Byrd had some really good wins as a heavyweight, and so did tyson but they both came up short in their biggest fights... Tyson lost to Holyfield, and Lewis.. BYrd lost to Wladimir and povetkin... But based off of name quality i would say TYson would be the bigger win imo..
They seems to be in same but Tyson may show something surprising. As every champion have the capability to do something unbelievable.
Spinks is a damn good win. Spinks beat Holmes and ****ey. Also was one of the best LHW ever. Berbick is a good win. Ruddock twice. Tony Tucker Frank Bruno Botha Those are all good wins for Tyson. Not to mention at age 20-21 he single handedly unified the division fighting champions all in a row. He did it alone. He didnt just win a belt. He didnt have an older brother to fight guys who were poor stylistic match ups for him,he did it by himself. Byrd and Bowe can't touch what Tyson was. He would KO Byrd in 2 rounds easy money.
Should we really count the Lewis fight as coming up short? Tyson was prime at age 20-25. He was nearly 40 when he fought Lewis. Not to mention that swarmers historically have a short prime. Like Dempsey. An MLB superstar at age 24 isn't expected to hit 30 home runs at age 38.
Tyson beat Spinks in Spinks' last fight and Tyson beat Holmes when Holmes was past his prime. The Spinks fight really wasn't even a fight if you think about it. Byrd's "win" over Vitali Klitschko was technically win although he didn't really defeat Vitali Klitschko, more like the Ukrainian fell victim to the "intangibles". Byrd's win over Holyfield is sort of the same thing. Seems like both are sort of on the overrated side.
tysons, he beat the last "champ" of his era, and the champ before that (although I am not claiming beating larry was great). byrd beat vitali, who was a bit part champ (albeit with good longevity), and old holyman. that said, byrd being an original middleweight who stopped a superheavyweight titlist in vits is pretty damn good work, or perhaps evidence of vitalis actual lack of h2h ability.