This would be a good fight. Moore fought in a time when most full-time fighters fought often. They fought when they were not always 100% and sometimes they fought the same opponent several times. In Moore's case you can also add that he fought many fights above his best weight-class (LHW/175 Lbs.) and he fought well into his 40's. You're going to catch a few losses to guys that you could have beat most of the time... I'm not talking about Ezzard Charles, Rocky Marciano, Floyd Patterson, or Muhammad Ali though. He turned pro in September of 1935 and going into 1949 he was 98-17-7 (74) 1NC. He actually did his best work after this point though. Through his first 123 fights he could be hot and cold, after this point he was more consistent. From 1949 - his last fight in 1963 Moore went 88-6-3 (58byKO) overall and 10-2 (6) in LHW and HW World title fights. Byrd will be taller by 2-3" depending on the source but Moore has the longer reach by 1". Byrd would 10-20 Lbs. heavier. Byrd was never considered a physically strong or hard hitting HW but he would be as strong if not stronger than most of the fighters Moore faced... this does not always translate into punching power though. I think their strength was similar but Moore was the harder puncher. They were both durable and highly skilled fighters. Byrd was quicker but Moore was quicker and more skilled than most of the fighters Byrd faced... the fact that Byrd was quicker isn't really the point here. Could Byrd deal with a guy who was as skilled, as quick, as elusive, as explosive, and as good as Moore was? I think it's a toss up to be honest.
I've never heard anyone who saw that fight from start to finish say that Byrd DESTROYED Vitali. As for Byrd vs Moore, the legacy and name recognition belongs to Archie, so I can see people picking him for that reason. But that doesn't make it a given either.
If he were a level below the best then how come he knocked out great fighters in there prime like Harold Johnson Jimmy Bivins Holman Williams Lloyd Marshall..men who were the best of the best The Charley Burley loss happened early in his career. Moore didn't become his best version of himself until after 1946. I can't see burley beating the 1952 version of Archie The Charles losses were legitimate but we are talking about three close losses to a top 5 greatest fighter of all time in his prime
Moore caught up to Harold Johnson, who was a greater fighter than Byrd. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u8g_TIvyghY And please stop calling Byrd 215lb. Read any article and study up on Byrd, he naturally weighed 190lb, he would eat bulk and creative his way up to 210lb. I have sources that confirm this. It was all water weight Byrd is naturally not much bigger If your still worried about the size difference, Moore took down 6'3 215lb number one heavyweight contender in 1955 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi66CQ_ivDg
It could happen. As I recall one of the key pieces of advice Vitali gave Wladimir going into that 1st Byrd fight was something to the effect of "don't use full force on your punches". That could help explain how Byrd lasted 12 (in part at least).
Great fighters yes ,great heavies no. Moore fought Harold Johnson 5 times winning 4 and stopped him once coming from behind in a fight he was dropped in himself He isn't stopping Byrd.