Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by mr. magoo, Sep 2, 2022.
I think it's a function of there being unified titles and clarity.
With all do respect I don’t know if I’d personally go that far as to say he’s top 20 but he was indeed a very good fighter and I respect your opinion
Good fighter, would of been a contender in any era(though almost certainly not a champ in most 1 belt eras) overachiever
Negatives: PED use (was this confirmed?)? A flukey type win over Vitali, past his best Evander, going life and death with an aged Golota. No statement type dominant wins, never the best of his era.
I'd vote no
no. you have to have high standards. He was a good fighter and had a lot of ability, but not hall of fame level. no way close
Lol, yall have low standards hahahaha. Absolutely no.
Young Stribling was not a great fighter?
yes but it is true
Byrd was one of the weakest alphabet champs but there were worse ones!
He is less great than most other great fighters. I don't see him as having a huge greatness edge over Chris Byrd.
well Chris Byrd sure is not great fighter at all
so that does not bode well for the Stribling
Stribling had 291 professional fights & scored 129 ko
& even to assess all this fights were bum mismatch I would not call this a ' low bar "" standard
& actually he defeat several ranking contenders among this
& boxers from middleweights to the heavyweights
so is not look like low standard to me
far less accomplish boxers are on the hall of fame
Byrd was & always was about the equal of John Ruiz in heavyweight division of the time . remember back 20 year
but Byrd is something popular on this site I did notice