Who ranks higher historically? Chris Byrd or Ingemar Johansson

[Joson]

In terms of ability, Byrd would have handled Johnansson easily. Would have whipped him.

But if the question's asking, which guy made more of an impact on his era, and in terms of historical significance, well, that's a tougher one to answer.

Ingo's third round KO over Floyd Patterson, even if it was a fluke, certainly rocked the world. From a show business perspective, and in terms of making boxing history, that's quite a feat. I don't know that Byrd has any similar capstone wins.

But again, Byrd would have had a picnic in the ring with Ingo. Easy victory for Chris, either a shut-out decision or a later round TKO.

[funso banjo baby]

Ingo was the world champion

[DrDuke]

Ingo was the world champion

Byrd too.

[keithmoonhangover]

Was Byrd ever the universally recognised #1 in the division? No. He was a contender, who carried a belt that meant nothing to the history of boxing.

[HomicideHenry]

Ingo was the world champion

In a single belt era.

One might make an argument that it is far harder to become undisputed champion in a multi-belt era than it is a singular belt era.

[DrDuke]

Was Byrd ever the universally recognised #1 in the division? No. He was a contender, who carried a belt that meant nothing to the history of boxing.

Who was #1 in 2005?

[keithmoonhangover]

Was Byrd ever the universally recognised #1 in the division? No. He was a contender, who carried a belt that meant nothing to the history of boxing.

Who was #1 in 2005?

He wasn't the universally recognised #1 and at no point did he beat the the man. Just another guy with a belt that meant nothing.

[DrDuke]

Was Byrd ever the universally recognised #1 in the division? No. He was a contender, who carried a belt that meant nothing to the history of boxing.

Who was #1 in 2005?

He wasn't the universally recognised #1 and at no point did he beat the the man. Just another guy with a belt that meant nothing.

Not saying, that he was, but who was #1 in 2005?

[HomicideHenry]

Was Byrd ever the universally recognised #1 in the division? No. He was a contender, who carried a belt that meant nothing to the history of boxing.

Who was #1 in 2005?

He wasn't the universally recognised #1 and at no point did he beat the the man. Just another guy with a belt that meant nothing.

Now, now... when Lewis retired the only belt holders were Ruiz, Byrd and Brewster. The WBC title was vacant in the Klitscko-Sanders fight.

On the basis of the win he became the consensus "man" of the division only because of his brave performance against Lennox Lewis. It must be noted he never fought Byrd nor did he fight Ruiz who would regain the vacant WBA title that Jones gave up when he returned to 175.

It would not be until Wladimir Klitschko unified the titles later on would there really be a consensus #1 heavyweight champion.

[DrDuke]

In 2005, after Vitali retired for the 1st time, before Wladimir unified, the Ring left the champion spot opened, while the following list was like that:

1. Chris Byrd
2. Hasim Rahman
3. James Toney
4. Lamon Brewster
5. John Ruiz
6. Monte Barrett
7. Calvin Brock
8. Wladimir Klitschko
9. Samuel Peter
10. Nicolay Valuev

[HomicideHenry]

In 2005, after Vitali retired for the 1st time, before Wladimir unified, the Ring left the champion spot opened, while the following list was like that:

1. Chris Byrd
2. Hasim Rahman
3. James Toney
4. Lamon Brewster
5. John Ruiz
6. Monte Barrett
7. Calvin Brock
8. Wladimir Klitschko
9. Samuel Peter
10. Nicolay Valuev

https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/The_R ... ings:_2005

[keithmoonhangover]

Who was #1 in 2005?

He wasn't the universally recognised #1 and at no point did he beat the the man. Just another guy with a belt that meant nothing.

Not saying, that he was, but who was #1 in 2005?

I don't think there was a consensus #1.

[DrDuke]

He wasn't the universally recognised #1 and at no point did he beat the the man. Just another guy with a belt that meant nothing.

Not saying, that he was, but who was #1 in 2005?

I don't think there was a consensus #1.

There wasn't. Still that doesn't claim the complete historical insignificance of those fighters, who were around the top. There's quite a bunch of fighters, who never were champions, but braught something memorable to the sport.

[keithmoonhangover]

Not saying, that he was, but who was #1 in 2005?

I don't think there was a consensus #1.

