Chris Byrd - Could He Have Beaten Wilder?

A 39-year old Wlad won more rounds on all 3 x judges scorecards vs a prime Fury, than Wilder won on the average fans scorecards vs a severely diminished Fury.

Wilder is a poor boxer technically (relative to world class), with enormous punch power & deceptively good timing once his opponent is within his punching range. Conventional wisdom dictates that the last thing a relatively light hitting, excellent technical boxer like Fury, should do is take the fight to Wilder like he did in their 2nd & 3rd fights. I think he did so because he knew from their 1st fight, when he was severely diminished physically, that he was so superior to Wilder, he could still win by taking the fight to Wilder in entertaining fashion. If he'd adopted the same strategy as he did in their 1st fight, I grant you that Wilder would have likely lasted longer in both fights, quite possibly all 12-rounds, but I suspect he would have barely landed a punch & almost certainly would not come close to winning a single one of the potentially 24-rounds those fights may have lasted.

As I said, Wilder is dangerous to anyone & I think he gets underrated by some in a fantasy fight H2H sense, on the basis of his relatively shallow win resume. However, the Fury 1 fight reflects poorly on him, imo, such was the extent to which Fury was physically compromised following a 3-year booze & drugs binge, during which he gained & then lost c.140lbs and, given the majority of fans & media thought Fury won clearly. I think his 3rd fight with Fury reflects better on Wilder than their 1st.

 

That's not comparing like with like is it? Either compare the judges scorecards or compare the fans scorecards. Wilder was significantly more competitive either way. Boxrec had Wlad losing 118-109 (11-1) to a Fury in his world title debut, with his best opponent prior to that being Chisora or Cunningham.

Had Fury gone on from Wilder 1 to produce terrible performances that would be one thing but 15 months later he produced arguably his career best and 26 months after that KO'd Whyte in 6 while taking next to zero head damage.

"I think he did so because he knew from their 1st fight, when he was severely diminished physically, that he was so superior to Wilder, he could still win by taking the fight to Wilder in entertaining fashion."

He did it because he believed he was maximising his chances by attacking Wilder, he wasn't trying to entertain the fans. He could have entertained the fans more by walking Whyte down but he knew that at long range, Whyte had no chance of even laying a glove on him. Fury believed he was in sufficiently good shape to beat Wilder in America in fight 1 (he underestimated Wilder), especially as he knew it was likely he'd overperform relative to expectations and he believed that attacking Wilder was the best way to beat him in fights 2 and 3, rather than dance around for 12 rounds and risk a now more experienced Wilder landing on him again.

"However, the Fury 1 fight reflects poorly on him"

Relative to ATG Wlad, Whyte and Chisora it does not. Wilder was more competitive than Wlad and vastly more competitive than the others. He came close enough to plausibly win by KO with a more favourable referee. As it stands Wilder has the best performances against Fury and that reflects well on him.

 

I couldn't find published average fan scorecards for Wlad vs Fury to compare.

Based on the average published scores of all sources, a 39 year old way past prime Wlad won more rounds vs a prime Fury, than a prime Wilder won vs a severely diminished Fury.

Once Fury had got over his 3-year inactivity, drug and alcohol binge and astounding weight gain and loss, and was back to his best, he administered a terrible beating to Wilder in a horrible 1-sided mismatch, that was ever so more dominant than he was vs old man Wlad.

 

"Based on the average published scores of all sources"

Eyeonthering, Boxrec and the judges all had Wilder winning more rounds, aside from the fact that he almost KO'd Fury and Wlad didn't.

"a 39 year old way past prime Wlad"

If Wlad had been "way past prime" he wouldn't have fought Fury, who Wlad's old trainer said was the biggest threat to him and "the next dominant heavyweight". Wlad had home advantage, A-side advantage, 18 consecutive defences vs a 4/1 underdog making his world title debut. The idea that P4P No.2 Wlad was "well past his prime" was a retcon to explain away how he got clowned and nullified after years feasting on relatively inferior, usually far smaller opposition (such as Byrd), with octopus tactics. Wlad then looked much better 17 months later vs Joshua, even though he managed to lose again. But if a 38 year old, 2 KO losses in his last 3 fights Wilder KO's Joshua there will no doubt be more excuses: the version who fought Wlad with 3.5 years pro experience, 18 pro fights, who'd never been past 7 rounds and had one tough pro fight will be the best ever version by a wide margin.

