Who ranks higher historically? Chris Byrd or Ingemar Johansson

[gilgamesh]

Well?

I'll leave it open just as the simple question for a moment before I expand on my thoughts on the matter.

[gilgamesh]

Consulting Ingemar's record in my oh so handy International Boxing Hall of Fame Book. I see that Ingemar has the win over Floyd Patterson for the Heavyweight Title obviously

And a win over Eddie Machen and Brian London respectively which are his only other victories over Top 10 ranked opponents.

I'll even give him that he won the European Heavyweight title and made 2 defenses of that.

[gilgamesh]

Chris Byrd has a win over Vitali Klitschko, David Tua, Evander Holyfield.

He won the IBF Title off of Evander Holyfield who even though he was past it was still highly ranked enough to be in a vacant title fight.

Those 3 wins easily trump Ingemar's record.

Then you add in that he also has wins over known names like Jameel McCline, Ross Purrity, Bert Cooper.

He was never the recognized Champion, but he is a 2 time titleholder. Winning the WBO with the win over Vitali Klitschko, and the IBF with the win over Holyfield. He made about 4 successful title defenses. Often in WAY close fights that could've gone either way, but nevertheless he successfully defended his title 4 times compared to Ingo's 0.

So...yeah, that's the evidence.

We'll leave it to the jury.

[JackSprocket]

Oh my god

[DrDuke]

Johansson was a brief champion with the two wins of note: the champion Floyd Patterson and the top fighter of those times Eddie Machen. However, some may argue, that Patterson wasn't a legitimate champion, since he had won a vacant belt, after what Liston was winning those, whom Patterson hadn't faced, after what Liston destroyed Patterson himself.

Byrd was an abc-champion, which makes his championship less valuable. His inarguable win of note is David Tua. The remaining resume is controversial, since Vitali was winning him wide on points, until he got injured, Holyfied was way past prime and even Fres Oquendo was robbed against Byrd. Also, Byrd has a draw against Golota, which tells more good things than some of his official wins.

So, overall, Johansson has the best win on paper, while Byrd follows with a bigger row of names. Both have things to be argued about. Byrd was competing on top more and his advantage in quantity is bigger, than Johansson advantage in quality, so I gotta vote for Chris. Remove Ingo from the HOF or put Byrd there!

[keithmoonhangover]

One has a win over an undefeated, undisputed, heavyweight champion of the world in his prime. The other does not.

[margaret thatcher]

One has a win over an undefeated, undisputed, heavyweight champion of the world in his prime. The other does not.

well, floyd wasnt unbeaten when ingo beat him, so do you mean byrd beating vitali

[DrDuke]

One has a win over an undefeated, undisputed, heavyweight champion of the world in his prime. The other does not.

Sometimes a gap in quantity is bigger, than a gap in quality. Furthermore, in this particular case legitimacy of the "undefeated and undisputed champion" is questioned, we even had separate debates about Floyd.

[margaret thatcher]

alp actually had byrd ahead of vitali at the time of the stoppage, great win! outpointed then halted the actually unbeaten hall of fame doctor

[HomicideHenry]

I don't necessarily like the argument that some people use saying that Johansson defeated the undisputed champion when really there was only one title back then so of course every champion was going to be undisputed.

The only concession I will make for those older eras is that it was typically harder to get to the top than it is today, but... Johansson was considered then as he is now as a one-trick pony who had a powerful right hand and very little else.

Yes he was a silver medalist. Yes he was the European heavyweight champion. Yes he holds a win over Eddie Machen, and he had one of the greatest trilogies in boxing history against Floyd Patterson. But his career was pretty short in comparison to most people in heavyweight history having only 28 fights as a pro. The only other noteworthy wins he had were against Henry Cooper and Brian London. One might throw in Joe Bygraves, also, but he was really British and Commonwealth level.

I don't know of that many people on The Forum over the years let alone other boxing sites whoever rated Johansson highly. There is generally a consensus among people that had Rocky Marciano unretired he may very well have been able to have beaten Johansson had the fight took place.

Now when it comes to Chris Byrd he had the misfortune of competing in one of the weaker era's in heavyweight history. Combined with his style of boxing which was boring he has been largely written off by many people when I think it is safe to say he was solidly number two behind Lennox Lewis when he was competing.

