Best fighter Wlad has beat

Klitschko haters defending one another, lovely :!:

 

byrd a g! now?

and top 10 in the '70's? yea if there's only 10 boxers alive.

 

So Lewis, Tyson, and Holyfield domianted weak eras in your view?


:good Byrd was in the Ring top 10, going all the way back to like 1997 dumbass. He was in the top 10 for about 9 years, often top 3-5 under Lewis and Evander's reign. #1 under Vitali's brief run.

1997-1998 (Tyson previously #2 suspended after ear biting)




[url]

This content is protected

[/url]

1. [url]
   This content is protected
   [/url]
2. [url]
   This content is protected
   [/url]
3. [url]
   This content is protected
   [/url]
4. [url]
   This content is protected
   [/url]
5. [url]
   This content is protected
   [/url]
6. [url]
   This content is protected
   [/url]
7. [url]
   This content is protected
   [/url]
8. [url]
   This content is protected
   [/url]
9. [url]
   This content is protected
   [/url]

2001



[url]

This content is protected

[/url]

This content is protected

1. [url]
   This content is protected
   [/url]
2. [url]
   This content is protected
   [/url]
3. [url]
   This content is protected
   [/url]
4. [url]
   This content is protected
   [/url]
5. [url]
   This content is protected
   [/url]

 

Chris Byrd, David Haye, Ruslan Chagaev, Eddie Chambers

 

You could argue he is a Holyfield, Tyson, and Lewis hater just as well since Byrd was top 10...top 3-5 when they were at the top as well. Somehow I get the impression, he wouldn't say Lewis dominated a weak era. But by his standard, it must have been since Byrd was a top 10 regular from 97-2006. (Only falling out of the top 10 for a small portion of 1999).

I don't thinK Jack realized that, or he wouldn't have said something so stupid.

Sad to see Byrd dissed like that. He would be an excellent contender in any era. The man would fight anybody, anytime, anywhere, and you better be at your physical best and injury free (Holyfield or Vitali) or he'll steal one from you. Funny some of the guys that Byrd beat like Tua..get more respect. You always see "Tua would be a threat to any era"..well how about the little bean pole who clowned him.

 

Thompson was a very good tough avoided guy
Ibragimov very good Heavyweight
Chagaev capable
Byrd easy wins for Vlad
Chambers fast Eddie solid guy
Brewster Should have mugged him the same 1st time but a domination
Austin Big Strong guy
Haye May have caused Havoc in the 60-70-80's
Rahman Past it but a domination
McCline At the time of victory a solid win
Peter Vlad proved he could get up to win something that Tyson,Lewis never did

 

What else is there to add? Should I say something like "Chris Byrd was a distinctly average fighter, feather fisted and should have been a cruiserweight...but we'll rank him up there with the best, anyway"?

Of course not. If people think Byrd was the best fighter that Wlad has fought, then my opinion on Byrd is relevant to the discussion. I don't rate Byrd highly and the idea that he would be considered top 10 in a strong era is crazy. He was knocked out by Ibeabuchi and I really think that fight showed his limitations. It showed he wasn't a greatly skilled fighter, he had fast hands and a decent chin, but, ultimately, wasn't a world class fighter.

Throughout the course of his career, Byrd has been overrated. Really, even at his very best he was nothing special. He made somewhat of a name by convincing certain people that Lewis ducked him, beat a few out of shape or old fighters, beat Vitali in a disgraceful ending and got knocked out against Wlad. Simplified, yes, but nothing about Byrd is anything special.

Jimmy Young was mentioned earlier. In a 10 fight series, I genuinely think Young wins about 8 of them. He was simply a much better boxer and that shows the difference between one era and another. In the 70's, Young was barely top 10 and yet he was a terrific fighter. In the 2000's, Byrd manages to win world titles.

But this is all besides the point you're making. You're assuming that because I don't rate Byrd, that stems because I supposedly dislike Wlad. That doesn't make any sense. I've thought Byrd was overrated for years and I still do. He is, in fact. As are fighters like Peter, Chagaev and even future potential Wlad opponents like Helenius or Fury, who belong nowhere near a top 20 in a strong era. Does this mean I am already discrediting future Wlad opponents because I have some huge agenda? Or does it mean that these fighters actually aren't that good and that I simply don't rate them?

Just for the record, seeing as you think I'm soem biased, delusional hater, here is a post I made a few days ago:



"As for the question of whether Wlad has an unfair advantage, the answer is "no". This is the heavyweight division and there are no limits. An unfair weight advantage in boxing, is a guy who will drain himself before a weigh in and add 20lbs before the fight, whereas his opponent adds nothing. That's unfair morally but isn't against the rules either.

Size is only part of the issue though. Wlad's main advantage is that he's simply better than everyone else. His brother is a distant second and who is the third best of this era? A pitiful fighter, whoever you choose. If Wlad was 6'2", he'd still be the best in the world but he'd just be beating guys in a different manner. The fact he fights tall and wins, gives the impression he uses his size to win fights but in reality, he has a lot of skills that go unnoticed by the average fan and that's what makes him stand out.

Really though, Wlad only has two weaknesses. One, his chin. That will always be his downfall and he will be knocked out in the future, probably by someone nobody near as technically skilled as Wlad is. Secondly, he doesn't have a fighters heart but, luckily for him, that is rarely questioned.

Size is just part of the reason Wlad is dominant. It's a big reason that Vitali is, yes, but Wlad does not rely on his size to win. He's big but he's also very skilled, and it's those skills which set him apart."



If you want to think I'm biased, that's fine. However, the truth is, I like Wlad and I rate Wlad. I don't rate his opponents though and that opinion should not be enough to consider me biased.

 

:deal

You don't like Wlad, it's obvious, so why lie about it?

 

Are you stupid?

I said earlier on that Byrd would likely enter the top 10 of the 70's every now and then. However, just like the 90's, Byrd would not be considered a top 10 heavyweight at the end of the decade.

Byrd is not a top 10 fighter of the 1990's. That is irrefutable.

Tyson, Lewis, Holyfield, Bowe, Mercer, Foreman, Moorer, Ibeabuchi, Golota and Morrison are all better fighters than he was. Byrd would be a fringe contender in this era, occasionally getting a shot and nothing more than that.

 

Why would I even hide it? I don't like many fighters. I don't like Vitali, so I say so. I don't like Mayweather, so I say so. I don't like Hopkins, so I say so. I don't like Dirrell, so I say so. I don't like Alexander, so I say so.

Why the **** would I be any different towards Wlad? I like him. I don't give a **** what anyone on here thinks of my opinions, so if I don't like someone, I'll say so.

 

Doesn't make for great reading does it.

 

Not sure, tbh. You would have to go with Brewster and undefeated Peter as the ones who troubled Wlad most, but today's Wlad is an improved version of himself when he fought them back then. And at the top of his game he wasn't all that convincing vs Haye, so this fella should be up there too.

 

Mercer, Golota, Morrison better than Byrd? Lay off the crackpipe :rofl

 

atschatsch

Old Golota schooled Byrd

 

Byrd schooled Evander Holyfield rofl:rofl