Deontay Wilder vs Chris Byrd

Wilder like a foot taller than Tua and doesn't have mud feet

 

I remember seeing that video

 

im sure the story round Byrd at the time was he was a natural mw or super middle or something, but choose to go hw for financial reasons.

 

best vs best wilder could end it at any moment, but i don't think it would be beyond byrd to avoid that while landing enough shots to get the decision. this is probably conventional wisdom?

 

I think Byrd would have a much harder time landing anything on Wilder than many people here think... He will have to take risks he won't want to or can't afford to in order to land anything meaningful... He may win some rounds by spoiling, but I see him getting stopped.

 

This.

Byrd gets clipped by that war crime of a right hand sooner or later and doesn't recover.

 

But it's Duhaupas and Spilka. And Eric Molina was also having success.

 

He dominated Tua and beat Vitali, much better fighters than anyone Wilder beat.

I'd pick half the guys on that list over any version of Wilder anyway. Two of them went on to do something Wilder never did, beat a world class opponent. I mean, we're gonna talk about how Holyfield and Golota were old while Wilder's only "notable" win is Luis Ortiz, who was 38 and accomplished less in his entire career than they did afterward?

 

Byrd was past it for much of his title reign so why focus on it?

 

Byrd wins a ud in a fight that has even less action than Wlad-Fury.

 

Id make Wilder the favorite vs everyone in the 2000s with the exception of the Klitschkos and Lennox Lewis

Very underrated head to head fighter on here

 

This will come as a surprise, I'm sure, but I'd put this statement up there with the more outlandish claims I've seen on these boards...

It's not quite up there with the silly xyz prospect (Itauma, jalolov, etc) beats Foreman threads, but it's pretty fanciful nonetheless, in my book.

Wilder simply had too many clear weaknesses and stylistic Achilles heels to be a "beats them all" kind of fighter - he struggled with guys who tried to limit engagement (a better fighter than Szpilka, rare though they are at heavy, could've decisioned him comfortably on fair cards that way), he struggled with pressure and couldn't swing anywhere near full power if cramped up (so guys like Chisora would've given him fits).

On top of that, even if we're generous enough to call Ortiz a contender (I wouldn't, but I suspect you would?)...
Wilder barely scraped through the first bout and not without controversy - and Ortiz was 38 years old, hadn't beaten anyone particularly good in 2.5 years (and even then, Jennings wasn't that good).
If Ortiz had been 35, even, would he have won? Far from impossible - and that's past prime for most fighters... And stylistically, I don't think Ortiz was any kind of Kryptonite for Wilder.

And again, Ortiz wasn't all that - he certainly wouldn't have been clear of everyone else behind only Lennox and the Klits.


Wilder has a punchers chance with most outside Lennox and the Klits... But he probably still loses more often than not to quite a lot of fighters in that period.

He's hopelessly overrated on here, and pretty much everywhere else.

 

Who from the 2000s are you picking to beat Wilder besides the Klitschkos and Lennox?

 

yeah it reminded me of when Eddie Chambers went down to cruiser and just looked old, slow, and drained

 

I figure peak Wilder might have been the first Fury fight

He believed in his power and committed to his punches and had a good jab. I figure if Jameel McCline could floor him a few times then Wilder has a shot. Jameel could be a big, strong and imposing fighter who got by more on brute force then craft. I think the explosive Wilder could land that right. I just don't know if he has the ring generalship or varied punching to consistently get to Byrd but with his power he may not need to