"administered a terrible beating to Wilder in a horrible 1-sided mismatch"

With entirely different tactics from those he used under Peter Fury. Had that Fury fought Wlad perhaps he crushes him in similar fashion. But we know that when Wlad and Wilder fought a defensive Fury, Wilder performed significantly better. How far they were below their best is pure speculation; if they don't feel it's a fair fight based on age/wear/lifestyle/preparation then they shouldn't get in the ring. Wilder then performed better in fight 3 than Wlad did as well.

 

Hang on, you think a 39 year old athlete was in their prime?

 

Athletes have been older than that and been in their prime, in sports where athletes generally peak earlier. Wlad had produced a career best performance 12 months prior and benefitted from huge advantages in terms of politics and experience.

 

It's well established that athletes are more than a bit past their natural prime by age 39.

Besides, you just had to use your eyes to compare prime Wlad with the version from the Jennings, let alone Fury, fight, to see he had slipped considerably.

 

It varies on the athlete enormously. Wlad was far better at 39 than he was at 27, when he was getting KO'd by fringe contenders every couple of fights. He had significant advantages in terms of experience and politics to compensate for physical decline. People weren't talking about P4P No.2 Wlad having slipped significantly until Fury schooled him. If Wlad believed that he had slipped significantly I don't believe he would have fought Fury given what Steward had told him.

Jennings was the most athletic mover Wlad had fought since Haye, probably with the longest reach of any Wlad opponent pre-Fury. Wlad wasn't allowed to clinch and lean as much in America (his first time fighting there in 7 years) as he was in Germany, also didn't have a funny canvas. And he still won between 9-11 of the rounds on the cards, 10 on Boxrec, while taking minimal head damage (Jennings' main success was to the body). It was a Sultan-esque schooling, which people found underwhelming relative to the Pulev demolition. Ortiz took Jennings out next fight which made Wlad look bad but Ortiz hurt Jennings on the inside (which was never Wlad's forte), wasn't as dominant in the boxing as Wlad and took a lot more head damage than Wlad.

 

People were commenting on Wlad's slipping post Jennings. Frankly, and no disrespect intended, if they couldn't see Wlad had substantially slipped in a competitive 12 round fight, against a guy dominated and blown away by Luis Ortiz in his very next fight, then they were either biased, don't know what there watching or hadn't seen a prime Wlad.

By that stage Ortiz was clearly better than Wlad. Yet during his prime years Wlad won over 20 World title fights. Which is over 20 world title fights more than Ortiz.

Yes, Wlad was past prime by 39. His fights with Jennings and Fury clearly demonstrate this, and, of course he was, he was 39!

 

People didn't think Wlad slipped that much because 98% of fans , pundits , trainers , pros, journos etc were fully convinced he was going to put Fury to sleep.

This is reality , not fantasy based revisionism. If Wlad had really slipped like people like to pretend these days then he wouldn't have been favoured to beat Fury by an overwhelming margin.
To further emphasis the lie that he was washed up after Jennings , his fanboys insisted for years after that he would have beaten Fury in a rematch. Nobody regains prime , when its gone its gone. If you're taking Wlad in the rematch then you dont genuinely believe he was that far gone in the first place. Simple as that.

There's more. Only 6 months separated the Pulev and Jennings performances. One he got praise for , the other not so much.

Was it Wlad that was different in those two fights or were the opponents vastly different in styles?

Obviously the later. Same Klitschko. One style made him look good the other has always made him look mediocre.

The signs of Wlad losing to Fury were there when he couldn't land a right hand on David Haye over 12 rounds. He was in the prime of his career for that one

 

I don't care what Byrd said during retirement or any fighter for that matter, a lot of boxers are humble during retirement and Byrd is some weird hippie vegan nice guy and was the last American HW champ before Wilder, of course he's gonna give Wilder his props.

