Will Tysons record of youngest Champ ever be beaten?

[noonan]

Just watched Tyson ringside on ESPN.

He just defeated Trevor Berbick to become youngest ever Heavyweight Champion aged 20 years old, and Undisputed Champion within 12 months of that!

Made me think , will this feat ever be beaten?

After how "softly" most British prospects are matched, and inactive they are, im really unsure.

The Heavyweight division during the 80's was better than today and Tyson just ripped through it, Was he just a Genetic freak who was so far advanced at his age. I mean 16 months after his professional debut He was Heavyweight Champion.

Personally I cant see it being beaten , not going on how current fighters are progressed

[Will]

I would agree it's probably unlikely that that record will go, certainly anytime soon. Different era and things are done differently now.

[jonnytightlips]

I was watching it myself. I dont think that it will ever be beaten to be honest. If it were nowadays Tyson would still be fighting bums 16 months after his debut nevermind champion.

[GazOC]

Eventually yes. "Youngest", "oldest", "fastest" type records get broken in the end. "First" type ones are for ever....;O)

[Grant1]

I'll stick my neck on the line and say yes it will be beaten.

If not I'll give you all a grand.

[Lee Mc]

Floyd Patterson is the youngest ever :deal

Tyson never won THE title until he beat Spinks at the age of just under 22 by 3 days. Paterson won THE title aged 21 years and 10 months.

[noonan]

Tyson was 20 years and 4 months when he beat Berbick for WBC,

What has Spinks got to do with it?

[Lee Mc]

Tyson was 20 years and 4 months when he beat Berbick for WBC,

What has Spinks got to do with it?


Spinks was THE Champion and Berbick a mere Alphabet title holder. Similar to the difference between Haye and Wladimir now.

[JIM KELLY]

After the Klits vannish off the scene then it can get more easier for contenders, maybe there is a young gifted fella waiting for his time..

[Lee Mc]

After the Klits vannish off the scene then it can get more easier for contenders, maybe there is a young gifted fella waiting for his time..

Has Audley got a son? :think

[hitman_hatton1]

but spinks opted out of that tournament.

took 2 gimme's.

he hardly made himself legitimate during that period.

tyson deserves the youngest tag. :good

will anyone beat it? no. :hi:

[Lee Mc]

but spinks opted out of that tournament.

took 2 gimme's.

he hardly made himself legitimate during that period.

tyson deserves the youngest tag. :good

will anyone beat it? no. :hi:

:nono

Spinks still never lost his title until Tyson... Not every Heavyweight Champion has fought a hard opponent everytime.

[Unforgiven]

I doubt it will be beaten.
I doubt his record of youngest to lose the title will be beaten either.

[ontheup]

Absolutely not, for at least 50yrs.

[Lee Mc]

Absolutely not, for at least 50yrs.

But if we're including Alphabet titles surely it will happen a lot sooner than that?

[TFFP]

Probably not for a long time to become THE champ. Nowadays that is VERY difficult due to the politics of the heavyweight division. It's hard to achieve that even if somebody is capable of it, nevermind doing it at that age. A lot of it is out of a fighters hands, its down to promoters, organizations, and well...a lot of luck.

The feat in itself is very difficult to achieve. Big men can take a while to mature, Tyson was a freak.

[HitmanHatton]

At today's standards, they would have to turn pro at about 17/18 because the way prospects are brought along.

[Jack Dempsey]

Lee beat me to it, in Lineal terms Patterson was younger

In answer to the question, no I doubt it will be beaten

[Jack Dempsey]

Actually I've changed my mind, Shumenov fought for a title after only a handful of fights, who's to say in the current crazy world of boxing that a young sensation couldn't get a title shot at a very young age

[hitman_hatton1]

At today's standards, they would have to turn pro at about 17/18 because the way prospects are brought along.

it would have to be a big name promoter who wanted to beat the record.

and of course had a young heavyweight good enough to do it.

cos otherwise they'd just take the usual 4 or 5 yrs to build him up.

got a feeling tyson will die with this record intact. :yep

[HitmanHatton]

Actually I've changed my mind, Shumenov fought for a title after only a handful of fights, who's to say in the current crazy world of boxing that a young sensation couldn't get a title shot at a very young age

It would have to be a very special talent like Tyson was because Heavyweights take longer to get into their prime.

