Jack Sharkey v. Chris Byrd

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by mrkoolkevin, Apr 12, 2021.

  1. Colonel Sanders

    Colonel Sanders Classic discussion : small vs big, old vs modern Full Member

    6,812
    3,049
    Sep 13, 2012
    Byrd more skilled than Louis? Oopsie
     
  2. Kamikaze

    Kamikaze Stud Pony Full Member

    2,562
    2,769
    Oct 12, 2020
    When did Jack Dempsey ever face Louis?
     
  3. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    56,692
    18,139
    Nov 24, 2005
    Byrd walked around at 185 pounds between fights.
    He had to eat himself up to 210 or whatever, and it's debatable whether his announced weights were accurate or not.
     
    Kamikaze likes this.
  4. janitor

    janitor Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    65,432
    14,650
    Feb 15, 2006
    When they shook hands.
     
    Kamikaze likes this.
  5. Colonel Sanders

    Colonel Sanders Classic discussion : small vs big, old vs modern Full Member

    6,812
    3,049
    Sep 13, 2012
    My bad, I thought you were talking about Sharkey.
     
    Kamikaze likes this.
  6. Kamikaze

    Kamikaze Stud Pony Full Member

    2,562
    2,769
    Oct 12, 2020
    “Down goes Jan, Down goes Jan!”
     
  7. Colonel Sanders

    Colonel Sanders Classic discussion : small vs big, old vs modern Full Member

    6,812
    3,049
    Sep 13, 2012
    Byrd was fat, no reason to doubt he was the announced weight.
     
    Unforgiven likes this.
  8. Colonel Sanders

    Colonel Sanders Classic discussion : small vs big, old vs modern Full Member

    6,812
    3,049
    Sep 13, 2012
    Sharkey is better on offense and Byrd better on defense. They are fairly evenly matched.
     
  9. janitor

    janitor Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    65,432
    14,650
    Feb 15, 2006
    That is a reasonable position.

    I just think that Sharkey is more of an all rounder.

    Byrd is outstanding on defense, and crap on offence.

    Sharkey is strong on defense and strong on offence.

    Sharkey was, the best fighter in the world from the neck down, as Muldoon once so well put it!
     
    Colonel Sanders likes this.
  10. Colonel Sanders

    Colonel Sanders Classic discussion : small vs big, old vs modern Full Member

    6,812
    3,049
    Sep 13, 2012
    :D
     
  11. Colonel Sanders

    Colonel Sanders Classic discussion : small vs big, old vs modern Full Member

    6,812
    3,049
    Sep 13, 2012
    I agree with that.
     
    janitor likes this.
  12. Man_Machine

    Man_Machine Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,004
    4,652
    Jun 9, 2010
    50/50 bout, which starts promisingly, but gradually descends into a stinker, as Byrd is content to move, potshot, slide away, rinse and repeat.

    That said Sharkey is the bigger fighter, with a stronger offense. Does Byrd's negative, action-draining style flummox The Boston Gob? Or, does the Sharkey attack break through Byrd's defenses and repeatedly force him out of his shell?

    I wouldn't place a bet on this one.
     
    Colonel Sanders likes this.
  13. Seamus

    Seamus Devotee of the Little Red Book Full Member

    45,252
    17,728
    Feb 11, 2005
    Sharkey wasn't exactly ripped to the bone.

    I would contend that Byrd had a more formidable offensive arsenal, head to head, by quite a ways, much more varied, innovative, creative. He would have a field day against Sharkey. But I'm using my eyeballs. Maybe they need to get checked.
     
  14. Colonel Sanders

    Colonel Sanders Classic discussion : small vs big, old vs modern Full Member

    6,812
    3,049
    Sep 13, 2012
    Poor Byrd doesn't even have a hook. He has a flicking jab he throws with his glove open and a decent straight left, moreso to the body than the head. He is ok as a counterpuncher. He's quick. He has little power. He works angles well.

    That's it. Maybe your eyeballs see more. Do share if they do.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2021
    70sFan865 likes this.