Who has the better singular win, Chris Byrd or Mike Tyson?

Why do you think these two suffered similar injuries against this common opponent?

Could be because Byrd stays in range and makes these guys reach and miss with jabs and left hooks? You really don't think baiting these guys into loading up and making them miss, had anything to do with the injuries?

 

Tyson obviously.

 

Has it ever been officially verified that those injuries were caused "specifically" by missed punches leading to a tear in the rotator cuff? Also when I think of one fighter beating another, I usually think of it coming by way of landing actual punches and not just making the other guy miss.

 

Because Vitali is ultimately going to go down as a greater fighter than Tucker, Berbick, or Smith.

I don't buy that. Going into their respective fights, Tucker and Vitali have roughly equal resumes. Smith and Berbick have more names but hardly a real cut above either.

 

I believe Holyfield went on the record at some point saying it was a missed left hook in the first round. Vitali never listed a specific punch but can be seen reaching and missing left hands throughout the fight before complaining of the injury, do the math.

Well, Byrd landed plenty on Holyfield and was starting to land good shots against Vitali in the last three rounds. I commented on this on the last page and posted video.

 

Well, let's be serious. Vitali hit Byrd basically at will for three-fourths of the fight. Byrd wasn't "that" difficult to hit.

Also, the injury to Holyfield occured so early in the bout - only a couple minutes in - that neither guy had done much before it occurred.

At one point, I seriously wondered if Byrd caused the injuries because he kept his gloves open and caught punches as part of his defense, and maybe he was pushing their arms in odd angles when the arms were extended. But neither injury seemed to occur that way.

We've since learned that Vitali was an injury-prone fighter. And Holyfield had been fighting since he was a child at that point, and he'd suffered another injury to his shoulder against Moorer - which was originally assumed to be heart trouble (since he was so juiced on steroids). So Evander was an older athlete breaking down. It happens. Moorer wasn't so "elusive" nobody could hit him. Holyfield suffered a similar injury against him.

I didn't give Byrd (credit or blame) for either guy's injury. And Byrd was never so "elusive" that you couldn't hit him. He got hit a lot by guys big slow guys not known for their hand speed (Jameel McCline, who I mentioned earlier) being one.

My point is just you don't normally see a guy's best "wins" be identified as bouts where his opponents suffered freak injuries not caused by the winning fighter.

 

Tucker had a thin resume but he had a very recent win over Buster Douglas, who was a ranked contender and actually a very good heavyweight.
Vitali's best wins were what ? Herbie Hide, ****y Ryan, Obed Sullivan ... ?

Berbick had won his last 9 fights, was WBC champion, had beat still-ranked David Bey and undefeated prospect Mitch Green to earn the fight against Thomas, and then beat Thomas, who many considered the best HW in the world prior to that.
Yes, Berbick had some poor losses on his record, but if we're going to drag up old stuff, then he also had wins over John Tate and undefeated Greg Page.

Smith had 1st round KOs of both Mike Weaver and Tim Witherspoon in the previous 10 months, also wins over fringe contenders Bey and Ferguson.

These three men held the three main belts for good reason, and those belts all had credible lineage.

Vitali held the WBO belt that could be traced back only to Herbie Hide beating the carcass of Tony Tucker in Norwich, on a UK SKY appetizer bill as a prelude to a big fight over in Las Vegas the same night (the ear bite fight).

Vitali was not known as any sort of world beater. I doubt he was ranked in the true top 5 contenders even. He wasn't proven. He was completely inexperienced against real contenders. His reputation prior to beating Hide was nil, but it was abit more than that when facing Byrd, but hardly earth-shattering. Simply because he had not proved himself, he was still a developing fighter.
Yes, he was big and a good heavyweight, but it's a little bit of a stretch to compare him to those seasoned proven HW contenders at that stage.
And, of course, the Byrd-Vitali fight did not carry true world title status.

