Who has the better singular win, Chris Byrd or Mike Tyson?

Byrd's big wins.

Vitali
Holyfield


Tyson's big wins.

Spinks
Holmes


[yt]?v=HE_D0tiv1rA[/yt]

 

I don't know if Tyson's win over Holmes was better than his wins over Tucker or Berbick, given that Holmes was shot and a retired fighter. Tucker and Berbick were prime heavyweights each coming off of good wins.. That said I pick Tyson's wins over Byrd's best. The Vitali fight was hardly a conclusive ending and Holyfield was finished..

 

Chris Bryd couldn't hold a candle to prime Tyson. He really is in no position to criticize Mike. Bryd got layed out by Ike. Imagine what prime Tyson would have done to him. Chris might have lasted one round.

 

agreed. And limiting his win over spinks as a victory over "light heavyweight", as if it were that cut and dry, while omitting his wins over Berbick, Thomas, Tucker, Tubbs, Bruno, Ruddock, etc.. No way is byrd's resume that good.

 

About the same.

 

Tyson.

 

Byrd's resume is very good, but Tyson's definitely better.

Byrd: Vitali, shot Holyfield, Tua, Oquendo, McCline, Williamson, Bert Cooper (past prime), Purrity, Phil Jackson, Lionel Butler, Castillo

Tyson: Spinks, old Holmes, Tucker, Ruddock*2, Bruno*2, Thomas, Smith, Berbick, Seldon, Carl Williams, Biggs, Stewart, Tillis, Savarese

Not to mention that Tyson beats Byrd easily prime4prime

And I'm fan of both.

 

Firstly can we even call Byrd Vitali a victory?

A 38 year old Holmes probably would beat that version of Holyfield.

Greatness isn't about one single win, its about your whole body of work.

 

That's really the basic question here. If it's seen as a legit win like any other, then yes that's a better single win than any Tyson has. But Vitaly really only lost to injury didn't he? Haven't seen the fight, but I gather he was coasting to victory when he injured his shoulder badly. That speaks of the quality of his shoulder at that moment rather than the quality of Byrd in the fight.

All Tyson's wins were really cut and dry. Against Holmes it was the performance rather than the win. Quite a few other HWs at the time would probably have beaten that version Holmes, but none of them would have KO'd him like that.

Biggs, Tucker, Ruddock and Golota (well, technically a NC) were probably Tyson's best wins IMO. Not great fighters, but all good contenders in their prime.

 

Wait, is the question which is the best win of beating prime Tyson or prime Byrd?

Surely, that isn't really a question?

A better question would be if beating Tyson in 2002 would be a better win than beating Byrd around that time. That one is actually open for debate.

But prime Tyson is probably one of the top h2h HWs of all time and a fantastic win for any fighter.

 

I find it difficult giving Byrd credit for a victory in which he did nothing.

How do we measure "better win?" is it purely by name value or performance?

Performance wise any of Tysons wins are better than Byrd.

If were going purely by name, then Byrd has Holyfield and Vitali and Tyson has Holmes.

Everyone remembers what Tyson did to Holmes, nobody remembers what Byrd did to Holyfield and i dont think anyone cares about Byrds "victory" over Vitali.

Id say Tysons wins are better, because they actually mean something historically.

 

The question is, which fighter has the best singular win.

 

Tyson Spinks

 

This is fair, I think.

 

How Can you NOT count Byrd's win over VK a victory???

When your opponent quits you win period!!

Quitting in a macho sport like boxing is more humiliation than getting KO'd!