Lennox Lewis vs. Chris Byrd.

I don't know, at least 100 times or more.

I don't know, given you missed something that happened over 100 times in one of those fights.

Cool.

 

Why not? They happened.

He outboxed Rahman and Ruiz in 2001-2002. He didn't even need a second fight with Rahman. Evander wasn't a spring chicken when your man beat him either.

I was only refering to Holmes.

 

The full match footage of Byrd parrying Wlad's jab says otherwise.

Well, I've went on record saying the right hand is key for Lewis. Wlad didn't knock him out in the match in question.

 

Sorry, meant no disrespect to your man. He just hasn't done anything but match Byrd the bad gate keeper's best wins.

 

Apparently you've never seen Byrd fight. You don't need to chase Chris because he doesn't have extraordinary wheels. He bends at the waste to make fighters miss and relies upon his reflexes to turn from punches or pull back out of range. All of which is worthless when your opponent has TEN inches of reach on you, is a better boxer, and is Lennox Lewis.

As I said to another, welcome to my world. You're also one that I find very little to agree with in your posts and frankly yours are worse than most. If I'm generous I'd say about 25% of your stuff is valid while most all of them are great examples of nothing but "hyperbolic trash talking". So, it isn't surprising that our perceptions are where they are.

The problem with your conclusions is that it is prefaced on an inaccurate assessment/statement. While it is true that Wlad was youthful in Klitschko/Byrd I it is not true that he was employing a "snappy jab". He was pawing with it for most of the fight because he wasn't patient and committed to it because he was in a hurry to land the right (which is very understandable as he recognized that he had a little man in front of him and he knew (believed) that if he could just land the right he could hurt him and end things early).

No. Because quickness is evidenced in two ways: movement and reaction. A younger Wlad should be quicker than an older one in terms of movement generally. And, yes, theoretically a younger Wlad could be quicker than the oldest Lewis. But it wasn't the case in this fight with this opponent - for Wlad. Young Wlad in 2000 struggled with Byrds feints (due to unfamiliarity with his style), was indecisive, and missed far too often trying to land clean rather than simply punching through Byrd. He made the same mistakes for most of the fight.

Lewis in 2002 would be far less quick than he had been in the first half of the 90s. However, he would be no less quick in 2002 against Byrd than Wlad because he would not struggle - like young Wlad - with the feints, was not indecisive, was more experienced, and would not be hesitating so - IN FACT - he would be quicker to get his punches off while the opportunities were present (i.e., Byrd was in range).

First point to that is we would have to nail down where we are defining prime in the fighters. Lewis in the first half of the 90s was quicker than ANY version of Wlad, without exception.

Assuming the later version, the "pronounced speed advantage" line is still hyperbolic nonsense. Lewis is no speed merchant but Wlad is equally pedestrian - there can be quick large sized athletes but neither of these two are anything close to what is possible (in footspeed, footwork, handspeed, and reaction time).

 

-The comment that sparked this seems to suggest you felt otherwise a few pages ago:

"He would do ostensibly the same thing Ike did in '99. Might take him longer to corner Byrd "

-I don't even know who you are. This is the first time I've seen one of your posts.

-I disagree. He started measuring with it because Byrd was parrying it. He was also against a Southpaw, which are difficult to jab to begin with so throwing more right hands are key.

-I see nothing to suggest that an older Lewis would be quicker than a younger Wlad against Byrd of all opponents. That logic doesn't even make sense, suggesting Wlad should ahve been trying to punch through Byrd instead of trying to land clean, which made him miss more? This is a weird logic defining spin because you know Wlad is quicker than the older Lewis, and it is difficult to make a case for a slower older opponent having more success. Had Lewis delt with a fighter as elusive as Byrd, we could talk, but he did not.

-An absurd claim, Wlad was always quicker.

-Wlad's exceptional speed for a man of his size has often been noted.

 

Come on..Lewis was never this fast. Wlad is ripping off 5 punch combinations in seconds, in his youth. Sure, he didn't pace himself, but make no mistake, he was damn fast for not just a big man.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62BIUCHjjRY[/url]

 

I think that you need power in order to beat Lennox Lewis, at least unless you are very close to him in size. Byrd probably never really had the right set of tools to pull this off.

So would it have been more interesting than the people dismissing Byrd’s chances think?

Yes, I think it would be.

Byrd was a box of tricks, and further to that he was a southpaw. I think he would have given Lewis fits, and might indeed have done better than he did against Wlad, for the reasons alluded to.

Ultimately however we are trying to constrain most likely scenario, and that has to be a Lewis win.

