Byrd or Young - Who Ranks Higher?

I pick young because he beat a better class of opponents. Young beat an all-time great in foreman, beat ali (even though he didn't get the decision) and deserved a win over norton. Byrd never quite beat any fighters on that level (holyfield doesn't count because he was past his prime). Tua also doesn't rate.

 

I think there's a bit of a double standard here. You're crediting Young for being robbed against past prime versions of Ali and Norton, but denying Byrd credit for beating a fighter on the basis that the guy was past prime himself? You really can't have it both ways. If Ali and Norton were prime in the late 70's then a lot of people really must have been fooled.

 

Question: Does Byrd get any credit for starting his career off at middleweight and for the fact that he probably should have been fighting in the light heavyweight/cruiserweight ranks during his career?

 

I don't know but its probably a very good question.. There are some here who are making concessions for Jimmy Young fighting extremely tough opposition both early and late in his career, but apparently have not taken Byrd's situation into account. I will further ad that not only was he a man who's frame was probably better suited for a lightheavy cruiserweight, but that he also fought during an era of super heavyweights. Young on the otherhand, basically competed against men who were either his size or right around those perameters.