Who ranks higher historically? Chris Byrd or Ingemar Johansson

[oogiebe]

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

Tut tut...let the boy play his game.

[Ambling Alp II]

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

Not at all what I said about Toney, and Klitschko-Lewis was nothing like Toney-Jirov,, but thanks for your valuable input.

[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

Not at all what I said about Toney, and Klitschko-Lewis was nothing like Toney-Jirov,, but thanks for your valuable input.

my man, you were asked what jirov had done to make a win over him (only top 20 cruiser toney beat) override usyk's whole cruiser career and make him so much more valuable than all the top guys usyk beat. you basically said well toney-jirov was such a good fight, mentioning absolutely nothing about who jirov had actually defeated if that's not it then tell us why the hell you'd rate toney's cruiser accomplishments higher

so apparently yes, losing a fun fight with a game effort does make some fighters hot stuff for you

[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.

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.

I mean....he is judged like everyone else. Does anyone here say Vitali is #1 all time? Top 10 all time?

What are you so worked up about?

He's clearly one of the better guys of his own generation. I mean even YOU can't argue that. Right?

[margaret thatcher]

always so triggered by the klits

[DrDuke]

always so triggered by the klits

Probably had an unsuccessful marriage.

[Ambling Alp II]

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

Not at all what I said about Toney, and Klitschko-Lewis was nothing like Toney-Jirov,, but thanks for your valuable input.

my man, you were asked what jirov had done to make a win over him (only top 20 cruiser toney beat) override usyk's whole cruiser career and make him so much more valuable than all the top guys usyk beat. you basically said well toney-jirov was such a good fight, mentioning absolutely nothing about who jirov had actually defeated if that's not it then tell us why the hell you'd rate toney's cruiser accomplishments higher

so apparently yes, losing a fun fight with a game effort does make some fighters hot stuff for you

I give Toney credit for winning a great fight.
I don't think Klitschko should get credit for not being able to get past the 6th round against an obviously past his best Lennox Lewis. In fact I think he should be criticized.
Pretty wacky reasoning, I guess.

[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.

I mean....he is judged like everyone else. Does anyone here say Vitali is #1 all time? Top 10 all time?

What are you so worked up about?

He's clearly one of the better guys of his own generation. I mean even YOU can't argue that. Right?

He isn't judged like everyone else by many people.

People talk about his "accomplishments". i,e he never beat anyone that was really good.

Other fighters by an obviously past his best fighters just 6 rounds and get praised for it. Instead of getting ripped for it, some people actually give him credit for it! Stuff like he was brave, or the pointing out that he was ahead on the judges' scorecard.

The Byrd loss also gets swept under the rug by some people as well. He should get ripped for that as well.
Not everyone is like that. Many people do rip for these things and know he wasn't that good.
However, others don't rate him like they do other fighters or simply don't understand the sport.

I have seen him in people's top 20. He is light years away from that.

[oogiebe]

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.

I mean....he is judged like everyone else. Does anyone here say Vitali is #1 all time? Top 10 all time?

What are you so worked up about?

He's clearly one of the better guys of his own generation. I mean even YOU can't argue that. Right?

He isn't judged like everyone else by many people.

People talk about his "accomplishments". i,e he never beat anyone that was really good.

Other fighters by an obviously past his best fighters just 6 rounds and get praised for it. Instead of getting ripped for it, some people actually give him credit for it! Stuff like he was brave, or the pointing out that he was ahead on the judges' scorecard.

The Byrd loss also gets swept under the rug by some people as well. He should get ripped for that as well.
Not everyone is like that. Many people do rip for these things and know he wasn't that good.
However, others don't rate him like they do other fighters or simply don't understand the sport.

I have seen him in people's top 20. He is light years away from that.

***Triggered****

[gilgamesh]

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.

I mean....he is judged like everyone else. Does anyone here say Vitali is #1 all time? Top 10 all time?

What are you so worked up about?

He's clearly one of the better guys of his own generation. I mean even YOU can't argue that. Right?

He isn't judged like everyone else by many people.

People talk about his "accomplishments". i,e he never beat anyone that was really good.

Other fighters by an obviously past his best fighters just 6 rounds and get praised for it. Instead of getting ripped for it, some people actually give him credit for it! Stuff like he was brave, or the pointing out that he was ahead on the judges' scorecard.

The Byrd loss also gets swept under the rug by some people as well. He should get ripped for that as well.
Not everyone is like that. Many people do rip for these things and know he wasn't that good.
However, others don't rate him like they do other fighters or simply don't understand the sport.

I have seen him in people's top 20. He is light years away from that.

I'd say you can certainly make a case for him being Top 20. You could make a case for him not being Top 20 too.

I think a good deal of us do most certainly rip him for the fact that Lennox and Byrd are the best names on his record, and he lost both of those fights.

[Ambling Alp II]

That just it, you can't make a real case for him deserving to be in the Top 20. Not if a major factor by the quality of opponents that he beat, which it obviously should be and is with everyone else. He has a total of zero wins over anyone remotely close to it. Way more than 20 guys have a better victims list than him.