[UndisputedUK]

Tyson was 20 years and 4 months when he beat Berbick for WBC,

What has Spinks got to do with it?

The more "world titles" there are, the easy it should be.
To win inside of 20 years of age would mean starting at 16-18 and having quite a few fights in the first couple of years. Maybe a WBO shot if your popular after 12 fights and after beating a few names, or perhaps a top 10 fighter getting lucky or called in at the last minute. Who knows.

[Lee Mc]

Actually I've changed my mind, Shumenov fought for a title after only a handful of fights, who's to say in the current crazy world of boxing that a young sensation couldn't get a title shot at a very young age

Pete Rademacher fought for THE Heavyweight title in his debut :shock: Got stopped in 6 by Patterson.

[kosaros]

Unless you get a top young talent coupled with an ambitious promoter (who can get the fighter on shows every couple of weeks etc. like Tyson was), then no-one will win an Alphabet title as quick as Tyson did.

[Dan684]

With my son being forced into the sport as soon as he can walk and getting fatter by the day, I think it will Happen :deal

[Jack Dempsey]

Pete Rademacher fought for THE Heavyweight title in his debut :shock: Got stopped in 6 by Patterson.

And he had Patterson down!

[Lee Mc]

And he had Patterson down!

:yep

Patterson should have fought as a light-heavy. Would have been the greatest ever!

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Will]

With my son being forced into the sport as soon as he can walk and getting fatter by the day, I think it will Happen :deal

Come on son!!!

We can have the first Unified HW Champ with full ESB Sponsorship.

[StWerburghs]

The Berbick fight was Tysons 16th fight in 12 months...and his 13 in 1986 alone.

No prosepct will be that busy, unless they too can dispatch most of those opponents in the first few rounds llike he did.
Even then they probably wouldnt be fighting more than once a month.

Fighters are devloped sooo much slower these days...or at least the majority of them.
Some are fast tracked but usually on a soft route.

I do not think this will happen...but all it takes is a another phenom to come along, and who knows...they do spring up every 15-20 years or so...so i think we are due.

[Lee Mc]

No prosepct will be that busy,

Tyson Fury, although not a quater as good as THE Tyson, was on a similar programme for a while.

[GazOC]

Floyd Patterson is the youngest ever :deal

Tyson never won THE title until he beat Spinks at the age of just under 22 by 3 days. Paterson won THE title aged 21 years and 10 months.

:good

[HeavyT]

With my son being forced into the sport as soon as he can walk and getting fatter by the day, I think it will Happen :deal
:lol: Gonna live your dreams through your boy? That's my plan anyway :D

[JonOli]

Spinks was THE Champion and Berbick a mere Alphabet title holder. Similar to the difference between Haye and Wladimir now.


Especially considering what Tyson did to Spinks, I don't think that argument holds too much water.

Anyway, Tyson at the time, was very much was seen as the man and was most certainly not seen in anyway to what Haye is seen now - who's HW title is more like Herbie Hide's WBO time, to that of Mike Tyson.

[GazOC]

What Tyson did to Spinks doesn't matter, that still doesn't retrospectively make him the champ ~2 years earlier.

[Jasper Simone]

Tyson still won a version of the title at just 20 years of age. To be honest I don't think the record will be beaten in my life time. Of course, records are there to be broken, and invariably they always are. However, this is one record I see standing for many, many more years yet.

[DDA365]

Maybe, just depends on if anybody is as good as young as he was again

if somebody comes through and is as good and as devestating as tyson then the promoter is going to know hes going to make tons of money if they make him an early young champion so theyll do it

im sure there must be other recent examples through the weightclasses of boxers who were outstanding from their debut getting big fights when they were still young

[Jack Dempsey]

I see Tysons record falling before Benitez's one will

[JonOli]

...

[Jasper Simone]

I see Tysons record falling before Benitez's one will

17 wasn't he?

That will never be beaten.

I doubt.

[JonOli]

What Tyson did to Spinks doesn't matter, that still doesn't retrospectively make him the champ ~2 years earlier.


