Really? Really? Look what treatment those 70s fighters get,, Young, Quarry, Shavers, Norton. People act as if they would beat the champs of other eras. Which is just bull****. Yeah, he had some assets in which he was better than Byrd, he was worse in others. They are of similar skills and class. That´s why I made this thread.
Yeah they get good treatment. and rightfully so. those guys would probably have chances to be champs in other eras. Espescially now with all the belts that get passed around and all the belts that are available. This is all opinion. Bottom line is those guys are very good fighters. It was a stacked era in general. this fight is too close to call but ill side with young because he had more impressive performances against better opposition
That 1977 version of George Foreman would have caught and destroyed Chris Byrd..Ike Ibeabuchi would have been outpointed by Young...and Wlad would have probably outpointed Young in a fight that would have resembled Whitaker-De La Hoya IMO...no way he would have decked or destroyed Young like he did Byrd. Young was more elusive and clever with upper body movement than was Byrd and it goes without saying that he had a far superior chin.
Young is just a higher class. Byrds one of my favorite post 2000 heavyweights but he wasn't really all that against guys who had skills of their own and could move. He could be outjabbed and outmanuevered, it's why he fought at heavyweight.
They get too good treatment. The era was good, not as good as some make it out to be though. They wouldn´t be anything different in most eras. Today they´d be able to get a belt, I agree there. Well, not necessarily right now though. See, the last sentence is something that makes sense. But saying Young was in a different class doesn´t.
Let's face it, this fight is pretty much a toss-up. You can make a good case either way, and part of the trickiness of it all is that these guys are very SIMILAR in some ways. I'd be rooting for Jimmy, but if forced to bet a hundred bucks I'd probably feel a little safer betting on Byrd.
It would depend more so on the judges than the fighters involved. Because of both fighters' styles, they would find it very difficult to dominate the other for any significant period of time and thus the scoring would be razor-close on any objective judges' scorecards. The cold reality might be that with Byrd's tendency to win tight decisions and even outright robberies due to his management, and Young's tendency to lose them, it would probably be Byrd walking away with the decision. But on neutral ground it could go either way. A draw could be on the cards as well.
NOBODY rips Jimmy up and down, not even past prime Jimmy. I really like Byrd, but I think Young schools him, Jimmy's moving foward with the jab, sneaky fast straight right, and better defense. And don't knock 70s fighters in ant weight class, they were the ****.
This post is the ****..:thumbsup..I agree with everything you've said..the 70's were the Golden Age as far as I'm concerned...and Young would have boxed Byrd's ears off. I'm sick of the underestimation of Jimmy Young..he not only was harder to tag than a phantom, but he raised sneakiness to an art form,,and he had a world class chin...he would have outclassed Byrd.
It could go either way and we'll never ever know for sure, though one of my fantasies about heaven is that there are big TVs and God shows fantasy fights all day and we finally know the answers to these questions. But guys, can't you see how Jimmy Young is tearing us apart, turning brother against brother on this site? He's a lightning rod. He's the Berlin Wall of ESB. Personality tests are being based on Jimmy Young "How you feel about Jimmy Young says something about your personality"...it was in The Enquirer last week, and I hear Cosmo is going to run it too. Psychologists are using him for testing. In fact, the last time I took a Rorsharch Test I saw a Jimmy Young with tentacles and butterfly wings...it was beautiful.