 

No. Because the full quote was "Might take him (Lewis) longer to corner Byrd

This content is protected

..."

Meaning, obviously, that Lewis of 2002 wasn't the much quicker of foot (and lighter) version from the first half of the 90s.

Right. But as active a poster as you are I've seen more than a few of yours.

I've already answered. I can't change what I saw about Wlad's 2000 performance against Byrd.

This content is protected

And I see nothing of merit in your contentions.

Wlad's "exceptional speed" is another fiction unless you mean decent speed in comparison to other large sized athletes of limited talent, fitness, and athleticism fighting in this era.

 

-We are discussing 2002 Lewis.

-Glad to have a fan.

-Nor would you wish to.

-Considering you are arguing that a slower man would become faster than a faster man against a fast opponent, I'm not surprised.

-I don't know about that, Wlad's hands have been quicker or on par with the vast majority of his opponents despite being much larger. Haye, Byrd, Chambers, and Sultan in particular.

 

You have trouble with comprehension? Reread and try again.

There are a half dozen here that I don't agree with on the whole. Your posts are just closer to the bottom than most. I don't mean that to bother you - it's just the truth.

Why? I don't have a personal horse in the race and I don't judge talent, athleticism, or athletes based upon personalities. I think Wlad seems like a nice guy. And, I don't blame him for the lack of credible opposition available to fight. I don't think he would duck anyone the way his career has developed anyway - there is just no one decent pursuing the sport overall. Even after the Sanders loss, I'd bet he could have been quickly compelled back into the ring for a rematch if his brother was not also available to intercede or be put into the picture.

Comprehension. Work on it. It will help.

The first part of the answer (and it shouldn't be necessary to provide the obvious but you seem to need to cling to the frailest points of fact) is that he has been because it isn't hard to be quicker than those that are of equal size or nearly equal size when the talent pool is dire. Being quicker than inferior athletes is merely being quicker than inferior athletes. That is relative quickness not nominal quickness. And, it means nothing more than it should to an objective eye.

The second part is that in the smallest opponents you've mentioned (Byrd, Chambers, and Ibragimov) their "handspeed" is mitigated by their other obvious shortcomings/deficiencies and that all three are the farthest from being speed merchants (the caveat being Chris - quick but he slaps) that one could pick (none of them - including Chris - have good wheels). If speed could be considered in a vacuum then RJJ could have remained at HW and beat Lennox. No one believes that, right? Does it even have to be delineated that it is the aggregate of factors, capabilities, and attributes that matter?

As for Haye, Wlad wasn't quicker nor was he on par but again it is not a contest in which one single attribute - handspeed - determines the outcome. Still, as poor as Haye's performance was on the night - Wlad's was equally poor. Haye did not do nearly enough to expect to lift the title from the champ on foreign ground on his promotion (and all that represents in professional boxing). Wlad did not land much of anything and "didn't lose" far more than actually "winning" in the ring. Haye's handspeed and corresponding punching power froze Wlad often and was the primary reason that Wlad struggled for twelve rounds to put a stamp on the fight.

 

-I can only read what you wrote. Your comment implies that 2002 Lewis would somehow do the exact same thing Ike did but it would take him longer to chase down Byrd. Than you completely backtracked on this by saying Lewis wouldn't need to chase down Byrd. If that wasn't your intention, I don't know what was. Enlighten me.

-Again, I'm glad to have you as a fan. Thanks for reading. Honestly, what do you want me to say this? Do you want it to bother me? Do you want to exchange insults? You don't like me, I get it. Moving on.

-I can only read what you wrote.

-I understand what you mean, but I disagree that Wlad's speed is an illusion.

-:huh You lost me on this one. Something, Something, Roy Jones? Jones at HW wasn't as quick or active as Byrd, he was carrying too much bulk, and there is reason to believe he would die the moment Lewis hit him. We know Byrd can take a good right cross from a big HW in the rare event he gets caught clean.

-Haye's handspeed and punching power froze Wlad? What the hell are you talking about. I'll just counter that Wlad's hand speed was comparable to that of his smaller, quicker, opponents. It's on camera for those that wish to see it or those that wish to ramble incoherent excuses for this illusion of speed.

And even though you want to dismiss it while at the same time try really hard to excuse it, Wlad's hand speed played a big factor in his ability to catch Byrd. Ike caught Byrd through relentless pressure while volume punching with upstair/downstair combinations. I think the 36 year old Lewis is going to struggle emulating either man's success in this regard.

 

Sure. I'll word it differently.