Tyson was the man at HW and everyone knew it, he also more than later proved it, flattening Spinks, simple as that.

It's unfair, I think, to use pedantry, technicality, politics, Don King shenanigans and the ABC roundabout to try and defame his achievements.

If we want to go down that route, no modern boxers have ever be called champ because no one can ever agree even what unified means for a start.

I mean, Tyson was never the real champ because he never fought Francesco Damiani for the WBO.

He was the unified WBC, WBA and IBF title holder, before the age Floyd won, personally I give him a break.

[Jack Dempsey]

17 wasn't he?

That will never be beaten.

I doubt.

Yeah amazing stuff, shame what has happened to him though

[JonOli]

GazOC, you are a Tyson hater. :D :blurp

You'll be calling him a bum next and an exposed fraud.

[Axl_Nose]

I see Tysons record falling before Benitez's one will

Great point, that Benitez record will never fall, 17 years of age and a World Champion, that stat is unbelievable, and what a technician he was ..
In these days of fractured titles the lineal argument isnt really applicable. Its not Tysons fault he operated in his era and its not Pattersons fault he operated in his. Whether you have Tyson or Patterson as the youngest champ, this acheivement will last for a hell of a long time, and i cant see it being broken, simply because boxing and the society surrounding boxing has changed, especially in America .... The amatuer boxing scene in America is as weak as its ever been, talent just isnt coming through. The reason for this, is that Black Athletes simply have more choices than they used to have, more safer avenues are open to them and Boxing isnt the 'only option' any more like it used to be .... People say the Heavyweight division is simply in a 'cycle', i disagree, its quite clear that it is in terminal decline in the states .. The last American guy that came through of any quality was Bowe, over 20 years ago .. Not one guy with any old-school class has come through since, and the only place a guy could challenge for a Heavyweight title from 18-21 would be America .. No Russian, Ukranian or British guy would ever challenge for the title at that age ..

Tyson/Patterson and Benitez's records will probably last forever because Boxing as a sport will never re-capture its glory days ....

[GazOC]

Tyson was the man at HW and everyone knew it, he also more than later proved it, flattening Spinks, simple as that.

It's unfair, I think, to use pedantry, technicality, politics, Don King shenanigans and the ABC roundabout to try and defame his achievements.

If we want to go down that route, no modern boxers have ever be called champ because no one can ever agree even what unified means for a start.

I mean, Tyson was never the real champ because he never fought Francesco Damiani for the WBO.

He was the unified WBC, WBA and IBF title holder, before the age Floyd won, personally I give him a break.

It wasn't that Tyson wasn't unified champ that was the sticking point for me (or Lee Mc I'd guess) it was that Tyson hadn't beaten the active lineal champ around at that time (not Tysons fault of course). The fact he did beat him later doesn't "backdate" Tysons claim to the lineal championship.

Liston could have beaten Paterson years before he did but we don't date his reign early on the strenght of that.

[GazOC]

GazOC, you are a Tyson hater. :D :blurp

You'll be calling him a bum next and an exposed fraud.

Well he WAS lucky against Big Frank in that first fight....:p;)

[Beeston Brawler]

I'm certainly an advocate of linear titles.

After all, there shouldn't be ''versions'' of a title. You either hold the bloody thing or you don't.

That's why I don't like fighters winning domestic titles then vacating them willy nilly. The more people hold the title or get the opportunity to contest it, the less valuable it becomes.

If everyone drove a Ferrari, having one wouldn't be such a big deal, would it?

[Dan684]

Yeah I'd still be phsyched about driving one :good


Snob :-(

[trotter]

I thought Spinks was semi-retired or at best inactive.

I'm no historian though and my memory is terrible these days.

However I do remember that Tyson was clearly the man and Spinks was thought of as perhaps the only challenge out there. No two ways about it, Tyson was the number one.

But lineal, maybe not. Was Spinks genuinely active?

[Beeston Brawler]

Yeah I'd still be phsyched about driving one :good


Snob :-(

Not if they were about £12k and every fucker had one!

I'm not really into cars anyway, whether you have an Astra or a S-Class they both do the same thing.