There wasn't. Still that doesn't claim the complete historical insignificance of those fighters, who were around the top. There's quite a bunch of fighters, who never were champions, but braught something memorable to the sport.

Vitali was still number one for most of 2005 and didn't announce his retirement until the November. Byrd was a contender, but wasn't the man. Byrd only won one fight in 2005, DaVarryl Williamson.

[Ambling Alp II]

Who was #1 in 2005?

He wasn't the universally recognised #1 and at no point did he beat the the man. Just another guy with a belt that meant nothing.

Now, now... when Lewis retired the only belt holders were Ruiz, Byrd and Brewster. The WBC title was vacant in the Klitscko-Sanders fight.

On the basis of the win he became the consensus "man" of the division only because of his brave performance against Lennox Lewis. It must be noted he never fought Byrd nor did he fight Ruiz who would regain the vacant WBA title that Jones gave up when he returned to 175.

It would not be until Wladimir Klitschko unified the titles later on would there really be a consensus #1 heavyweight champion.

Vitaly was never the consensus "man" of the division.
Brave performance against Lewis? Really? Unbelievable that people think the Lewis fight was some kind of big achievement.

[HomicideHenry]

He wasn't the universally recognised #1 and at no point did he beat the the man. Just another guy with a belt that meant nothing.

Now, now... when Lewis retired the only belt holders were Ruiz, Byrd and Brewster. The WBC title was vacant in the Klitscko-Sanders fight.

On the basis of the win he became the consensus "man" of the division only because of his brave performance against Lennox Lewis. It must be noted he never fought Byrd nor did he fight Ruiz who would regain the vacant WBA title that Jones gave up when he returned to 175.

It would not be until Wladimir Klitschko unified the titles later on would there really be a consensus #1 heavyweight champion.

Vitaly was never the consensus "man" of the division.
Brave performance against Lewis? Really? Unbelievable that people think the Lewis fight was some kind of big achievement.

Your first part is entirely the point that there was no consensus man of the division until Vladimir Klitschko took over and unified the titles. Although I'm sure one could possibly make the argument that indeed he was because Sanders dropped the WBO title that he won from Vladimir in order to face for the vacant WBC title so in a sense Vitali did indeed defeat another belt holder.

And let me rephrase it expectations were so extremely low on Vitali Klitschko because of the Chris Byrd fight years before that people assumed that Lennox Lewis would chew him up and spit him out without any issues or problems, that he basically defied all expectations.

He was ahead on the scorecards when he got cut and for the first time in a long time Lennox Lewis looked vulnerable, and when you combine this with the fact that Lewis never did give him a rematch and retired quite unexpectedly it gave the impression to many people here in America anyways that Lennox Lewis wanted no part of a rematch because the hungry Klitschko might have had a better result the second time around.

Because he was basically the last link to the former champion and because he became champion upon Lewis's retirement it made the impression in the minds of millions that he was the man of the division even though he did not unified the titles like his younger brother Vladimir would later do.

[DrDuke]

He wasn't the universally recognised #1 and at no point did he beat the the man. Just another guy with a belt that meant nothing.

Now, now... when Lewis retired the only belt holders were Ruiz, Byrd and Brewster. The WBC title was vacant in the Klitscko-Sanders fight.

On the basis of the win he became the consensus "man" of the division only because of his brave performance against Lennox Lewis. It must be noted he never fought Byrd nor did he fight Ruiz who would regain the vacant WBA title that Jones gave up when he returned to 175.

It would not be until Wladimir Klitschko unified the titles later on would there really be a consensus #1 heavyweight champion.

Vitaly was never the consensus "man" of the division.
Brave performance against Lewis? Really? Unbelievable that people think the Lewis fight was some kind of big achievement.

Haven't heard of that for a couple of pages. Where have you been?

[Ambling Alp II]

Now, now... when Lewis retired the only belt holders were Ruiz, Byrd and Brewster. The WBC title was vacant in the Klitscko-Sanders fight.

On the basis of the win he became the consensus "man" of the division only because of his brave performance against Lennox Lewis. It must be noted he never fought Byrd nor did he fight Ruiz who would regain the vacant WBA title that Jones gave up when he returned to 175.

It would not be until Wladimir Klitschko unified the titles later on would there really be a consensus #1 heavyweight champion.