He did have some WBS title defenses. Here is the point that some people get and some don't.
You don't have to be a great fighter to beat weak opposition. Which is what he did. historically speaking, he was 0-2 in fighters that really mattered. Couldn't go the distance either time. We can make all the crybaby excuses that we want, but that is what it comes down to.

If we rate him like almost everyone else is rated, he is nowhere near the Top 20. Or 30. Or 40.

[HomicideHenry]

I'll go so far as to say that he's top 15 worthy and Wladimir is arguably in the top 10. I simply cannot see the vast majority of heavyweights in history, weighing anywhere from 167 (ie, Fitzsimmons) to 215 pounds standing barely 6' tall doing much with either Klitschko brother.

[Ambling Alp II]

The all-important weight. Vitaly lost to one who weighed 210. And there have been dozens of fighters better than that guy. Cue the excuses.

[DrDuke]

The all-important weight. Vitaly lost to one who weighed 210. And there have been dozens of fighters better than that guy.

Who wins, Bobby Fitz or Vit Klit?

[keithmoonhangover]

I'll go so far as to say that he's top 15 worthy and Wladimir is arguably in the top 10. I simply cannot see the vast majority of heavyweights in history, weighing anywhere from 167 (ie, Fitzsimmons) to 215 pounds standing barely 6' tall doing much with either Klitschko brother.

Henry, Bob Fitzsimmons made his debut 138 years ago. I don't know if you know this, but humans have evolved during that time.

[Ambling Alp II]

Klitschko would outweigh Fitzsimmons by about 70 pounds. Obviously Klitschko would automatically win.

Just like Valuev would automatically beat Klitschko because he outweighs him by 70 pounds.

Always a great idea to rank guys by fantasy fights that never happened and not by what happened in the real life. That way your guy gets rated better.
And what better way than weight? Which is just so important. Except when it doesn't favor your guy. Then it should be about WBS title defenses and forget the weight.

[DrDuke]

Klitschko would outweigh Fitzsimmons by about 70 pounds. Obviously Klitschko would automatically win.

So, you think Klit beats Fitz because of the superior weight. Do you think Klit had any other advantages over Bob?

[Ambling Alp II]

Yes, Vitaly was more accomplished (i.e. more WBS title defenses). Super important.

[DrDuke]

Yes, Vitaly was more accomplished (i.e. more WBS title defenses). Super important.

That the whole analysis? Can you please, make a full tale-of-the-tape. Bobby vs Klit by measuring speed, reflexes, movement, technique, arsenal, chin, punching power, etc, etc, etc. Who edges where, compare them completely.

[margaret thatcher]

bobby fitz weighed like 160s f@cking pounds on fight day, sometimes lower. he was the size of today's welters and junior welters lol

imagine talking about a fight like fury vs keith thurman or tim tszyu, and then being huffed when people bring up size

almost as silly as rating toney's cruiser career above usyk's

[gilgamesh]

It would be interesting to see 'ol Jack the Giant Killer against either of the Klits though.

[margaret thatcher]

it would be a circus fight

there's a good reason we pretty much never discuss fights like fury vs tim tszyu , joshua vs brian castano, or consider a hypothetical like vernon forrest vs riddick bowe. in fact, if i started a thread about which super welters would beat fury, it would get laughed at by all, and with good reason, but that's the size fitz was

things just way different when fitz was around, he'd be massively outgunned by the top hws in most generations. a slugger who was very strong for his size, but not a serious hw head to head from an all time, cross era perspective.

[gilgamesh]

it would be a circus fight

there's a good reason we pretty much never discuss fights like fury vs tim tszyu , joshua vs brian castano, or consider a hypothetical like fernando vargas vs riddick bowe. in fact, if i started a thread about which junior welters would beat fury, it would get laughed at by all, and with good reason, but that's the size fitz was

things just way different when fitz was around, he'd be massively outgunned by the top hws in most generations

Fitz wasn't the size of a Jr. Welterweight

I'd think as a Heavyweight he weighed in around 180-185 pounds. In fact I know he did. I read the book on it.

[margaret thatcher]

it would be a circus fight

there's a good reason we pretty much never discuss fights like fury vs tim tszyu , joshua vs brian castano, or consider a hypothetical like fernando vargas vs riddick bowe. in fact, if i started a thread about which junior welters would beat fury, it would get laughed at by all, and with good reason, but that's the size fitz was

things just way different when fitz was around, he'd be massively outgunned by the top hws in most generations

Fitz wasn't the size of a Jr. Welterweight

I'd think as a Heavyweight he weighed in around 180-185 pounds. In fact I know he did. I read the book on it.

he won the hw title weighing 167 pounds on fight day, then lost it at the same weight. shortly after, he fought at 158, more the size of a welter

jamie munguia weighed 180 for some of his junior welter contests

david lemieux weighed 179 fight night vs spike o sullivan

maidana was about 165 for one of his fights vs mayweather

[gilgamesh]

It's a funny thing. While I'd say there's virtually no doubt that Vitali would KO Bob Fitzsimmons if they ever fought, there is some debate about who would rate higher between the two of them.

Overall Fitz DEFINITELY had a better career, but I don't know if you could say he had a better Heavyweight career conclusively. Probably not.