[JonOli]

It wasn't that Tyson wasn't unified champ that was the sticking point for me (or Lee Mc I'd guess) it was that Tyson hadn't beaten the active lineal champ around at that time (not Tysons fault of course). The fact he did beat him later doesn't "backdate" Tysons claim to the lineal championship.

Liston could have beaten Paterson years before he did but we don't date his reign early on the strenght of that.


Phew, I'm glad it's just the lineal thing, I was worried that there was some kind of horrendous trap coming up.

Lineal scminear... OK maybe technically, if you just want to play by linear rules, of which holes can be picked in such a method, but as far as I remember, everyone had Tyson down as the main man and also ABC wise he more than was.

I'm going to say he was champ, I'll leave you to tell him he wasn't.

[cheekyvid]

I think no way. Tyson was pretty much a fulltime boxer from 15/16-training to win the heavyweight championship, not aiming for the amateurs particularly. Remember he lived with cus so he was thinking about boxing and nothing else. Not like these days when jokers like fury who gets out of shape between fights. Tyson watched old tapes every night, apparently his boxing historical knowledge is probably one of th best in the world. He had no distractions, a clear aim and a great trainer who he had complete faith in.
So, no.

[Primadonna Kool]

Yes it can be broken..

How easy is it for a fighter to get a title shot these days..? easy

Mike Tyson had to fight his way to a title shot..

These days you don't have to earn your title shot, if the money is right..and your name fits the bill...

Your good to go..!

The rankings are shit aswell...

[GPater11093]

Benitez's wins are more amazing. He completly out classed the great Antonio Cervantez while he was in his prime and Benitez was 17.

[Primadonna Kool]

Yes it can be broken..

How easy is it for a fighter to get a title shot these days..? easy

Mike Tyson had to fight his way to a title shot..

These days you don't have to earn your title shot, if the money is right..and your name fits the bill...

Your good to go..!

The rankings are shit aswell...

Bottom line is.....titles don't mean shit these days..!

[noonan]

So because he only held one title that doesnt make him Champion??

so Nigel Benn nor Eubank were World Champions in your eyes then??

[Top Dog]

Eventually maybe, but not for a while

[GazOC]

So because he only held one title that doesnt make him Champion??

so Nigel Benn nor Eubank were World Champions in your eyes then??

Tyson wasn't champion, he was A champion. Same with Benn and Eubank.

Tyson was older than Patterson when he became THE champion.

[noonan]

But Tyson is the youngest person to hold A version of the Heavyweight title (Wbc always being the main one in my eyes)

[GazOC]

But Tyson is the youngest person to hold A version of the Heavyweight title (Wbc always being the main one in my eyes)

Yep, he won A version at the youngest age but the WBC wasn't the main HW belt at that time, it was getting passed around a succession of Larry Holmes victims.

Around time Holmes IBF title carried FAR more weight than either the WBC or WBA . Of course it had passed to Spinks before Tyson beat Berbick, with Spinks subsequently leaving the unification tournament and Tyson winning it added weight to Tysons claim to be the best HW in the world but he still wasn't the lineal champ or even holder of the "main belt" when he beat Berbick.

[hitman_hatton1]

I thought Spinks was semi-retired or at best inactive.

I'm no historian though and my memory is terrible these days.

However I do remember that Tyson was clearly the man and Spinks was thought of as perhaps the only challenge out there. No two ways about it, Tyson was the number one.

But lineal, maybe not. Was Spinks genuinely active?

he'd beaten holmes in 85 and 86.

althought the rematch was very controversial.

in other words spinks got very f*cking lucky indeed. :yep

and he was due to fight tucker to defend his ibf title.

but spinks and butch lewis (his dicky bowed prick of a promoter :patsch) pulled out of the fight and waited it out for the winner of the tournament.

spinks had 2 easy paydays and got his cash out fight with tyson. he rode off into the sunset with a shitload of money and has kept a relatively low profile ever since. :rasta

[noonan]

[quote=hitman_hatton1;6409154]
but spinks and butch lewis (his dicky bowed prick of a promoter :patsch) pulled out of the fight and waited it out for the winner of the tournament.

