Chris Byrd/older fighter comparisons...

[Russell]

He seems in a lot of way to be a throw back to years gone by.

His "underwhelming" size, greater defensive aptitude...

And even though he's very small among a lot of the bigger HW's of today, he's still always, always been extremely competitive, winning against some of the elite, larger HW's of today.

Beat Tua, who's regarded as one of the most powerful boxers of this era, went 12 with Wladimir...

And no ones going to argue that Jack Johnson isn' far physically stronger than Byrd, not to mention a better defensive fighter among several other things.

It's easy to point out the size of older fighters as a hinderance, but when you look at smaller fighters in todays pool of talent, they really, really don't perform as badly as some would like to imagine they would on paper.

Evander Holyfield might be the ultimate testament to that. Incredible heart which many older fighters no doubt had brought him very, very far, almost totally making up for him being a blown up Cruiser.

Thoughts?

[Russell]

Top.

[radianttwilight]

Top.

Holyfield in his HW prime was 6'2" and 210-220lbs. That's not small, especially considering his prodigious strength. There is a difference between being a blown-up cruiserweight (see Qawi-Foreman) and being a big man who hopped up a class. Nobody ever said Hearns was a blown-up welter when he fought at MW, or at least they shouldn't.

As far as Chris Byrd goes - well, there's no denying that a sub-200lb fighter could have some success in the heavyweight division. What made Byrd successful was that he used the only style that his size could make work, that elusive/defensive type.

Somebody like Bernard Hopkins (in his prime) could've fought at HW weighing in the 175lb range and probably enjoyed some success, but it seriously limits your options as far as strategy goes. You have to be fighting to survive and frustrate, as Byrd and even RJJ did.

[Sonny's jab]

Some of the greatest heavyweight fighters ever were between 180 and 200 pounds.
And most of them DID beat heavyweights who were much bigger.

So, I never understand the "could they? couldn't they?" debates.

[janitor]

Byrd is esentialy a blown up Tommy Loughran.

Holyfield is esentialy a blown up Jack Dempsey without the power and reflexes.

Byrd is a fighter who history will look kindly on. Like Tommy Loughran he had the skills but ultimately lacked the most important of the the key equalizers (power, speed, chin)

[Vantage_West]

Some of the greatest heavyweight fighters ever were between 180 and 200 pounds.
And most of them DID beat heavyweights who were much bigger.

So, I never understand the "could they? couldn't they?" debates.i agree i made a thread on this about how the cruiserwieghts diviosn has killed most of the talent. becuase guys who wiegh around 220 are sometimes thought to be able to get to cruiser. like haye for example has sweated down to get to cruiser. yet at heavy he is a easily a 6'3 220 pounder

now if you were a boxer who could make the transition you are wearing your body out to make the wieght to gbet rid of 20 pounds...that is alot of wieght regardless of how tall you are.

jeremy fucking williams did it.:patsch


it cuts the divisoin in half becuase only big heavy i.e slow guys wont make the transition.

and the smaller guys wieght drain to make the limit weakening themselves.

[Sakura]

Byrd is esentialy a blown up Tommy Loughran.

Holyfield is esentialy a blown up Jack Dempsey without the power and reflexes.

Byrd is a fighter who history will look kindly on. Like Tommy Loughran he had the skills but ultimately lacked the most important of the the key equalizers (power, speed, chin)

Agree, power and speed, but chin?

[Sonny's jab]

i agree i made a thread on this about how the cruiserwieghts diviosn has killed most of the talent. becuase guys who wiegh around 220 are sometimes thought to be able to get to cruiser. like haye for example has sweated down to get to cruiser. yet at heavy he is a easily a 6'3 220 pounder

now if you were a boxer who could make the transition you are wearing your body out to make the wieght to gbet rid of 20 pounds...that is alot of wieght regardless of how tall you are.

jeremy fucking williams did it.:patsch


it cuts the divisoin in half becuase only big heavy i.e slow guys wont make the transition.

and the smaller guys wieght drain to make the limit weakening themselves.

So true.
They moved the cruiserweight limit to 200, now where are all the guys between 200-220 ?
Mostly down in cruiser, or carrying bulk and creeping toward 240 from fight-to-fight.

Then some bright spark will conclude that since every heavyweight in title fight weighs 220, 225 or more, then the cruiser division can be upped to 210 or 220, or split off into another division. And the situation gets worse. If heavy started at 215, half the 235 pound guys would boil down to the lower division, the other half would roll towards 250.

