Chris Byrd, the classic perspective.

True.

 

he had a very good career. call him whatever you want he had the guts to fight the big guys, and he took some good ass whippings along the way, he was tough.

let all those other 'skilled' light heavyweights try it also.

 

You are catching a lot of flack for saying Byrd was "exposed" when he might just be old, but certainly this fight raised a lot of issues about the quality of the heavyweight division over the last 10 years. After all, George was nobody at lightheavy, not an outstanding champion or something, but a man ranked far lower in his division than Wlad or Povetkin were in theirs.

1. Povetkin--I think he is under a cloud right now. His Byrd victory means nothing. He showed less against Byrd than George did. He looks like a club fighter at best with little power and ordinary skills.

2. Wlad--The Byrd knockout might be his most impressive performance. Byrd is two years older, but how impressive is it to stop a man who in turn was stopped by a man 70 lbs lighter with a 35% ko percentage. Wlad's rep takes a hit.

3. Vitali--His supporters can quote all the stats in the world, but he couldn't really hurt Byrd who in turn was a pumped up lightheavy. His rep takes a hit.

4. The heavyweight division of the last 10 years--Some will say Byrd had lost his legs, but he never had much movement and never had much power. That he could stay near the top of the heavyweight division for a decade, beating Holyfield, Vitali, Tua, McCline, etc, has to make one wonder. The George fight is like a flashlight suddenly flicked on when pointed into a darkened room and revealing the room as empty.

 

I was thinking the same thing...Heavys all dropped a notch

 

I think the ungodly amount of weight Byrd lost is being skimmed over in favor of "zomg our heavies suck!".

 

I don't think it has any significance to his results at heavyweight. The fact he made 175lbs is nowhere as relevant as the fact he looked dire at that weight. He wasn't great against povetkin, but on that fom, he would have beaten the guy last night. The weight he has lost has made him into a much weaker fighter. It's alright to say "He could have fought at 175lbs" but stick Hagler on some ridiculous diet until he managed to boil down to light welter, and he'd stink there too.

If Byrd had won and lived up to the expectations, there would be a case here. But he didn't. He took a bad beating off an underdog and looked terrible. It's like saying the Holmes/Ali fight is on any significance to Ali's career. It's obviously not.

I guess it depends on how well you think byrd would have done at 175lbs closer to his prime. I think he'd still get battered. He's just too big for the weightclass.

 

"He's just too big for the weight class."

Bryd is only six foot, far shorter than Conn, Foster, or Spinks. Saying he was too big for the weight class is just a circular argument.

My take is that we don't know how much he was 'weakened' by dropping weight and we don't know how much the extra year or so meant in Byrd going back. It might be that he just couldn't deal very well with a man with mobility and quick hands, something he did not run up against at heavyweight.

Being outsped and outboxed would be one thing. Getting blown away by a guy with not much of a punching record at 175 certainly raises questions.

 

Well, this should make it even clearer to people that Byrd is no bigger of a man than a Marciano or Dempsey or Louis or Walcott or Charles, is an inferior fighter to those men, and was very much capable of competing at heavyweight at the highest level in the modern era.

 

You don't think Byrd being 38 years old, stopped in his previous fight (and two fights prior) and dropping 38 pounds from his previous fight as well has anything to do with things? Who is to say how Byrd would have went many many years earlier closer to his prime, if in fact he might handle the dramatic weight loss at any stage of his career. The lowest Byrd fought in a 12 year stretch was 208, i am not so sure he was simply a beefed up small man. Granted he competed mostly around 210 to 220 and was giving up substancial size plenty of times, but he is still a very sizable fighter compared to past standards.

 

I think a lot of you guys are underestimating the absolutely destructive effects it has on your body to drop 40 lbs, especially at his age. Roy Jones took Toney's, Hopkins', Ruiz' and many other light heavyweights their best shots with no trouble at all. Then he lost 25 lbs down to lightheavyweight and was knocked out by two mediocre fighters, also at advanced age. Losing so much weight on the wrong side of 30 is not healthy for anybody.

Does that mean Hopkins, Toney, Ruiz and all of those were worthless fighters too now?


Sorry but to me there's just way too much evidence that losing that amount of weight severly weakens the body. And going 11 rounds with Povetkin, who throws 70 punches a round, while losing nearly every round, isn't a good thing for a 36 year old either. Swarmers ruin fighters moreso than punchers.






But, if you think this fight proves that George punches as hard as Ike Ibeabuchi and Wladimir Klitschko, go ahead. atsch

 

I never thought Chris Byrd looked much good in any fight, ever.
The epitome of a paper champion. He was always a bit of a joke to me. Was never impressed his alleged defensive skills.

I'll give him a pass on these two fights he just lost at age 37.
Still dont understand why he was ever rated highly in his prime though. My best guess is a plastic belt with "IBF" on it goes a long way in the minds of boxing fans.

 

"if you think this fight proves that George punches as hard as Ike Ibeabuchi and Wladimir Klitschko, go ahead."

My point would be that there is no evidence that George punches particularly hard at 175 at all, yet Byrd could not stand up to his punches. Ibeabuchi's only substantive ko victory was over Chris Byrd, a feat now duplicated by a light punching lightheavy. It will be very difficult under the circumstances to pump Ibeabuchi as an all-time puncher. Byrd might also be Wlad's most impressive stoppage. Certainly a little air goes out of his balloon because of this result.

It is very difficult to judge how much the losing weight should have or did weaken Byrd. So few men have done this sort of thing. The only one I can think of is Moore who dropped 31 lbs in three months from the Kalbfell to Anthony fights and 28 lbs in a few months between the Turman and Rinaldi fights. Moore was even older, and Moore won at lightheavy.

By the way, why did Byrd drop all the way to lightheavy instead of fighing at cruiser? Does anyone know?

 

Some people think he should have chosen someone as old as himself, like Reggie Johnson or Montell Griffin... They both would outbox him without any problem. He simply doesn't have the experience of facing fighters like these, his defensive and offensive skills are polished to suit fighting slower bigger fighters, they don't suit fighting fast (even at the age they are at) skillful boxers below heavyweight.

 

A broken, weight drained 37 year old now diminishes his legacy and the careers of other heavyweights? Good lord. You are nothing more than a troll that tries to mask himself with long paragraphs. This might be one of the dumbest things I have seen on esb. Truly ignorant.