Was tha the bloke in white suit , no shirt and the dickie bow?? i noticed him when watching thi fight recently

[sg85]

I think no way. Tyson was pretty much a fulltime boxer from 15/16-training to win the heavyweight championship, not aiming for the amateurs particularly. Remember he lived with cus so he was thinking about boxing and nothing else. Not like these days when jokers like fury who gets out of shape between fights. Tyson watched old tapes every night, apparently his boxing historical knowledge is probably one of th best in the world. He had no distractions, a clear aim and a great trainer who he had complete faith in.
So, no.
Correct me if im wrong, but i've never seen Fury 'in-shape' for a fight. :lol:

[hitman_hatton1]

[quote=hitman_hatton1;6409154]
but spinks and butch lewis (his dicky bowed prick of a promoter :patsch) pulled out of the fight and waited it out for the winner of the tournament.

Was tha the bloke in white suit , no shirt and the dickie bow?? i noticed him when watching thi fight recently

yeah that twat. :yep

he didn't even see the finishing punch cos he's trying to get somebody's attention at ringside.

he's right over the apron from memory.

twat. :patsch

[trotter]

he'd beaten holmes in 85 and 86.

althought the rematch was very controversial.

in other words spinks got very f*cking lucky indeed. :yep

and he was due to fight tucker to defend his ibf title.

but spinks and butch lewis (his dicky bowed prick of a promoter :patsch) pulled out of the fight and waited it out for the winner of the tournament.

spinks had 2 easy paydays and got his cash out fight with tyson. he rode off into the sunset with a shitload of money and has kept a relatively low profile ever since. :rasta

Ah I didn't recall the easy payday fights, Spinks wasn't really talked about in the mags I read, no surprise given the hype around Tyson at the time. I was brand new to boxing so I'm sketchy on that period.

To be fair lineal wasn't as big a deal then, if you won one of the main three straps, you were proclaimed a champ... the alphabets still had some credibility.

[xoborp]

I cant see it being beaten to be honest, it really was a marvellous achievement, and it really will take some doing to beat it.

[UndisputedUK]

Especially considering what Tyson did to Spinks, I don't think that argument holds too much water.

Anyway, Tyson at the time, was very much was seen as the man and was most certainly not seen in anyway to what Haye is seen now - who's HW title is more like Herbie Hide's WBO time, to that of Mike Tyson.

Herbie must deserve some credit for putting his title on the line against Bowe and in the second reign Vitali. Haye's WBA belt has as much credibility as Hide's WBO at the time, I agree.

[JonOli]

Herbie must deserve some credit for putting his title on the line against Bowe and in the second reign Vitali.


I agree and enjoyed the Bowe fight.

There's a thread on it on here somewhere...

Here it is:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[JonOli]

To be fair lineal wasn't as big a deal then, if you won one of the main three straps, you were proclaimed a champ... the alphabets still had some credibility.


This is how I remember it and the ABC's certainly held a lot more credit back then - Tyson, as we all know, held all three.

[Danny]

Tyson was 20 years and 4 months when he beat Berbick for WBC,

What has Spinks got to do with it?

My point exactly! Spinks has NOTHING to do with when Tyson won the title. Tyson became UNIDISPUTED champion on Aug 1st 1987, whne he beat Tony Tucker. Spinks opted out of the HBO tournament!

If one of the fighters of the super 6 opted out, whoever the evntual winner turns out to be, would we say "oh no, he's not the champion as he has not fought that guy?" No we would not!

Tyson beat Berbick at 2o years old, making him the youngest title holder at HW in history! That will not be broken! What teenagers do you see comign through as good as Tyson when he was the same age?

[GazOC]

Is the lineal 168lb champion in the Super 6? If he was and opted out of the competition without losing then no, the winner of the tournament wouldn't be THE champ in my book.

[JonOli]

Is the lineal 168lb champion in the Super 6? If he was and opted out of the competition without losing then no, the winner of the tournament wouldn't be THE champ in my book.


So when Bowe threw the WBC belt in the bin and Lewis won it, Lewis wasn't the real WBC champ, Bowe still was.

OK.

[GazOC]

So when Bowe threw the WBC belt in the bin and Lewis won it, Lewis wasn't the real champ.

OK.

