Chris Byrd versus Jerry Quarry

[goose 5]

12 rounds.

[Onetimeonly]

Byrd 8-4 ish

[DrDuke]

Byrd was smarter, faster, slick enough to outbox Quarry.

[Djanders44]

Quarry has his moments early, but Byrd takes the unanimous decision here, in my opinion.

[Woldemar]

Byrd UD

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Byrd has size, speed, skill advantage

Shutout

[Tony1244]

Byrd UD

X2

[Ambling Alp II]

We may be in a new era. For years, Quarry was the one of the biggest overachievers in mythical fights. Doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

Byrd was good defensively, but people get carried away with it. He could be hit.
The opponent most similar to Byrd was probably Jimmy Ellis, though Ellis was not a southpaw. Ellis was better than Byrd. Quarry lost a close decision to Ellis. I think Quarry has just enough to beat Byrd.
Might the familiar pattern of a Quarry fight: Quarry starts out strong. Assuming Byrd survives the early rounds, Byrd wins the middle rounds as Quarry goes into punching bag mode. Then Quarry comes on in the later rounds. He does just enough to grab the decision.

[elmersalsa]

Chris Byrd would give Jerry Quarry a boxing lesson

[DrDuke]

Ellis was better than Byrd.

If only in losing to middleweights.

[Ambling Alp II]

Good call. He lost to Mims, Benton, Don Fullmer, Rubin Carter, and Henry Hank, in his first years as a pro. How embarrassing. Talk about fighting a bunch of stiffs on your way up. Didn't even realize Byrd was a middleweight.

As a heavyweight, he beat Bonavena, Quarry, Patterson, Martin, and Chuvalo.
Meanwhile Byrd was just giving boxing lessons. did get a draw with Golota, that he shouldn't have. He did stop he who shall not be named and beat a disinterested Tua.
It's too bad that there isn't any video of either Ellis or Byrd so that we could tell who was better.

[DrDuke]

Meanwhile Byrd was just giving boxing lessons. did get a draw with Golota, that he shouldn't have. He did stop he who shall not be named and beat a disinterested Tua.

Why not to mention Vitali, whom you had down on your card?

[BoxBuzz]

We may be in a new era. For years, Quarry was the one of the biggest overachievers in mythical fights. Doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

Byrd was good defensively, but people get carried away with it. He could be hit.
The opponent most similar to Byrd was probably Jimmy Ellis, though Ellis was not a southpaw. Ellis was better than Byrd. Quarry lost a close decision to Ellis. I think Quarry has just enough to beat Byrd.
Might the familiar pattern of a Quarry fight: Quarry starts out strong. Assuming Byrd survives the early rounds, Byrd wins the middle rounds as Quarry goes into punching bag mode. Then Quarry comes on in the later rounds. He does just enough to grab the decision.

I agree.....

[margaret thatcher]

ya bryd was outboxing vitali's ass, up on the alp card, and then stopped him. that's a serious win for sure

[DrDuke]

ya bryd was outboxing vitali's ass, up on the alp card, and then stopped him. that's a serious win for sure

Did you even see the fight? Vitali was winning 7-2 before retiring due to a shoulder injury.

Tell that to Alpy, our main weirdo and Vitali fan.

[Ambling Alp II]

I have said numerous times that it was a horrible fight. I had Byrd up by a point. Neither guy was doing much of anything. There is no way that Klitschko should have been up 7 rounds to 2. Klitschko wimped with just three rounds to go, and somehow gets credit for some sort of achievement.

[Ambling Alp II]

Meanwhile Byrd was just giving boxing lessons. did get a draw with Golota, that he shouldn't have. He did stop he who shall not be named and beat a disinterested Tua.

Why not to mention Vitali, whom you had down on your card?

He was such a legend that I didn't think I needed to mention his name. Why don't you say why Chris Byrd was somehow better than Jimmy Ellis? So far, all you have come up with is a dig at what Ellis did at middleweight because you didn't realize who he was fighting and the stage of his career. Anything else ?

[AngryGoon38]

A Draw.

[DrDuke]

Meanwhile Byrd was just giving boxing lessons. did get a draw with Golota, that he shouldn't have. He did stop he who shall not be named and beat a disinterested Tua.

Why not to mention Vitali, whom you had down on your card?

He was such a legend that I didn't think I needed to mention his name. Why don't you say why Chris Byrd was somehow better than Jimmy Ellis? So far, all you have come up with is a dig at what Ellis did at middleweight because you didn't realize who he was fighting and the stage of his career. Anything else ?

I perfectly realized, whom Ellis had been fighting even without your narrow-minded commentry, which didn't mention, for example, a controversial nature of the Patterson decision and the fact of Pattersom being past it, while you mentioned, that Tua had somehow been "disinterested". But if you ask for it so much, Ok, I'll tell ya. Byrd was better than Ellis because he was a faster, smarter and more elusive boxer.

[DrDuke]

I have said numerous times that it was a horrible fight. I had Byrd up by a point. Neither guy was doing much of anything. There is no way that Klitschko should have been up 7 rounds to 2. Klitschko wimped with just three rounds to go, and somehow gets credit for some sort of achievement.

It was a horrible fight for ya, because a one, whom you always try to discredit so desperately and vainly, was winning clearly.

[Ambling Alp II]

Why not to mention Vitali, whom you had down on your card?

