I'd rank 1 Sanders, 2 Peter, 3 Byrd. Here's how I see their resume and legacy 1. Sanders. He beat a half dozen or more quality fringe contenders or high level journeymen, but only really had three fights against top ten hws. However, the fact that he blasted out an ATG in Wlad and nearly blasted out another in a great losing effort against Vitali are sufficient accomplishments to raise his stock above the other two for me. They had more wins, but much less impressive, and that edges Sanders for me. Peter 3 wins over top 5 hws(Maskaev, Toneyx2) 6 Wins over top 30ish guys in Aguilera, McCline, Sykes, Williams, Diaz, Shufford On top of that, he nearly beat an atg in Wlad. Not including his totally shot period, he had about the same number of losses as Byrd and Sanders. Byrd: First you have to deal with the fluky win over Vitali. Is it a win, yes. Should the circumstances behind it, and the fact it was clear Vitali was the superior fighter be taken into account? Yes. I'll credit it as a top ten win and nothing more. 4 wins over top 10ish hws: Vit, shot Holyfield, Tua, McCline(debatable victory, as many of his wins were). 5 wins and a draw against top 30ish opponents: Castillo, Purrity, Harris, Oquendo, Williamson, Golota(draw). So, Peter and Byrd had about as many top wins, and Sanders considerably fewer. But for me Peter's close loss to Wlad edges him over Byrd for me, with Sanders demo job on Wlad and top performance against Vitali edging Peter. All three are very close whoever you pick imo.
Great thread. I'd have to give it some thought. There's an awful lot to take into account when you rank a fighter. As well as obviously looking at their wins, you also have to assess their abilities, as well as noting their size, and taking into account any/all circumstances. I like Byrd here. Because he was very talented, and he was smaller than the other 2. The other 2 were taller and heavier, and their reach was longer. I don't know if you could put Sanders at no.1 just because he beat Wlad and the other 2 didn't. It's very interesting.
Thanks. I know it's probably against the grain to rank them as I do, I don't have a problem with any ranking there. I do think there is alot to go into legacy and resume though, and sometimes group think sets in a bit and people can be overlooked. For me, I think Corrie probably doesn't get enough credit for his two big performances. Single wins and great losing performances can mean alot. Take away Frazier fights against Ali, keep everything else the same, and Frazier may not even be considered a concencus top 25 hw
Like I've said, it's a great thread. I won't have an issue with anybody's rankings. Byrd jumps out at me straight away just because he was gifted but significantly smaller than the others. Regarding Ali, I think he'd still definitely be there, even without the Frazier fights on his resume.
I think It's a mistake to rank them soely based on how they fared against Wlad, like putting Buster Douglas Ruddock based on the dominant win over Tyson. Byrd's win over close-to-prime Tua, a fluke-ish win over Vitali and another W over old Holyfield in addition to his title reign with 3 defences puts him ahead over the other 2 by a margin for me. Byrd>>Peter>Sanders
It's a good thread. The name out of those three that jumped out straightaway was Byrd: Byrd>Peters>Sanders But my favourite fighter of the lot was Sanders, great guy, tragic death.
I don't think Sanders had a great losing effort vs Vitali. Aside from a few scares, Vitali dominated him.
The last time I watched Byrd vs Vitali I was surprised at how well Byrd did, it was definitely a lot closer than I previously thought.