He was certainly better than the likes of John Ruiz, Sultan Ibragimov, Shannon Briggs, Ruslan Chagaev, Oleg Maskaev, and others who held different alphabet championships around the same time. While others treated their championship belts like a revolving door Byrd actually had multiple defenses. He won the vacant IBF title from Holyfield and defended it successfully against Oquendo, Golota, McCline, and Williamson before losing it to Vladimir Klitschko.

Byrd also had wins over David Tua, Jimmy Thunder, Jose Ribalta, Bert Cooper and Ross Puritty. His biggest win was against Vitali Klitschko, although it must be noted that he was losing the fight by a wide margin and only due to Klitschko retiring in his corner did he get the verdict.

Byrd started out his career at 169 pounds, being also a silver medalist in the 1992 games, and demonstrated that small and elusive men could make an awful lot of big men look silly. I think it's a foregone conclusion that Byrd could have defeated Johansson head-to-head, and I tend to think that he had the better all around resume. Maybe by not a lot but it is obviously better than what Johansson had going for him.

[gilgamesh]

I'd say that's also the reason why Ingemar is in the Hall of Fame.

There for the longest when there was only ever 1 Heavyweight Champion simply becoming the Heavyweight Champion at all was pretty much a guaranteed ticket into the Hall of Fame. Very few of the early Heavyweight Champions aren't in.

[Ambling Alp II]

I give Johannson the edge. Besides Johannson, he also beat knocked out Machen in the first round.
Byrd did beat Tua, but also got knocked out by Ibeabuchi.

[oogiebe]

I give Johannson the edge. Besides Johannson, he also beat knocked out Machen in the first round.
Byrd did beat Tua, but also got knocked out by Ibeabuchi.

Ike would've destroyed Ingo. And Floyd too. Nothing bad about getting KO'd by Ike. I'll take Byrd over Ingo.

[skanksta]

I'm not qualified to give an opinion - don't know anything much about Ingo and ain't gonna research just to answer this !

But I always loved Chris Byrd and he achieved a lot.
Just on wins then "beating" Vitali is better than all but one of the clear Top 5 HW GOATS.

[Ambling Alp II]

I give Johannson the edge. Besides Johannson, he also beat knocked out Machen in the first round.
Byrd did beat Tua, but also got knocked out by Ibeabuchi.

Ike would've destroyed Ingo. And Floyd too. Nothing bad about getting KO'd by Ike. I'll take Byrd over Ingo.

Who else did Ibeabuchi ko that is worth mentioning? Just one name will do.

Easy to say that Ike would have stopped Patterson and Ingo when the fights couldn't have happened.

You can just as easily say that Byrd would have lost to Machen. Or Patterson. Or Johannson.

[oogiebe]

I give Johannson the edge. Besides Johannson, he also beat knocked out Machen in the first round.
Byrd did beat Tua, but also got knocked out by Ibeabuchi.

Ike would've destroyed Ingo. And Floyd too. Nothing bad about getting KO'd by Ike. I'll take Byrd over Ingo.

Who else did Ibeabuchi ko that is worth mentioning? Just one name will do.

Easy to say that Ike would have stopped Patterson and Ingo when the fights couldn't have happened.

You can just as easily say that Byrd would have lost to Machen. Or Patterson. Or Johannson.

None of that is an argument Alpy.

[Ambling Alp II]

huh?
And Ibeabuchi would have beat Johannson is not an argument either. I was just pointing out how silly that is.
I asked you a question. Besides Byrd, who else did Ibeabuchi stop that is worth mentioning?

[oogiebe]

huh?
And Ibeabuchi would have beat Johannson is not an argument either. I was just pointing out how silly that is.
I asked you a question. Besides Byrd, who else did Ibeabuchi stop that is worth mentioning?

So you think Ingo beats Ike? You think Floyd beats Ike? Please tell us how you come to this.

[gilgamesh]

It's not really a fair argument to say so and so beats so and so and try to use it as any kinda argument.

The fact that he was ranked in his own time where others would've been in there's speaks for itself. I feel like Byrd probably could've beaten Ingemar in a head to head matchup, but I don't really factor that into why I think he ranks ahead of Ingo.

I always feel like guys should be ranked on What is not What if.