He was such a legend that I didn't think I needed to mention his name. Why don't you say why Chris Byrd was somehow better than Jimmy Ellis? So far, all you have come up with is a dig at what Ellis did at middleweight because you didn't realize who he was fighting and the stage of his career. Anything else ?

I perfectly realized, whom Ellis had been fighting even without your narrow-minded commentry, which didn't mention, for example, a controversial nature of the Patterson decision and the fact of Pattersom being past it, while you mentioned, that Tua had somehow been "disinterested". But if you ask for it so much, Ok, I'll tell ya. Byrd was better than Ellis because he was a faster, smarter and more elusive boxer.

Yes some people thought Patterson should have got the decision. Interesting that when it's your buddy Klitschko, it's the official scoring that counts. Doesn't seem to matter that he lost the fight.
You do realize that makes you argument for Byrd look weaker, right?
However, with Ellis-Patterson, the official scoring is not what we are supposed to go with.

Byrd was faster? Ellis certainly moved much better. Not sure why Byrd was smarter.

Ellis certainly had more power. He certainly has a better victim list than Byrd. I liked Byrd. Seemed like he was a good guy. He wasn't as good as Ellis.

[DrDuke]

He was such a legend that I didn't think I needed to mention his name. Why don't you say why Chris Byrd was somehow better than Jimmy Ellis? So far, all you have come up with is a dig at what Ellis did at middleweight because you didn't realize who he was fighting and the stage of his career. Anything else ?

I perfectly realized, whom Ellis had been fighting even without your narrow-minded commentry, which didn't mention, for example, a controversial nature of the Patterson decision and the fact of Pattersom being past it, while you mentioned, that Tua had somehow been "disinterested". But if you ask for it so much, Ok, I'll tell ya. Byrd was better than Ellis because he was a faster, smarter and more elusive boxer.

Yes some people thought Patterson should have got the decision. Interesting that when it's your buddy Klitschko, it's the official scoring that counts. Doesn't seem to matter that he lost the fight.
You do realize that makes you argument for Byrd look weaker, right?
However, with Ellis-Patterson, the official scoring is not what we are supposed to go with.

Byrd was faster? Ellis certainly moved much better. Not sure why Byrd was smarter.

Ellis certainly had more power. He certainly has a better victim list than Byrd. I liked Byrd. Seemed like he was a good guy. He wasn't as good as Ellis.

The thing is, the Patterson-Ellis outcome gives a reason to think on the decision, while arguing about the Klitschko-Byrd scores sounds silly.

Byrd was faster than Ellis. Maybe not on his feet, but with his hands. He lacked power, but he had a much better defence and was a harder target.

Their victim lists are about the same in quality.

Chuvalo and Bonavena weren't really better than Tua.

Wins over Quarry and Patterson were about as arguable, as the decisions vs Golota and Oquendo. And Byrd handled fading Holyfield in a much more convincing way than Ellis won fading Patterson.

[Ambling Alp II]

The Ellis-Patterson fight could have gone either way. Arguing the score of the klitschko-Byrd is not silly. Neither fight did anything. there is no way that one guy won 7 of the rounds. Even if you think Klitschko did somehow win of the rounds, then that means Byrd lost 7 rounds. That is evidence against Byrd.

You can't have it both way as far as Klitschko goes. You can't make a big deal of official scoring for Klitschko, but then argue about it with Ellis.
More importantly, the Ellis-Patterson fight was a much better fight. Ellis performed much better than Byrd.

Byrd was maybe marginally faster with his hands. He didn't have a better defense. When he fought a guy who brought some pressure, Byrd always got stopped

The victims list isn't even close. Tua performed awful against Byrd. Did almost nothing. Ellis would have beaten Tua of that fight easily. Byrd looked awful against Klitschko, and then won because Klitschko wimped out.

He beat a shot Holyfield. A prime Ellis would certainly have beaten that version of Holyfield.
Patterson still had something left when Ellis fought him. In fact, he beat Bonavena more than three years later.

Beating Quarry, Bonavena, Martin, Chuvalo and Patterson, is far better than what Byrd did. It's not even close.

[DrDuke]

Tua performed awful against Byrd.

Maybe because Byrd didn't allow him to do better?

Once again, you've repeated your stuff with your bias. When your fighter wins some guy, that's a win and nothing else. When not your fighter wins some guy, the least one performed awful, did nothing, etc, etc.

Trademark Alpie.

Pointless discussion.

[Ambling Alp II]

Oh, I'm sorry, is that what happened with Tua? Byrd didn't let him throw punches.
Even if we pretend that is the case, a win over Tua certainly doesn't mean he had a better career as a guy who beat Quarry, and Patterson, and Martin, and Bonavea, and Chuvalo.

Of course there is such a thing as an ugly win. Just don't think any of Elli's wins (that were mentioned) were ugly. Ellis is not "my guy" either. I'm pretty neutral with him. I liked Byrd. Liked a lot of guys; some were better than others.

As for bias, look at what you are doing with the Klitschko-Byrd fight.
You spin it positively for Klitschko because he was a head on the official scorecards. Who cares if he you know, lost.
Then you spin it positively for Byrd. Now, the official scorecard doesn't seem to matter. It just matters that Byrd won.

That it was a god awful fight doesn't seem to matter to you at all. Both performed horribly, and Klitschko quit like a dog.

Ellis wasn't a legend. Byrd didn't suck. But Ellis was clearly better than Byrd.