Would be a very interesting cat-and-mouse matchup with Moore stalking him and winging power punches at him while Byrd moves away, jabs, and holds.
Look Moore was a great fighter , no question but he was a level below the best of the best .. his losses to Charles and Burley proved this .. I also feel he was over rated by some as a heavyweight as the names he beat were nothing terrific for the most part .. his vulnerability was speed and Byrd was very fast and tricky .. this would be an interesting fight .. I lean to Archie as few were trickier but imagine it competitive ..
Greetings f&d! I agree with your "lol". How about a 1955 Byrd vs. a 1955 Moore? How about a 21st century Moore vs. a 1955 Byrd? LOL
I fail to see how losses to Ezz and Burley put him a level below one of the best given his entire career? :huh
Some fans today seem to forget that in Archie's era, that the best were fighting the best "multiple times".....so rivialries developed....and someone had to lose ever so often. As opposed to "Canelo-weight" today, brought to you for some unexplained reason, by Golden Boy.
Byrd by decision. Chris was hard to hit flush and didn't fold easy when he did. Good mover for a man of 6'1", 215 lbs, which incidentally was bigger than the average man Moore usually fought. And by 1955 Archie was already getting close to 40.
I guess the people picking Byrd dwell in an alterate reality where Byrd vs Oquendo and Moore's series with Maxim and Johnson didn't happen? Maybe, we will see.
I'm as guilty as the next man for pitting these cross era fighters against each other, but I am coming round to your way of thinking: there are way too many variables to make a valid prediction.
Look Byrd was a good fighter , no question but he was a level below the best of the best .. his losses to Wlad and Ike proved this .. I also feel he was over rated by some as a heavyweight as the names he beat were nothing terrific for the most part