Lewis was the WBC champ like Tyson was, thats just a statement of fact. When they won those belts I didn't consider either to be the 'real' champ.

[JonOli]

Lewis was the WBC champ like Tyson was, thats just a statement of fact. When they won those belts I didn't consider either to be the 'real' champ.


Well when Tyson won every single belt in the division, I considered him to be champ, as I remember most people did.

As far as modern day comparisons go, ABC belts are viewed, very differently today, it's simply different times (as you well know).

Anyway, each to their own, but holding every single belt in a division, makes them the champ for me (especially 20 odd years ago).

As I said though, each to their own.

[JonOli]

Lewis was the WBC champ like Tyson was, thats just a statement of fact. When they won those belts I didn't consider either to be the 'real' champ.


So you think Zsolt Erdei ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) the current and longstanding LHW champ?

[GazOC]

So you think Zsolt Erdei ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) the current LHW champ?

:lol:

Erdie is a long running PITA to those of us who support lineal titles. But, yes, I have to take the rough with the smooth and Erdei is the 175lb champ unfortunatly.

[GazOC]

Well when Tyson won every single belt in the division, I considered him to be champ, as I remember most people did.

As far as modern day comparisons go, ABC belts are viewed, very differently today, it's simply different times (as you well know).

Anyway, each to their own, but holding every single belt in a division, makes them the champ for me (especially 20 odd years ago).

As I said though, each to their own.

The Ring still recognized Spinks....

[JonOli]

:lol:

Erdie is a long running PITA to those of us who support lineal titles. But, yes, I have to take the rough with the smooth and Erdei is the 175lb champ unfortunatly.


Well, I never had you down as such a great fan of the huge risk taking Hungarian - I may have to remember this.:D

[GazOC]

Well, I never had you down as such a great fan of the huge risk taking Hungarian - I may have to remember this.:D


Like I say, Erdei gets thrown in a lot in debates like this. Its just a cross I've got to bear!!

[JonOli]

Like I say, Erdei gets thrown in a lot in debates like this. Its just a cross I've got to bear!!


Don't worry, I can see why you don't recognise Tyson unifying the WBC, WBA and IBF, HW titles, in absolutely devastating style and yet hold Zsolt Erdei on a pedestal.

I'm just being a bit funny now, I shall say no more.

I see the value of lineal titles too, but perhaps with say, for example, the Erdi case at one extreme, the Tyson one is at the other end of the spectrum and you have to make exceptions to the rule at times (though I know perhaps technically you can't really do that) - but nothing is always black and white and strictly ridged, imo.

[GazOC]

Heres a thought for you:

When Tyson beat Berbick for the WBC title, Spinks had won the lineal and IBF titles from Holmes (who had beaten Berbick in a WBC title defence before Tyson) less than a year earlier.

How the hell could anyone consider Tyson to be THE champ at that point?

In his next fight Tyson won the WBA title against Bonecrusher Smith who was another who had lost to Larry Holmes in a WBC title defence (who Spinks had beaten less than a year earlier).

Again, at that point, Spinks still had by far the stronger claim to be THE champ.

After Tysons fight with Tucker its debatable. Tyson has the belts, is fighting better opposition while Spinks is taking easy clearly doesn't "fancy it" with Tyson. I'd still stick with the lineal champ in that situation but I can understand other people would lose patience with Spinks and recognise Tyson.

IMHO Tyson cannot be reasonably recognised as the champ after the WBC/WBA fight with Smith and his displays/ wins after that (inc. Spinks) don't affect that at all. World titles arn't awarded retrospectively on the back of future performances.

[JonOli]

Heres a thought for you:

When Tyson beat Berbick for the WBC title, Spinks had won the lineal and IBF titles from Holmes (who had beaten Berbick in a WBC title defence before Tyson) less than a year earlier.

How the hell could anyone consider Tyson to be THE champ at that point?

In his next fight Tyson won the WBA title against Bonecrusher Smith who was another who had lost to Larry Holmes in a WBC title defence (who Spinks had beaten less than a year earlier).

Again, at that point, Spinks still had by far the stronger claim to be THE champ.

