Better Resume: Chris Byrd or Vitali Klitschko???

[Boxing Goat]

To add to the question..

Is Byrd HOF?

Nope and Vitali clearly is. He's the only heavyweight to take 4 years off and come right back and dominate in a title fight in the history of the sport. It says a lot.

[Elroy1]

Nope and Vitali clearly is. He's the only heavyweight to take 4 years off and come right back and dominate in a title fight in the history of the sport. It says a lot.

Byrd will get in too, they've let fighters not 1/5th of Byrd in there.

Vitali is going to be admitted to every HOF and ATG board beyond any doubt and always far above Byrd though.

[K-DOGG]

While neither defeated any "great" opponents, who were in their primes, I'd have to give the edge in beating "good" opponents to Vitali, if only by a slight margin.

Circumstances being what they were for both men, they both did well, Klitschko missing four years due to health and Byrd missing out on opportunities due to promotional/managerial problems and a style which discouraged anyone to fight him, due to the possibility of an "ugly" fight.

After his comeback, Vitali seemed to incorporate the old Larry Holmes method of catching them while they're green; but most modern heavies are over protected while being guided to a title shot, so that really wasn't his fault. He seemed to want to face the best out there and pursued it.

Damn shame he and Wlad never hooked up; but I get it.....even though I've never known brothers who didn't fight. LOL!

[shenmue]

Probably Bryd but i'd say pretty much even, but Vitali was the better HW, way more dangerous. Byrd over achieved at HW if anything, massive props to him.

[Larry the boss]

I think its safe to say that a lot of those voting for Byrd has an agenda. I frankly am not surprised.

No agenda..its the truth..Vitali's resume is not good at all

[LennoxLewisGOAt]

Vitali was a great fighter, much better than Byrd but it is true that he has a very weak resume. He was matched very poorly by his promoter for the first several years of his career and he got injured and was out for 4 years right in his prime. His status as a great is mostly based on his H2Hness.

[PainfromUkraine]

Vitali has the better resume but I don't know, kind of have changing thoughts of how I rank it. Taking a quick look back statistically comparing Byrd and Vitali...

Vitali's resume has been made to look quite poor, or rather worse than it is, because many of the fighters he beat have now become quite average or regressed a lot. At the time of fighting them though, a lot were up and coming, undefeated, or with only 1 or 2 defeats and usually to good competition. Johnson, Adamek, Arreola, Gomez, Charr, Peter, Solis...a lot of these guys are mere journeymen now but were fairly decent opponents AT THE TIME when the fights took place. Also the longevity and the fact he came back off layoffs and hardly lost a round in his career makes for a far more impressive and legitimate HW reign than Byrd.

Corrie Sanders was a good win. Kirk Johnson, although a fat tub of lard, was a decent fighter and that was a great performance and decent win. Danny Williams was just someone who was in place of Tyson...had Tyson been in there with Vitali he would have been destroyed just as badly, and this 'name' would probably have made Vit's resume look 10x better...Hide was a decent win, as was Larry Donald.

The resume isn't THAT bad, although admittedly it's becoming worse to look at following future performances from his opponents. Although, depends how you want to look at it.

On to Byrd...his best wins would be Tua, good win but VASTLY overrated because of his power and the fact he was an active heavy with a lot of recognition, ancient Holyfield, average Oquendo, and a close win v McCline. The thing with Byrd is that he beat good and recognisable NAMES, but these guys were way past it or simply overrated. Vitali fought less names, but he fought up and coming contenders when they were still fresh or not coming off multiple losses and with their best days behind them.

It really comes down to having to make an objective decision and forgetting the names, and deciding who was the better fighter:

Sam Peter 28 years old (32-1, only lost to Wlad) or shot 40 year old Holyfield (38-5-2)

Arreola 28 years old (27-0) or 30 year old Oquendo (24-1)

Adamek 34 years old (44-1, never stopped, admittedly at lower weight classes) or 34 year old McCline already beaten 3 times (34-3)

The Vitali win on paper might do something for Byrd, but the reason he isn't highly regarded is because people understand he didn't 'win' that fight on merit, and it doesn't really impact on legacy at all. Personally, if I was a fighter and had such a win on my resume after being thoroughly dominated and getting lucky, i'd be a bit embarrassed. As I said before, same thing with Lennox. Near-prime Vitali is likely the best fighter he ever faced and beat, yet few to no-one has that win as something which greatly enhances Lewis' resume, because of the context of the fight. Same with past great's losses like Ali's to Spinks or Foreman's to Briggs...

[wladavit]

Vitali Klitschko has a great resume.

[Boxing Goat]

Byrd will get in too, they've let fighters not 1/5th of Byrd in there.

Vitali is going to be admitted to every HOF and ATG board beyond any doubt and always far above Byrd though.

I disagree but let's see.

[Boxing Goat]

No agenda..its the truth..Vitali's resume is not good at all

Lol, since when is being 15-2 in heavyweight title fights not good at all?

You do realize that he's ranked 6th all time in title fight victories, right?

That's in over 120 years of heavyweight boxing. You should rethink that statement. Makes you sound just plain ******.