This content is protected

I am not saying he takes longer than Ike. My statement is supportive of the first statement that "He would do ostensibly the same thing Ike did in '99". Saying I don't envision this as a competitive fight - even in 2002 - doesn't mean I would expect a first round KO (even if I were to rate Lewis above Ike in '99, '00, or '02).

Nothing to do with liking you or not liking you. I just have an 180 degree opposite take on most everything you post.

Which word is troubling you? Get a dictionary.

This content is protected

This content is protected

I can't help you with your education level and reading ability.

No more or less than it was a factor for Ike or in the proposed scenario with Lewis ala 2002. Byrd is always going to get caught giving away that much size and length with no power if he is going to make any attempt to win the fight. He has to be inside with a 74" inch reach and inside he gets touched. He is not durable enough to take more than a few from punchers like Lewis, Ike, Tyson, Wlad, etc. When Ike landed clean he dropped. When Wlad landed Byrd was in range without the mass and strength to take the punch to the top and side of his head and he went down. The biggest factor is Byrd has to take to give and he can't sustain that for very long.

And I do not. So there we are. Byrd has to be in range to engage Lewis and he won't be vertical long. Simple as ....

 

-There's still quite a bit wrong with this. I don't see Lewis emulating Ike's style and Byrd/Ike was actually competitive until the knockout.

-No particular word is troubling me its the scatterbrain paragraph as a whole. Get some ADD medicine.

-We aren't talking the Jones of the Reggie Johnsonfight. We are talking the Jones of the Ruiz fight, who despite being quick was not the apex of HW quickness.

-Activity and movement is not dictated by the opponent.

-Why blue font?

-The problem isn't my driving, its the back country road I'm having to plow through.

-Ike was applying constant pressure, throwing an exceptional amount of punches a round from a variety of angles in combination to the head and body to finally catch Byrd with a left uppercut. How many KOs has Lewis scored with his left hand? if you want to continue to use Ike as a measuring stick for an aging Lewis agianst Byrd, go ahead but it isn't very practical.

-Byrd was pretty good at pecking away points with his jab and moving out of range without getting hit. I think he would have a great deal of success, sticking his jab in Lewis' chest and body. The aging Holyfield had alot of success with this strategy agianst Lewis in the rematch. Its not like Lewis is going to be hurling endless streams of combos your implying. This is how I see it, its a fantasy fight, and I believe this would be a hard fight for Lewis. In 2002, I'm not sure I favor him.

 

Never said Lewis would emulate Ike's style. "He would do ostensibly the same thing Ike did in '99". = meaning he would get the same result (i.e., hurt Chris and leave him unable to continue).

And this has what to do with the experienced Lennox of '02? As much as we can never know how Ike would have developed being about eight years younger than Lennox it shouldn't be a surprise that Ike needs more time to land or more time to workout Byrd than Lennox. I didn't say that Ike beat Byrd down in two rounds when it actually took five. I said I don't believe Byrd would be competitive with Lennox - even in 2002.

It doesn't seem to be helping you so why would I try it? But if you want to describe your career and background to try and change my less than impressed view of your thought process give it a whirl. Better yet, save it for tomorrow as the markets are now closed and I've already invested more than I prefer going back and forth with someone I find little to agree with.

No, that

This content is protected

the apex of HW quickness to date. There are ample and multiple reasons why RJJ isn't a credible heavyweight but his quickness - in isolation - on the night was nothing less than exceptional.

I'm trying to help you keep the plot by emphasizing what I'm answering or referring to. I figure the extra effort might mean I don't have to repeat myself when you get lost.

I don't have to use Ike as a measuring stick other than as to the result when I have Lewis as an arguably better club (yes, even the 2002 version) to stake Byrd with. Are you suggesting that because Lewis has a great varied right - producing the great majority of his KOs - that he is a one handed fighter? Most anyone watching his KOs would note the many left hook right hand sequences. Lewis is simply a more educated fighter than Ike of '99 and the end result for Byrd would be the same even as the tactics, implementation, and/or approach would be suited to Lewis' attributes. Byrd isn't going to stay on his bike the whole fight to stretch it out and he is going to get caught and hurt.

I don't see any comparison in the durability of Holyfield that has to inure to Byrd as it is Holyfield's ability to punch well that commanded respect in the ring and remained a threat to Lennox in their fights. Byrd is not going to "peck away" and be competitive (if you define competitive as actually winning a round or having a chance to win the fight) for any longer than he did with Ike.

Alright, enough for now. You won't convince me and we both know that is the case across the board. I told you after you first responded to me that I disagree with much of what you post - and you post a lot. I see nothing to change my view.

I'm sure you'll have one more but I really must leave my office.



Cheers.