Byrd or Young - Who Ranks Higher?

Young was more significant, but I thought Byrd was ranked higher.

 

I'm a die-hard Ali nut-grabber................ I often scored for Ali 'cause of his jab........ Jabs score points........

I never saw "Norton-Young." I'd love a copy to view....

Call me crazy, but I scored Michael Dokes' 1983 close shave draw against Mike Weaver in favor of Dokes, based on the jab of Dokes.......... Weaver was aggressive and powerful, but also slow on his punch output after rd 10...... Dokes was heavy at 223 pounds, but very jabby all the way through..... Go figure.?.?

MR.BILL

 

I see where you are coming from but we are comparing resumes here.

Shavers while being limited managed to win more of his fights against elite level oponents than Golotta did on paper. Golotta is known for his near miosses while Shavers is known for near misses plus the ocasional win. Norton for example might have been nearing the end of his career but he had just given Larry Holmes hell.

This leads me to conclude that a draw against Shavers that arguably should have been a win is better than a draw against Golotta that arguably should have been a loss.

 

Okay, but if you're gonna go by what's on paper, then you should also realise that:

-Byrd beat a peak Vitali Klitschko
-Young lost to an old, out of shape Ali
-Young lost to Norton
-Young is 0-1-1 with Shavers

So, going by the "what's on paper" argument, Young didn't even beat Shavers and is the lesser fighter altogether.

 

Young beat Foreman, Lyle (twice), Dunn, Garica and arguably beat Ali, Norton, Shavers

If Young gets the W's in the close fights he has 1 of the greatest wins resumes in history and few in history do as well against those versions of Ali/Foreman/Norton, Frazier for 1 couldnt

 

Young was probably a better boxer, but if resumes are what we're going by then I have to give it to Chris Byrd. Jimmy may have had 1 or 2 wins that exceded Byrd's very best, but Chris had far fewer losses along with the claim of being a world champ. As much of a screwy fight as his match was against Vitali Klitschko, being the first to hand Dr. Ironfist a loss is a big thing. We also have to look at the David Tua win and a few others. Young may very well have been robbed against aging versions of Ali and Norton, but Byrd actually won against an aging version of Holyfield.

 

Yes but Byrd got to pick his opponents, Young did not, Byrd got gifts,Young did not. If Byrd fought long past his prime and got ruined by tough fights or drugs like Young then he'd have losses past prime too. At their very best Young has better performances and wins

Byrd arguably got gifts against: McCline (I had the big man winning), Golota (clear), Oquendo clear) and I didn't see the TOS fight

That means his real wins are: Vitali (fluke), Tua (past prime), Holyfield (pretty much shot), TOS, Purity?

 

Beatin Richard Dunn and Luis Garcia is no better in value than Byrd's wins over Jameel Mcline and Davarryl Williamson. The Shavers draw along with the Ali and Norton losses may or may not have been robberies depending on who you talk to. In either case, two of them were very close fights against past prime foes, so if we're going to count em' then we might as well ad that Byrd beat an aging Holyfield, only he ACTUALLY got the win..

Frankly, the only thing for me that stands out on Young's resume as being better than anything on Byrd's, was beating George Foreman and I don't feel that makes up for a difference of 19 losses as opposed to only 5. You can argue that Young lost to good fighters both before and long after his prime, but if we're honest, both men fought until well past their personal best. In addition, while neither man had very impressive stats in the Ko department, there is a substantial difference between Byrd's percentage of 45.65 and Young's 19.64.

 

As much as I like Jimmy, I scored that one 146-139 for Ali. Muhammad looked awful, but I felt his aggression was the difference. Young did not make him miss and make him pay as he should have done to win the title.

 

I hear what you're saying about some of this stuff, but we can't award higher ratings to one fighter on the basis of making concessions. Just as one example, you mentioned Young's drug use as a hinderance to acheiving greater things. Why should we reward him with a higher rating while punishing Byrd who chose not to partake in drug use? I also agree with the whole notion that Young fought better men earlier and probably later as well, but again this is not Byrd's fault or problem. The only thing we can judge fighters by is what they actually accomplished, not what they MIGHT have done had circumstances been different.

 

1. Agreed and I'd add beating Lyle is as good as a Tua win
2. Most people have Young beating Shavers (I havent seen it), Ali-Young is a 50-50 for most
3. A 39yo Holyfield is near shot, '76 versions of Ali and Norton are just far better. Ali was clearing a division out, Norton was taking Holmes to an SD in his next fight
4. '77 Foreman is in the league of Wlad/Vitali if not above so its a monumental win.
5. Well I like to look at a fighters prime rather than when he was green or past it. Do we judge Ezzard Charles on his peak or as the shot to pieces fighter he became? Is Holyfield lesser than Bowe because he has more losses?

Young arguably went unbeaten on a 20 fight run facing Ali, Foreman, Lyle TWICE, Shavers, Garcia, Norton, Dunn. Thats perhaps akin to Byrd going unbeaten against Old Lennox, Ibeabuchi, Wlad, Vitali, Tua, Rahman, Maskeev

How about a new thread - who's the greatest HW in the Byrd-Brewster family? (they are cousins), the Brew had a nice little run for a bit

 

Yes, Lamon Brewster is an almost completely forgotten man. Twenty years from now, his name will be little more than just fine print on a page. I find this to be most unfortunate, because he did manage to put together a good run as you have mentioned.

 

I fully G.A.F. goddammit.... "Ali-Young" sucked ****, but I gave Ali the nod........ Young stunk.......... Nuff said........

MR.BILL:bbb