Where Would Chris Byrd have ranked ATG if he wouldve beaten Wladimir Klitschko?

That makes no sense, please explain why. He beat Vits and has the better resume of the two, am I wrong?

 

Going by that logic Vitali must rank higher than Wlad than due to icing Sanders coming off his stunning 2nd round destruction of the ATG Wladimir Klitschko. At least that's how it seems to work with your 'quickening' theory.

As it is I though Byrds cv was quite similar to vitali's before his comeback. Vitali has deffo surpassed him since then.

 

By that logic Wlad twice beat Byrd whereas Vittles lost to him. And Byrd still has a better resume than Vits so going by your reasoning he MUST rank higher than big bro.

 

I was trolling, I don't think he cracks top 35. Tua is more hype then anything,Holyfield was way way past it and very active,He got schooled by Ibeabuchi because he let Ike back him up against the ropes

 

The words Byrd and ATG do not belong in the same sentence.
Hell they shouldn't even belong in the same language...

 

Lol, its cool bro!:good

 

No, you haven't quite worked out the quickening theory.

Vitali captures the WBO belt by stunning early KO and captures the quickening
Byrd beats Vitali to capture the quickening
Wlad beats Byrd to capture the quickening
Sanders stunningly destroys Wlad inside 2 rounds to capture the quickening
Vitali ko's Sanders to capture the quickening and still hasn't lost it.

:deal

 

Are there cotton candy clouds in Klitschko land? Since when did ridiculous triangle theories replace resume and h2h wins when judging where a fighter should be ranked? Byrd beat Vittles and has a better resume, its that simple. On top of that Vits never sought a rematch. So your Quaker theory hold no oats. Sorry bub. :nono

 

So you reckon Byrd has a better cv than Vitali cause he beat him?

So Sanders must have a better one than Wlad too according to you.

Vitali beat Sanders.

:deal

 

Byrd has a better resume, pure and simple. That he beat Vits is just extra icing on the cake. And so what if Vittles beat Sanders. Corrie never beat another top 10 rated heavyweight either before or after Wlad. Using him is very weak logic. The route you should be taking in this debate is Vitaly's dominance over everyone but Byrd and Lewis. But it still boils down to resume in the end, and in that department Vit is a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.

 

Perhaps not at HW but he did destroy Carlos De Leon an ATG CW inside the first round. It's hardly a shabby record having destroyed two ATG's within 3 rounds together.

 

Some of you guys must not have seen Byrds title defenses.
I thought he lost everyone of his title defenses including his embarrasing waltz with his friend TOS, after he won a bogus vacant title against ancient Holyfield.

As far as heavyweight champions are concerned Byrd ranks near the bottom.

 

Have you seen some of Ali's shitty title defenses? Shitty of not, what counts in the end is the quality of opposition and getting the W.

 

No my friend, Ali may have gotten some shady decisions but he faced and beat quality.

Again, Byrd won a title that was vacant from a well past it Holyfield, and then proceeded to get gifts down the line in each of his first 4 title defenses until Wlad ended his misery.

Getting an official W is not what counts when its obvious most who saw those fights saw him lose.

Btw, I would'nt call any of the fighters Byrd faced in title fights A or even B level. They were just average Heavyweight contenders and Byrd still lost to them.

 

I didn't say Ali had no quality opposition at all. I said he had **** opposition mixed in and he struggled and looked awful against some of his B level competitors. That's what I call "**** wins", the same term you used for Byrd's wins. You will find these among all champions in history.