No - because the Hall of Fame has been pretty strict with the heavyweight division on who gets inducted- in the modern era. I think so far with the exception of Norton - from the Sainted 70s - everyone who has gotten in - has had a claim to being lineal champion. As long as the bulk of their career has been in the division (unlike say Jimmy Bivins) Based on his resume, he has a case, his top 3 wins Vitali, (by injury while trailing on the cards), Tua (1 fight removed from his bout with Lewis) and Holyfield (past prime) are respectable. Plus he has a legit draw with Golota and a win over some solid guys like Mccline. Even if that fight was lackluster. He faced everyone too. Wlad 2x, Ibeabuchi etc. But at end of day if you let him gain admittance where does it end? People would want Quarry in, Povetkin in, heaven forbid Wilder. Lot of contenders stretching all the way back to the 1930s might have to slide in.
I’m a bit liberal with my personal criteria when it comes to the HOF; I think guys like Gatti and Mancini should be in. They, and fighters like them, brought a level of visceral excitement and blue-collar appeal to the sport that resonates deep with many fans. Chris, on the other hand, lacked that charisma and “Wow!” factor and was never undisputed or anything like that. He had two brutal KO losses when he was still prime, but never had an incredible win that offset those losses. If the IBHOF factored in balls of steel, then he’d easily make it due never punking from an opponent, even though he gave up major size and power advantages. Ibeabuchi, W Klitschko x2, V Klitschko, Tua, Golota…those are all big, powerful men. He deserves a lot of credit for overachieving and always being in shape and professional, but that doesn’t get him into the Hall.
The HOF is 35 years old I don't think we've reached a point where we can determine how strict or not the HOF is based on its membership. If someone in the HOF is currently in it means they were not borderline. Even Gatti hes just not as good as the fighters currently in and is thus considered borderline.
I don't know if he should be inducted, but I agree with my fellow posters about Byrd's formidable courage. He was originally a middleweight but had no problem fighting guys who outsized him. He fought evenly with Ibeabuchi before the TKO, and even there, he was stopped on his feet while slipping punches which says a lot about his abilities. A year later, he made Vitali quit (I think the fight was closer than what the officials scorecard indicated), then outpointed Maurice Harris and gave Tua a boxing lesson, hurting him in the process. Lewis opted to relinquish his IBF title rather than face him, which resulted in a vacant title fight he won against a declining but still relevant Holyfield. What followed after that will be what in my opinion lowers his standing, three very close defences (including two big guys in Golota and Mccline) and a boring match against Williamson. Not that his defences were bad fights (especially the Golota fight which was good) but he lacked the dominance expected from a great champion.
I give him an 'A for courage' (although, I believe he was a bit mentally off-kilter, myself), but Byrd really did lead a charmed career in terms of the results he garnered. He deserves credit for the reasons you cite. However, as to whether they are HOF'er-worthy, I wouldn't say so. That said, some inductions of the past have indicated a widening of the criteria in certain cases and so it's possible Byrd makes it. But he was more of a minor curiosity with a modicum of useful results - albeit some controversial ones - than he was a must-see paragon of a heavyweight practitioner.
Of course. He just needs to turn up to their events, volunteer to speak about stuff, say how great the HOF is and what a great thing it is to visit etc.
I think he may have a shot on a down year but will likely have to wait awhile like Moorer did. Then again, Moorer was a lineal champ and Byrd never was. That may be a big deciding factor.
