Well if Walcott could do it, and Byrd did it to Vitali.. Plus he's bigger, got a good chin, good handspeed. I can see how people are picking him. I need to see PP's analysis.
Well Carnera totally dominated Loughran, who I suspect was a better boxer than Byrd. Of course, Byrd was bigger, but that fight wasn't close at all.
All of this, Byrd was a good fighter, and nails as well to be that undersized and brave. But 'The Brown Bomber'??? No ****in' chance
Obviously you're trolling. But 'if Walcott could do it?' Did Walcott deffo' win the first, I'm not sure. Either way he got pulverised secod time round. Louis wouldn't need to catch up to Byrd. Also, Vitali is dreadful.
And yet Loughran looks far better in that fight than David Haye did implementing similar tactics against big blokes.
Whilst beating vitali, tua and holyfield secured his place in history, there is no fukin way anyone could actually expect byrd to win this fight. He potentially might survive but even that's a big ask.
you mean the same Walcott who most observers felt he won the first fight, but a comfortable margin? The same walcott, who like in the first fight was clowning Joe Louis, and dominating the vast majority of the second fight as well... Only to clown one to many times and get caught? Or how about Conn dominating the vast majority of the first fight, and be well on his way to a UD, until he decided to (which he didn't need to) to go for the KO in the last rounds? Yes, those "dominating" performances sure convince me of Louis against Cruisers.
Louis would get him eventually but Byrd would win 1 or 2 rounds and make a good account of himself I reckon.