[Controversial]

Why does it matter if someone hasn’t beaten a great fighter, does that mean they are incapable of beating fighters that have?

[oogiebe]

Why does it matter if someone hasn’t beaten a great fighter, does that mean they are incapable of beating fighters that have?

You are exactly correct. Marciano was a great fighter, but he did fight in a weak era. Doesn't mean he's incapable of beating a great fighter. Just facts.

[oogiebe]

It's not really a fair argument to say so and so beats so and so and try to use it as any kinda argument.

The fact that he was ranked in his own time where others would've been in there's speaks for itself. I feel like Byrd probably could've beaten Ingemar in a head to head matchup, but I don't really factor that into why I think he ranks ahead of Ingo.

I always feel like guys should be ranked on What is not What if.

This is why I watch so much film and use the eye test to a greater extent when comparing different era fighters. Which is also why you rarely see any posts on pre 1930's fighters from me.

[gilgamesh]

It's not really a fair argument to say so and so beats so and so and try to use it as any kinda argument.

The fact that he was ranked in his own time where others would've been in there's speaks for itself. I feel like Byrd probably could've beaten Ingemar in a head to head matchup, but I don't really factor that into why I think he ranks ahead of Ingo.

I always feel like guys should be ranked on What is not What if.

This is why I watch so much film and use the eye test to a greater extent when comparing different era fighters. Which is also why you rarely see any posts on pre 1930's fighters from me.

Yeah, those guys I can talk about them and rank them based on achievement and all that, but other than someone like say Dempsey or Tunney who I've seen a good bit of film on, I don't talk too much about how I feel the guys from that era would fare in fantasy matchups too often. Because as you say it's hard to gauge that kinda thing without seeing the guy in action.

But even so to me who I think would win a fantasy matchup plays almost no role in where I would rank them historically.

I can't really imagine for instance that if Mike Tyson and Rocky Marciano would've fought that Mike Tyson wouldn't have absolutely battered the sh*t out of Marciano in a frankly one sided bludgeoning.

However, I rank Marciano over Tyson. Because he was the better Champion, had a more dominant run in his own era, and frankly has a better resume than Mike.

Ultimately that's all that matters. Because maybe I'm wrong about what I think would happen if they had ever fought, but the results from the actual fights are what they are.

[oogiebe]

It's not really a fair argument to say so and so beats so and so and try to use it as any kinda argument.

The fact that he was ranked in his own time where others would've been in there's speaks for itself. I feel like Byrd probably could've beaten Ingemar in a head to head matchup, but I don't really factor that into why I think he ranks ahead of Ingo.

I always feel like guys should be ranked on What is not What if.

This is why I watch so much film and use the eye test to a greater extent when comparing different era fighters. Which is also why you rarely see any posts on pre 1930's fighters from me.

Yeah, those guys I can talk about them and rank them based on achievement and all that, but other than someone like say Dempsey or Tunney who I've seen a good bit of film on, I don't talk too much about how I feel the guys from that era would fare in fantasy matchups too often. Because as you say it's hard to gauge that kinda thing without seeing the guy in action.

But even so to me who I think would win a fantasy matchup plays almost no role in where I would rank them historically.

I can't really imagine for instance that if Mike Tyson and Rocky Marciano would've fought that Mike Tyson wouldn't have absolutely battered the sh*t out of Marciano in a frankly one sided bludgeoning.

However, I rank Marciano over Tyson. Because he was the better Champion, had a more dominant run in his own era, and frankly has a better resume than Mike.

Ultimately that's all that matters. Because maybe I'm wrong about what I think would happen if they had ever fought, but the results from the actual fights are what they are.

You make a good point in that when offering up these kinds of threads the OP needs to distinguish what we're rating them on. Achievement in one's own era, or who beats who. Makes all the difference in the discussion.

[gilgamesh]

To me when discussing their Ranking, you're going off of their achievement in their own time.

How many Top 10 contenders, Champions, or Hall of Famers they beat are all crucial.

I basically keep the Who kicks Who's ass type thoughts to the Mythical Fights section of the forum, but I try to never factor that kinda thing into how I'd rank them because ultimately it's unreliable ya know. There's no way to REALLY know who wins. No matter how sure you may be.