After Tysons fight with Tucker its debatable. Tyson has the belts, is fighting better opposition while Spinks is taking easy clearly doesn't "fancy it" with Tyson. I'd still stick with the lineal champ in that situation but I can understand other people would lose patience with Spinks and recognise Tyson.

IMHO Tyson cannot be reasonably recognised as the champ after the WBC/WBA fight with Smith and his displays/ wins after that (inc. Spinks) don't affect that at all. World titles arn't awarded retrospectively on the back of future performances.


Well at that time I still believe that he was younger than Floyd.

At the end of the day Gaz, you talk about retrospectively viewing things, but if you came out with the comments you have today, when Tyson was undefeated and ruling the roost, I think you'd have been chased out of town. It's only though retrospection and his fall from grace that has allowed people to pick holes.

I admit that I was fairly young at the time, but I don't remember there EVER being any question as to who was the champ, Tyson could have held no belts and everyone would have known he was the man - it was simply never a question.

Anyway, I do very much see your cold hearted technical points.

[GazOC]

No mate, you're missing the point. I'm not using hindsight to put down Tyson, that last post of mine is just a time line of things as they happened (ie. how we saw the situation unfold). How can you dispute the Berbick/ Smith points (you didn't address them though, TBH) ?

Would you call Tyson the champ because he beat a couple of Holmes victims when Spinks, who beat Holmes for THE title, was still active?

If you don't remember Tyson as being not unquestionably the champ at that time then I guess you were too young (sorry, I know that sounds patronising!), The Ring had Spinks as champ.

Its easy to look back and see that Tyson was the best of the post-Holmes heavies but that doesn't make him THE champ in 1986-1988
because he beat a couple of Holmes victims who happened to have picked up a couple of belts.

[JonOli]

No mate, you're missing the point. I'm not using hindsight to put down Tyson, that last post of mine is just a time line of things as they happened. How can you dispute the Berbick/ Smith points (you didn't address them though, TBH) ?

Would you call Tyson the champ because he beat a couple of Holmes victims when Spinks, who beat Holmes for THE title, was still active?

If you don't remember Tyson as being not unquestionably the champ at that time then I guess you were too young (sorry, I know that sounds patronising!). Its easy to look back and see that Tyson was the best of the post-Holmes heavies but that doesn't make him THE champ in 1986-1988.


Sorry Gaz, he held the WBC, WBA and IBF titles, the only major world titles at the time, that made him the champ in my eyes.

We'll just have to leave it at that.

[GazOC]

Sorry Gaz, he held the WBC, WBA and IBF titles, the only major world titles at the time, that made him the champ in my eyes.

We'll just have to leave it at that.

Both the WBC and WBA belts were won against fighters who wern't good enough to win Holmes title!!!

Go ask this question on the Classic Forum.:good

[Dan684]

I'm with Gaz :deal

[JonOli]

Both the WBC and WBA belts were won against fighters who wern't good enough to win Holmes title!!!

Go ask this question on the Classic Forum.:good


Nah, I've got my own opinions, I love the Classic Forum, but everything they say is not always right, everything is largely about opinions, they can also be over meticulous at times too.

The Ring had Spinks as champ.



Have you got a link to the Ring Rankings of the time? there used to be one kicking around here in the tools section in the Classic forum (it looks like they've sadly removed it now though)- not that it's necessarily definitive to the argument what Ring said.

[JonOli]

I'm with Gaz :deal


That's put a dent right in his argument.

[JonOli]

Sorry, I'm just not having a boxer being the WBC, WBA and IBF champion (in a time when they were the only belts), not being the champ.

[Dan684]

To be quite honest with you 'Jon'.

I'm pretty much a big deal around these parts. Now I don't want to start anything off with you but it's pretty much the norm for arguments to stop around here once i've intervened. :good

Just to let you know 'and-all' :good

[JonOli]

To be quite honest with you 'Jon'.

I'm pretty much a big deal around these parts. Now I don't want to start anything off with you but it's pretty much the norm for arguments to stop around here once i've intervened. :good

Just to let you know 'and-all' :good


Great, but have you got a link to the Ring Rankings of the time?

[kosaros]

Great, but have you got a link to the Ring Rankings of the time?

Is this what you're looking for?

