Floyd Patterson's regaining of the heavyweight Title.

Well the lineage ended with tunney.


I don't see why Tyson beating Spinks is any better than Tyson beating berbick.

If you are so hung up on lineage I assume you don't see Holmes as ever being champion since he never unified all the belts.

 

Most people see it being restarted with Schemeling 2 years later.

Becasue Spinks was the champ not an ABC belt holder.

Holmes beat Ali for the lineal title...Holmes was THE champ (different from a champ)

 

Well if you believe beating Ali restarts a lineage you must believe Ali kept the title even when retiring hence tunney took the title into retirement with him. It's not really logical to call Spinks the lineal champ.

Now if you think a champ retires and the top two fight for the vacant belt, well then Holmes was never champ to begin with.

Either way calling Holmes a lineal champ doesn't make sense.

A better historical gauge is judging people by when they were the best in the division, Tyson is the youngest man to ever be crowned the best in the division as well as being the youngest to ever hold a championship belt.

He's also the youngest to unify the wba and wbc belts as well as the youngest to unify the wba, wbc and ibf belts.

However it's spun he is the youngest champ.

He is even the youngest man to beat the man who beat the man who beat a Parkinson riddled Ali for what that's worth to you.

 

I consider Tyson the champ after he had unified all three belts. It was Spinks fault the fight didn't come off and you can't hold that against the iron one.

 

i like this debate! personally though, i hate saying it but spinks was still THE champ.

imo he took it from holmes who either took it or created a new one with the win over norton

he kept it (regardless of scoring some of his defenses) until spinks took it

spinks kept it under wraps until tyson

it's tempting but we can't just bestow lineage...otherwise willard wasn't lineal champion after sitting on his belt, nor was dempsey who didn't defend enough or against wills, etc.

lineage is won, lost, or created in the ring. if there is a lineal champion, he's gotta be beaten. ali was NOT the lineal champion cause he retired. if there isn't one, you gotta create a new lineage

 

I consider him champ from when he destroyed berbick to announce himself the best hw out there.

These thinking spinks was still considered the man at the weight, I wonder how many picked spinks at the time?

 

by your own criteria Holmes isn't champ. He never beat an active Ali and he never created a new lineage after his retirement.

Spinks was the ultimate paper champ.

 

hmmm, you have a point. holmes beat norton in 1978 while ali was still technically active. however, once ali retired a new lineage was there to be made.

i don't feel the ali win added anything to holmes legitimacy personally: after he retired ali was no longer champ. however holmes never "beat the man" while he was active and lineage is tough to create retroactively.

despite this, his win against norton made him the number 1 fighter in the division. did he ever fight and beat the number 2?

 

Dont Do get me wrong, I think Holmes was the best from Norton to spoon, I just think people obsessed with lineage are hypocritical when it comes to Larry and his situation.

Far as I'm concerned whilst he was wbc champ he was the the he champ but I know I view these things differently to others.

But number 2 was always the wba champ and since Larry never unified he never beat the number 2.

 

it's almost silly at a certain point but i feel lineage is important to establish. lineage ITSELF is really only as important as the fighters that make it

roy jones was never lineal but he was the champ at 175. i firmly believe that

martinez had no belts but he was lineal champ and THE champ at 160

foreman was lineal champ but did nothing with it and retired. even after beating moorer no one knew who THE champ was

 

Lineage should not just be establishe but maintained in such way it retains it's prestige.

When there's only one recognised champ lineage can be traced sensibly. In todays climate it isn't so much important and I can assure you that noone considered foreman v Briggs a championship fight at the time. It was all about Tyson v holy 2.

Its arguably true that there was no generally recognised champion from Ali to Tyson.

 

:deal

 

The argument is not whether Spinks was a paper champ nor even if he was better than Tyson (I concede he was not)....But the title can only be won in the ring, and taken in the ring (w/ an exception for death and retirement)...Tunneys retirement was permanent...Ali's was not.

If not we are set w/ a criteria where every internet boxing genius gets to say Tyson was the best, so he was champ....Wills was best so he is champ (A shame we never got to find out, but the belt was Dempsey's)...langford was the best so he is champ...There are idiots out there who think David Haye can beat the klit's, so he should be champ...others claim Vitali is ducking him...Who can strip him of the belt...you...perhaps...an abc orginization...perhaps...the lineal belt can only be taken by force, not by debate or sanction.

There needs to be a concrete measurable guideline that exists regardless of era....if not then we should stop comparing era's and greats of the past w/ today. If there is no absolute tangible criteria....then it is absolutely ridiculous to even have a conversation about this.

 

How long do you wait to decide if a retirement if permanent or not? There was less time between tunney retiring and schmelling beating Sharkey than there was between Ali retiring and Holmes beating Ali.

I can't believe how highly you view his win over a Parkinson riddled Ali.

Boxing is subjective, it was less so with one belt but lets not pretend a mythical lineal award has any place anywhere other than the internet.

Holmes never beat 1 v 2. So that criteria is out. If you believe a champ keeps the belt in retirement then tunneu took it to the grave with him.

Either way Holmes doesn't fit the criteria you are so insistent on being consistent on.

It is easy to compare people past and present, how long were they rated number 1. Who did they beat and how. What ate they like on film?

Either way Tyson is the youngest champ. It's in the record books