Byrd vs Holmes

These types of matches are a real head ache to determine , so I go by who handled bigger power punchers better more than the actual match up in rare instances. I would like to think Holmes wins this.

 

Yep agree. On the one hand you can say that Holmes never faced a guy as slippery, speedy and busy as Byrd. But then, did Byrd face a guy like Holmes? Closest would be Wlad, who was bigger and stronger than Holmes, and he gave Byrd hell. On reflection, I would give the edge to Holmes with no great deal of confidence. Styles would definitely make fights in this one.

 

That is pretty darn illogical!

If you are matching two technical boxers, who are both noted for their durability, then it doesn't really matter who did better against power punchers!

That is the last thing that is likely to have a bearing upon the outcome!

 

Holmes stops Byrd late on.

 

No great deal of confidence? Really?
I'd bet least one kidney on Holmes, probably two.

 

Holmes by wide UD

 

Holmes via UD. His jab was too active, and his hand speed too much. Byrd would lose here.

 

Holmes via decision.

 

Holmes fought many guys while they weren't even at peak yet like
Williams, Snipes, Witherspoon, Coo.ney ,among others. But that has less to do with this match up bc the key here is who is the least likely to get hurt and hit less!


That points to Holmes BC of his long game of distance so even if Byrd was to land on him chances are it does less, on the opposite side Byrd would need a k.o I think so yes in this match it comes down to if Byrd can do what most couldn't and that's hurt Holmes to slow him down and out point him.

Holmes had the arsenal of the jab and straight right alone at 6'3 to deal with fighters like Byrd and did . Byrd excelled with bigger and heavier punchers that let him get close.

The point of Holmes dealing with harder shots better comes into play here BC of the match itself BC Byrd would need to hurt Holmes than vice versa to win...Byrd isn't going to out point him otherwise...you just don't know what logical is.

 

Hmmm, this one is interesting. I can see Byrd possibly pulling an upset here. Holmes despite having over 70 pro fights never fought a southpaw. Byrd is no dummy, he's very intelligent and a student of the boxing game. He started boxing when he was 8 years old. Byrd would look at negating Holmes jab, and as a southpaw his right hand would be right up against Holme's left hand. I can see Byrd slapping that left hand down, frustrating Larry and using his crafty head movement and countering Larry. I'm going to pick Byrd in an upset decision.

 

I like your argument for Byrd!

 

It is hard to see how a record against big punchers indicates that a fighter is likely to get hit less.

A record against technical boxers would surely be a much stronger indicator of that?

While Holmes's reach is an advantage, it does not make it impossible for Byrd to outpoint him.

There are plenty of cases of technical boxers, out boxing fighters who had a reach advantage.

Either way, beating lots of big punchers in not exactly an indication, that you are going to outbox another technician.

Nobody who had a reach advantage over Byrd, ever "let him get close".

It was more the case that he was too fast for them to stop him.

If it comes down to who is going to outpoint who in your opinion, then you need to look at their records against other fighters who could box, not other fighters who could punch.

That is an example of what logic is!

 

First thought was Holmes but the more I think about it the more of a live underdog Byrd becomes.

 

The antidote for the southpaw is the right cross,Larry had an excellent one!