[Only registered and activated users can see links]'s_Annual_Ratings:_Heavyweight--1980s

[JonOli]

Is this what you're looking for?

[Only registered and activated users can see links]'s_Annual_Ratings:_Heavyweight--1980s

That's the one, thanks - was searching everywhere for that.

So they had Spinks as Champ, bit like (though not in many ways) like they have Hopkins P4P no 4 right now and for the long foreseeable future.

Well, as I say, I don't remember there being a huge amount of appreciation for a HW Spinks at the time and as others have stated in the thread too, they don't remember it being that way either.

I stand by my belief that Tyson was the man at the time and being in possession of all three belts made him that. To put the icing on the cake, he later went on, when given the chance, to more than prove it, demolishing Michael.

Those are just my thoughts and opinions, we can't all agree all the time.

The man who held all three belts was the champ in my eyes, that's just my point of view and remains my view.

Though, yes, I do know/see that you can make a case that technically he wasn't.

[JonOli]

Tyson was a red hot favourite at 1/5 to beat Spinks.

[JonOli]

A clip from the time:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

"They say i've bitten off more than I can chew". :-D

[JonOli]

If you don't remember Tyson as being not unquestionably the champ at that time then I guess you were too young (sorry, I know that sounds patronising!), The Ring had Spinks as champ.



I wasn't talking about the Ring Champ, which is still ultimately simply opinion and is/was not necessarily universally recognised anyway.

Tyson went into the Spinks fight a 1/5 favourite, which just displays the feeling about the two at the time.

Anyway, I didn't know Spinks was Ring Champ for all that period, so you learn something new everyday I guess. :good

Cheers old timer.

[GazOC]

That period 86-88 most people thought Tyson would beat Spinks and waiting for the fight to happen was just a matter of waiting for Tyson to "dot the i's and cross the t's" on his collection of belts and win the last, lineal, title from Spinks.

The pre fight odds or the way he dealt with Spinks doesn't mean though that winning a couple of belts from people who wern't good enough to beat the real champ (Holmes) that Tyson was THE heavweight champ in 86-87.

What if Tyson had of beat Berbick and Smith but lost to Tucker? Would you still call him THE champ 86-87? Thats what I mean about you "backdating" Tysons title reign on the back of his future performances.

Going by this thread is certainly easy to understand how the Alphabet Boys got such a stranglehold on the sport!!!

[GazOC]

TBH if this wasn't a "Tyson" question and was just "Fighter A, Fighter B" then there wouldn't be this debate.

Fighter A beats the lineal and generally considered the best champ and stays active. Over the course of next year or so Fighter B picks up 2 belts beating fighters that had already been beaten trying to win the title against old lineal champ.

Who has the stronger claim to be the champ at that time? Fighter A all day long.

[JonOli]

The pre fight odds or the way he dealt with Spinks doesn't mean though that winning a couple of belts from people who wern't good enough to beat the real champ (Holmes) that Tyson was THE heavweight champ in 86-87.

What if Tyson had of beat Berbick and Smith but lost to Tucker? Would you still call him THE champ 86-87? Thats what I mean about you "backdating" Tysons title reign on the back of his future performances.



...but he held all three belts after beating Tucker and that's where I drew the line.

The bottom line is, personally I'd call the man who holds every single belt in the division, champ (especially given the phenomenon and favourite to knock anyone else out Tyson was), you don't, unless it's lineal as well.

We just all have different preferences.

[GazOC]

Yep, I think this one we'll just have to "agree to disagree" on.

[dan-b]

But if we're including Alphabet titles surely it will happen a lot sooner than that?

If we're just including the big three, even then it seems unlikely mate. How many 20 year olds are holding a big three title, in any division, now?

[JonOli]

Yep, I think this one we'll just have to "agree to disagree" on.

Great, I can now remove my "Tyson - legend - baddest man on the planet 86-90", teeshirt.

I do see your points I really do and if I'm honest, I did learn a little I didn't know.

[Danny]

A clip from the time:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

"They say i've bitten off more than I can chew". :-D

"I don't use my age as an excuse. I'm a man & I'm ready to fight for the Man's title!" Damn right, you were ready!