Completely swap the era's of young and byrd; how successful would they be?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by lufcrazy, Feb 4, 2012.


  1. Foreman Hook

    Foreman Hook ☆☆☆ G$ora ☆☆☆ Full Member

    8,234
    16
    Jul 30, 2010
    Sorry m8 - i have never seen them fights - are they worth watching??
     
  2. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    279
    Jul 22, 2004
    Personally I think it was the styles he faced rather than his approach. Stylistically Ibeabuchi was the best pressure fighter he ever faced. Although Ike may have technically be better than Foreman too in that regard

    I don't think I consider him an ATG but it depends on where your parameters of an ATG lay. Where do you draw the line, top20 HW? top 30? top40?

    Foreman imo was prime and just fundamentally flawed and overrated, but quality win none the less. Ali was past it like you said. Norton wasn't far from his best so quality performance. Shavers was a win too but no great shakes. Lyle was a good win but again nothing amazing

    As 4 wins (arguably) they easily rate over Dempsey's best 4 wins and maybe over Holmes, Liston, Wlad's and Vitali's best 4 wins. But he was never as dominant as those last 4 at least.

    You also have to look at the performances of the Ali, Norton and Foreman fights. Even if you thought he won them all they weren't great performances. There were no dominations going on. But then again he probably get's underrated for not being a pure boxer. But as a pure boxer, like Byrd, he was too much of a spoiler and even when winning didn't looked dominant or amazing

    For me as a HW he's on the level and maybe above the following: Sharkey, Baer, Byrd, Moorer, Norton and maybe even on the level of Dempsey, Walcott, Charles, Jeffries, Tunney, Foreman or Schmelling
     
  3. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    279
    Jul 22, 2004
    Did you have Young beating Dokes, I never saw that 1? Dokes was pretty good too. Anyone else want to weigh in?
     
  4. Vic-JofreBRASIL

    Vic-JofreBRASIL Obsessed with Boxing

    23,559
    5,872
    Aug 19, 2010
    I can see Byrd being more consistent and he surely would have a larger career at the top.....

    At their best, they are competitive H2H......
     
  5. Lester1583

    Lester1583 Can you hear this? Full Member

    4,426
    27
    Dec 18, 2008
    Ike was technically better, especially better than lackluster post-Ali Foreman.
     
  6. Lester1583

    Lester1583 Can you hear this? Full Member

    4,426
    27
    Dec 18, 2008
    Many rate dominance very highly.

    It's easier to be dominant when you're not facing your best challengers, isn't it?;)
     
  7. tommygun711

    tommygun711 The Future Full Member

    15,756
    102
    Dec 26, 2009
    Yeah he won, even if it was close. Young showed up out of shape but Dokes didn't land many punches while Young worked the body and was able to land some good shots. Dokes would flurry off the ropes and not land flush.
     
  8. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    279
    Jul 22, 2004
    Thanks for the insight, this ups Young's legacy for me

    I do rate dominance and spectacular performances within context over less dominant wins. It's important in distinguishing quality. Obviously when the quality of opponent goes down or way past prime it's less impressive
     
  9. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace

    82,092
    22,236
    Sep 15, 2009
    Yeah young is one of the best contenders in hw history certainly but by never being the best (as I say I had him losing to norton but beating shavers, ali and foreman) I think automatically that rules him from being considered above a dominant champion. Resume isn't the be all and end all for me, it's an important part of the puzzle however.

    On film he looks awful to say the least. A slick spoiler is a horrible combination. He never had any period of dominance unless you consider that ali beat norton, lost to young and young beat norton and ocasio.

    I'd put him in the same kinda bracket as jeannette in that he's arguably great despite never being a number 1.

    He never made the hof did he?

    He might be the best of the rest of the guys that I don't bother ranking at hw.
     
  10. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace

    82,092
    22,236
    Sep 15, 2009
    During young's best years for me this is his run

    shavers
    lyle
    ali
    lyle
    foreman
    norton (l)

    that's some schedule and a pretty damn good resume during his best years.

    conversley byrd goes like this

    vitali
    wlad (l)
    tua
    holyfield
    oquendo
    golota (d)
    mccline
    wlad (l)

    the two runs aren't too disimilar. both have a good win over a prime opponent (foreman and vitali) both have a good win against aq shot opponent (ali and holyfield) and both beat some of the best other contender types (lyle, shavers and tua, mccline).

    obviously young had a tougher schedule and maybe that accounts for byrd looking much better on film.

    I'd say that the wlad byrd lost to was much better than the norton that beat young however.

    Still I genuinely believe byrd could have matched and bettered young's schedule whereas I think young would struggle to match byrd's schedule.
     
  11. MagnaNasakki

    MagnaNasakki Boxing Junkie Full Member

    7,658
    78
    Jan 21, 2006
    Young achieved much of his success through risk management boxing.

    Anytime he had to choose between fighting, and running or covering up, he chose covering up and running every time.

    Byrd was always the more aggressive, which means, when he fought the guys Young fought, he would lose more often, because class tells when punches are flying.

    Young and Byrd are of similar quality, but Young's approach to boxing was more likely to get him results against greats.

    Both still masters of the craft.
     
  12. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace

    82,092
    22,236
    Sep 15, 2009
    How do you think his approach would have worked during byrd's era?
     
  13. MagnaNasakki

    MagnaNasakki Boxing Junkie Full Member

    7,658
    78
    Jan 21, 2006
    He'd have been utterly impotent against the Klitschko's. Hanging around, being safe, and pecking is THEIR game, and they are bigger, longer, stronger, faster, and hit harder. Just not the right style to bother them.

    I think he beats everybody else Chris did though. I think he would bring out Golota's crazy with frustration, despite Andrew having the necessary tools to beat him. Tua was just too light on ring-cutting skills and variety when he fought Byrd to get to Young often, and I can't see him getting Jimmy gone when he got through.

    Whats interesting is thinking about Ike vs. Young. I don't think Ike blasts him out with one shot like he did Byrd, but you never know, and I have really no clue how Ike handles that style.
     
  14. MagnaNasakki

    MagnaNasakki Boxing Junkie Full Member

    7,658
    78
    Jan 21, 2006
    This is actually a pretty solid point.

    Ali handled southpaws really well, but you wonder how Shavers, Lyle, and Norton would have.

    They very well might have struggled mightily with the very concept.

    I don't think George would care, in that he'd just go do the same thing anyway. He was seriously one dimensional young, but that might have finally been an advantage against kitchen defender Byrd.
     
  15. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace

    82,092
    22,236
    Sep 15, 2009
    Magna you bring some top insight to this forum.

    By that what i'm saying is an armchair fan like myself can only see so much. Someone who's lived and breathed the sport, as you obviously have, is able to see so much more.

    Two simple questions here for you, a bit off topic mind.

    1) if you could pick any era to fight in, which would it be?

    2) if you had another shot at redoing life, would you get involved in the fight game again?