That being said has anyone ever seen Wilder box? Wilder is simply a byproduct of American hype due to our lack of HW talent for the past 20 years. The man is an absolutely abysmal boxer, he's there to be outboxed, the only reason Fury was the first one to do it and knocked him out is because Wilder fought about 3 or 4 top 10 rated guys in total not named Fury in a weak HW division in 44 fights. Byrd on the other hand has fought a who's who of HW champs, legends and contenders. Byrd would easily beat anyone in Wilders resume not named Fury and I'd give him a better chance than what Wilder managed to do. Wilder would get ko'd by David Tua, Vitali Klitschko, Wladimir Klitschko, Oldfield, Ike Ibeau, Povetkin who he ducked and Ross Purritty on a good night. If Golota doesn't go insane and get dq'd I'd favor him as well as well as possibly Jameel McCline who was a big tall guy and pretty durable, fought big punchers and even has a better resume than Wilder in Shannon Briggs and Michael Grant.

Byrd would win every round, it would be a disgusting one sided fight, Wilder wouldn't even be a contender in Byrd's era, especially if he fought better competition.

 

Fury ducked the contracted rematch.

Not only did he duck the rematch he became depressed and borderline suicidal even at the thought of a rematch, imagine if Oliver McCall never rematched Lewis due to "mental health" reasons

Prime David Haye would probably beat Fury too, it would certainly be the best fighter on his resume not named Wlad. Too bad Haye's body was destroyed when that fight was announced, Haye from the Ruiz fight would of been heavily favored in my opinion.

 

Its easy to pick Wilder to lose against guys who retired decades ago. Put your house on Joshua to beat Wilder NOW and see how confident you are.

Most people see Wilder blowing Joshua away

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...r-vs-anthony-oluwafemi-olaseni-joshua.708190/

Now why would such a bum be the overwhelming favourite against an Olympic Gold, highly skilled and very powerful guy like AJ?

Because its not 2014 anymore and most people have figured out by now that its not Wilder skill that wins fights. Its his diffuser that can come out of nowhere and end the fight in the blink of an eye. You're walking the plank against this guy , one mistake and its over.

LOL @ thinking a useless slow lump like McCline could avoid Wilder. He couldn't avoid a 4 rond demolition job from Arreola.
Wilder mangled Arrolea with just one arm.

As for Byrd ... Williamson , Oquendo , McCline and Golota all landed on his easily. Thats enough data to to know for certain Wilder would as well. Doesn't take a genius to figure out the end result.

 

Couple decades ago? Byrd was a modern era fighter, he fought in the 00's, most of his fights are available in high definition.

Why are you mentioning post Ruiz and Usyk Joshua like it means something? If Wilder really wanted the fight it could of happened when Joshua was the unified champion instead Wilder and his team swerved Joshua with that ridiculous offer back in 2018. There's a number of guys on Byrd's resume who'd knockout this version of Joshua, did you see his fight against a 2 days notice Helenius?

I repeat, in 44 fights and 15 years as a professional Wilder has only fought 2 I repeat 2 fighters ranked in the top 10 not named Fury. I actually had to look up the top 10 ring rated fighters each year to find this out, I thought Wilder fought more but nope.
Luis Ortiz who was rank number 5
Bermane Stiverne who was rank 2

That's ****ing pathetic, I mean really.

Jameel McCline was shot to smithereens when he fought Arreola in 2009, he was 1-3 in his last 4 coming into that fight and Arreola himself was shot when he fought Wilder. A prime McCline from around 2002 who beat Shannon Briggs and Michael Grant would honestly be my betting favorite against Wilder, he's comparable in height and reach to Wilder, was heavier and durable and fought more ranked opposition than Wilder, he'd be my betting favorite vs him.

Sorry, but I'm just not convinced Wilder would be able to beat a prime Byrd from the early 00's, he just doesn't have that skillset. Wilder would of never even hold a belt in Byrd's era or any era prior. He's one dimensional, avoid his punch and you win. A disgusting byproduct of the lack of American talent at HW.

 

Way too much hyperbole going on here:
1. Wlad was slightly past his prime, but Fury's win was a major scalp and nobody saw it coming.
2. Fury was not past his prime for Wilder 1 and Wilder's performance was obviously better than Wlad's.
3. McCline would be a massive underdog against Wilder and anyone who doesn't know that doesn't know boxing.