What people fail to grasp is that THERE AREN'T THAT MANY BIG GUYS DOING BOXING, the talent isn't there.

When Haye fights Maccarenelli next week that will probably the two best HEAVYWEIGHT fighters in the UK squaring off. And if not, what's the harm in them fighting the likes of Skelton and Williams ? Haye is looking past that, and that illustrates why the divisions are unnecessary.
The story behind cruiserweight SOUNDS like a nice idea, but it hasn't worked and it hasn't been proved necessary.
Boxing's overall talent pool tails off rapidly by the time we get to guys who are big so they "cant possibly make 175", nevermind 190, 200 or whatever else. Anyone with eyes should be able to see it.

[Bummy Davis]

Byrd beat most of the big fighters he faced, he beat McCline, Big puncher Tua and Holyfield...Vlad dominated him, Ike and so did Vitali until the injury but the only thing holding him back was REAL power, He was not even a puncher like Ezzard but he had that tricky Southpaw style

[radianttwilight]

Some of the greatest heavyweight fighters ever were between 180 and 200 pounds.
And most of them DID beat heavyweights who were much bigger.

So, I never understand the "could they? couldn't they?" debates.

Byrd is a poor example to illustrate this point, though. It's widely known that he was a middleweight in his early 20s, and he's said himself that he blew up via weights to make HW.

[Sonny's jab]

Byrd is a poor example to illustrate this point, though. It's widely known that he was a middleweight in his early 20s, and he's said himself that he blew up via weights to make HW.

Well, I dont think the point needs illustrating through analogies. The facts are sufficient.
Yes, Byrd is an individual case, as are all cases.

My point is, yes, Byrd doesn't tell us anything about old-timers of 200 pounds or less beating bigger heavyweights, but the fact that guys of 180-200 pound DID beat bigger men tells us EVERYTHING.

The whole debate "could they?" is a nonsense. THEY DID, end of.

[amhlilhaus]

I wish more master boxers who could would try heavyweights, they'd be smaller but so much faster and smarter, they could do some interesting things.

[janitor]

Rumour has it that Byrd is stepping down in weight soon.

If he dose then it will make nonsense of any comparisons between him and Sonny Liston or other 200-210lb old timers.

[radianttwilight]

Well, I dont think the point needs illustrating through analogies. The facts are sufficient.
Yes, Byrd is an individual case, as are all cases.

My point is, yes, Byrd doesn't tell us anything about old-timers of 200 pounds or less beating bigger heavyweights, but the fact that guys of 180-200 pound DID beat bigger men tells us EVERYTHING.

The whole debate "could they?" is a nonsense. THEY DID, end of.

Byrd is a fairly unique cause because of his style. I don't doubt that elusive slickers can fight well at HW. James Toney is a good example - underneath all of that blubber he was relatively small, and I think he could've weighed in around 175 and still had some success at heavyweight.

What irks me about comparisons like these is that they're somewhat invalid when it comes to the actual advantages of size. The advantages of size and weight are (in a nutshell) reach, power, strength, and chin....if your style has NOTHING to do with those attributes (minus chin), then you obviously don't need to be big to compete at HW. If Mayweather Jr. was a natural 160 pounder I think he could step into the ring at no more than 170 pounds and be semi-successful - the defensive masters who rely on speed and slick defense don't NEED size for anything other than chin (and, to a smaller degree, reach and power).

Guys like Dempsey, Marciano, Fitz, for whom power and strength was a big part of their game, would actually benefit from extra size, and suffer when they gave it up.

How successful does everyone think Fitz would've been if every fighter he faced was 220+lbs, powerful, and had a solid beard, while he weighed in the supermiddle range? There's room for debate, of course, but I think we can agree that he'd be no destroyer in the HW division unless he gained size, and with it, power and chin.

EDIT - I just realized I didn't answer the last part of your post! It's a fact that the smaller fighters of the past did fight and beat some larger men, but those larger men were almost always lacking in some/every department. Truly skilled superheavies were few and far between until the 1960s/1970s. Granted, there were definately big, skilled guys (the Baers, Carnera, Willard to some degree, and many others), but there was never a top 10 stacked with them like there has been since the 1970s.

There's a difference between beating a handful of big, somewhat-skilled men over the course of a long career and having to face even bigger, world-class heavies nearly every time out.