results are 455-393-152. I think the ratings are dead on gentlemen. Ocasio started out a heavyweight and trained down when he started losing, so the weight class adjustment may not even apply here.

Cube