Vitaly was never the consensus "man" of the division.
Brave performance against Lewis? Really? Unbelievable that people think the Lewis fight was some kind of big achievement.

Your first part is entirely the point that there was no consensus man of the division until Vladimir Klitschko took over and unified the titles. Although I'm sure one could possibly make the argument that indeed he was because Sanders dropped the WBO title that he won from Vladimir in order to face for the vacant WBC title so in a sense Vitali did indeed defeat another belt holder.

And let me rephrase it expectations were so extremely low on Vitali Klitschko because of the Chris Byrd fight years before that people assumed that Lennox Lewis would chew him up and spit him out without any issues or problems, that he basically defied all expectations.

He was ahead on the scorecards when he got cut and for the first time in a long time Lennox Lewis looked vulnerable, and when you combine this with the fact that Lewis never did give him a rematch and retired quite unexpectedly it gave the impression to many people here in America anyways that Lennox Lewis wanted no part of a rematch because the hungry Klitschko might have had a better result the second time around.

Because he was basically the last link to the former champion and because he became champion upon Lewis's retirement it made the impression in the minds of millions that he was the man of the division even though he did not unified the titles like his younger brother Vladimir would later do.

Vitaly did not "defy all expectations." He got stopped in six rounds against a vulnerable Lewis. He showed some of his limitations as a fighter. A really hard puncher would have taken out that version of Lewis. A good defensive fighter would have not had a face that looked like that.
Maybe he would have beaten a more faded Lewis in a rematch. Who cares. He couldn't get past 6 rounds against that version of Lewis. Had Lewis been in his prime, it would have been one-sided and wouldn't have even lasted that long. Always how amazing people are with him. He gets stopped in 6 rounds and it's somehow supposed to be a big achievement. When your big win is over a limited fighter like Corrie Sanders, you are not a great fighter. That people have to do these things with him so show how desperate they are.

[gilgamesh]

Whether you wanna give Vitali credit for his losing effort against Lewis or not. Fact is, he never lost after that, and was always a top guy after that.

I don't recall him ever being behind in a fight or looking in danger of losing at any point after the Lewis fight either. He was awkward and robotic, but oddly effective. I don't think it can be argued that he was at the very least a very good fighter if not a great one.

Nobody ever handled him easily, and most didn't handle him at all.

[Ezzard]

Whether you wanna give Vitali credit for his losing effort against Lewis or not. Fact is, he never lost after that, and was always a top guy after that.

I don't recall him ever being behind in a fight or looking in danger of losing at any point after the Lewis fight either. He was awkward and robotic, but oddly effective. I don't think it can be argued that he was at the very least a very good fighter if not a great one.

Nobody ever handled him easily, and most didn't handle him at all.

His combination of durability and high work-rate alone make him a formidable foe. Joe Joyce has the same two talents.

[margaret thatcher]

vitali's biggest fan back at it

thinks james toney's cw career > usyk's cruiserweight career too

[oogiebe]

vitali's biggest fan back at it

thinks james toney's cw career > usyk's cruiserweight career too

Sugar Cleveland Williams

[margaret thatcher]

silky smooth sugar williams! the untouchable

[Ambling Alp II]

Whether you wanna give Vitali credit for his losing effort against Lewis or not. Fact is, he never lost after that, and was always a top guy after that.

I don't recall him ever being behind in a fight or looking in danger of losing at any point after the Lewis fight either. He was awkward and robotic, but oddly effective. I don't think it can be argued that he was at the very least a very good fighter if not a great one.

Nobody ever handled him easily, and most didn't handle him at all.

How often do guys get credit for losing in six rounds? Very seldom. Damiani was way ahead of Mercer but nobody cares. Walcott was ahead of Marciano after 13 rounds. Doesn't matter. Yet with Klitschko-Lewis, this is supposed to be some big achievement.
Why do we have to give him credit when we don't do this with other fighters in similar situations.
Against an obviously fading Lennox Lewis. True he never lost again. Mainly because his competition sucked. Yes was effective against weak competition. In the only two fights that really mattered, he lost both times. Didn't go the distance either time.

He should be judged like anyone else. All I ever been saying.

[margaret thatcher]

well, based on vasily jirov losing gamely to james toney, you somehow rate toney's win over him as superior to usyk's entire undisputed cruiser career