Michael Spinks, Michael Moorer, Chris Byrd or David Haye?

I disagree people always say Byrd lost almost every round to Vitali and was getting dominated but that's simply not true. I only had Vitali 1 point up when the fight got stopped Byrd was very competitive vs Vitali he started backing him up in the later rounds, he took away his jab parrying it all night long, and started landing his left hand in the 2nd half of the fight.

According to the punchstats only 8 punches separated them overall with Byrd landing at over 40 percent whilst Vitali was down at 26 percent. Byrd also only had a weeks notice to prepare for Vitali and fought him in his backyard.

I do rate it as a good win and I credit Byrds defence for instigating the injury to Vitali's shoulder I don't think Byrd gets enough credit for the win.

 

I give Byrd credit for the win the myth that Vitali was dominating Byrd is simply false just like the myth that Nunn was dominating Toney.

Byrd had a weeks notice vs Vitali fought him in his backyard in a very competitive fight and I credit Byrd's defence for instigating the injury to Vitali's shoulder.

 

I give Spinks credit for the 1st fight not so much the 2nd fight as I consider that a robbery.

But I do think a prime Holmes would clearly beat Spinks he did trouble him anytime he land with right hands a younger fresher Holmes might go one further and finish the job especially if he had Spinks as hurt as he did in the 14th round of their 2nd fight.

 

I may be one of the few who scored the rematch in Spinks favour.

And as for how a prime Holmes would do against Spinks, it’s largely irrelevant. He had two cracks at a blown up version with bad knees and still couldn’t get him out of there over 30 rounds. Thats on Larry.

 

Spinks win over Holmes was definitely better from a p4p perspective, agreed.

I think there is an argument for Moorer's win over Holyfield being better from purely a HW resume perspective, even though I have Holmes clearly ahead of Evander on my HW all time list, on account of Holmes being past prime.

Which was pretty much what dmt was saying.

 

Well yeah he had 2 cracks at Spinks and did considerably better in the rematch that's not on Holmes if he gets robbed in the rematch.

 

He wasn’t robbed in the rematch.

 

He was and and most fans agree with that take your opinion would be in the minority that Spinks won a very small one at that.

 

The official scorecards were 88-83, 88-83, & 89-82) he retired on his stool. Vitali was comfortably ahead.

 

Yes in Vitali's backyard do you agree with the judges scorecards for Fury vs Usyk 1 aswell ?

Do a RBR scorecard and I guarantee you you'll be surprised it's far more competitive than what alot of people make out.

I can link you threads on here where people have rewatched the fight and are surprised how competitive was i can give you my own scorecard aswell if you want.

 

Fans have conflated robberies and close fights for decades. That will never change.

 

But most people have Holmes as a clear winner and consider it a robbery its definitely one of the most controversial decisions in a big Heavyweight fight.

I had it 9-6 for Holmes he was the aggressor he bullied Spinks and landed all the eye catching punches that hurt Spinks numerous times.

I don't see any argument for Spinks winning the rematch personally and if you did a poll here and asked people to score it over 90 percent would have it for Holmes guaranteed.

 

I'm not sitting through that god awful figjt again. I don't need too. Vitali was far superior to Chris Byrd and he was clearly winning that fight. I like Chris Bryd but I'm not about to make him into something that he wasn't.

 

I have to respectfully disagree. Holmes was very visible slipping a full 2 yrs earlier in the Bonecrusher Smith fight.

 

He wasn't far superior to Byrd though if one guy is landing over 40 percent of his punches and the other guy is at 26 percent and only 8 punches separates them that's not domination at all.

The fight was highly competitive and the judges scorecards do not represent how competitive it was and people just read about the scorecards and believe it was one sided but it really wasn't. If Vitali was that dominant why didn't he ever pursue a rematch ? i mean he had a rematch clause i believe.

Here's a few threads of people rewatching the fight and being surprised how close it was.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...-thoughts-after-rewatching-this-fight.678084/

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/rewatching-vitali-vs-byrd.691852/

And here's my personal scorecard and write up after rewatching it 2 years ago.

Chris Byrd vs Vitali Klitschko

1 Vitali
2 Vitali
3 Byrd
4 Vitali
5 Byrd
6 Byrd
7 Vitali
8 Vitali
9 Byrd
10 Vitali doesn't come out for the 10th round

86-85 Vitali

I'm a man of my word here's my scorecard after rewatching the fight @Showstopper97

A few things i want to point out about this fight Byrd basically nullified Vitali's jab by parrying it constantly with his right jab. Which is huge weapon to take away when your fighting the much bigger man. It also shows Vitali's jab was nowhere near as good as Wladimir's who had a pretty potent jab where as Vitali's was just poking it out there. I also felt like Vitali was a bit too tentative in this fight, he didn't really impose himself on Byrd. And he allowed the much smaller Byrd who isn't a big puncher,to start backing him up after the 5th round.

As i said before to @Showstopper97 i've never understood where this myth came from that Vitali was "dominating Byrd". For me it was a very close tactical fight and Byrd was starting to come on in the 2nd part of the fight. As Vitali was starting to tire from all the missed punches and i think Byrd deserves more credit for his performance especially since he took the fight on late notice. Yes the injury to Vitali's shoulder was unfortunate but Byrd had tired Vitali out and Byrd was coming on strong backing up Vitali and hitting him with the left hand.