 

I've seen roator cuff injuries occur when a person reaches up into their kitchen cabinet to retrieve a glass. They can be caused at just about any time and for any reason. Usually they are most prone to happening after certain muscles in that region have been tight or ill maintained for an extended period of time. And unless I am mistaken, both of these men had prior shoulder injuries which would have made them even more prone to reinjury. Could both of these men have suffered shoulder injuries as a result of repetitively missing Chris Byrd? Possibly. But I don't know if in Vitali's case there is any significant evidence to elude to the fact that his did. By the rules of boxing, Byrd deserved the win by virtue of his opponent retiring in his corner. But I don't like how people ( not just yourself ) pretend like it was pure mastery on Byrd's part which won that fight. He was losing and he was losing BIG, and against a man who had been fighting with the use of one arm and being in a lot of pain for the bulk of the evening. I also feel that this fight has little or no value when determining how these men would do in head to head matches against other fighters, unless you're banking on the exact same scenario occurring.

 

Not necessarily, not by much.
His whole resume is kind of shabby, even to this day.
His best win is over Corrie Sanders.
His other claims to fame are getting he face ripped off by Lewis, and the fact that he took 4 years off and made a very good come back.

Tucker's is slightly better, going in to their fights.
Smith and Berbick MUCH BETTER.

 

Be serious, what fight were you watching. Vitali is throwing lots of punches but hardly landing at will. He was winning rounds on activity, not crisp punching.

Does this look like Vitali is landing 3/4s at will? Give me a break.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FecLhLS8ibI[/url]

I know Holyfield at one mentioned a missed left hook, and in the first round you see Holyfield load up for one big left hook and miss badly, and never throw it again.

And certainly these injuries are going to occur against fighters that are more prone to them. But I don't buy that Byrd just happened to be a lucky spectator when these injuries occurred, that is naïve. It is no accident these injuries occurred against a Southpaw that stays in range and makes fighters miss.

Byrd had visibly slowed down tremendously by the time of the McCline fight, all the inactivity had finally got to him.

Byrd is an unorthodox HW, incredibly low KO% who spends many rounds just parrying and slipping punches.

 

Vitali was an undefeated Olympic gold medalist and while his wins over men like Hide, Mahone and Sullivan weren't stellar wins by any means, they were hardly leagues below Tucker's sole win against Douglas.. Its largely due to the eventuality of Douglas upsetting Tyson years later which made that win rise in stock.. If Buster had continued on the path of obscurity, you wouldn't have bothered to mention it.. he was viewed as nobody at the time and what he did in 1990 shouldn't change who he was in 1987. Berbicks's wins over Pinklon Thomas, Page and tate were much better than any Vitali had prior to facing byrd, fair enough.. But as I mentioned he was also beaten by Mercado, Snipes and St, Gordon, not to mention a draw against Caldwell. He had a good resume but let's not get carried away.. I stand by what I said that Byrd's win over Vitali was no better or worse than Tyson's wins over those guys.. About the only think I'll agree on was that the "manner" in which he won earns him less points than the manner in which Tyson defeated those other men.

 

A reasonable argument, magoo, but I hope you see the irony in the context of this discussion regarding VITALI, who was similarly nobody in 2000, and what he did 4 or 9 or 11 years later shouldn't change that ?

Vitali benefits from the strongest case of inflated "retrospective reputation" I've ever known.

 

Right. Which was why I thought his wins over Tua and McCline were his best wins, and his two victories over guys who suffered freak injuries (one of whom was dominating him on the cards) in the fights weren't.

If he hit them and caused the injury, that's another story. If Byrd punched Holyfield and Vitali in the shoulders so hard he broke something, fine. Damaging body shots are just as good as a damaging head shot.

But nobody ever claimed that was the case.

If someone swings and hurts himself, he could've done the same against a heavy bag. That doesn't make the heavy bag special.

 

Fair enough. But I am not rating Byrd's win over Klitschko on the basis of him doing anything later. I think at the time his resume was at least on par with Tucker's and not far behind Berbick's or Smith's if even at all. I think they were on comparable planes.

 

Fair enough, and I must say I'm NOT baffled by your particular claims at all. I differ slightly, but I understand where you're coming from.