Did you live the days of prime Mike Tyson ?? What was it like ?

agree, but according to Mr. Ney's theory, Ali was the champion in 1980 and Foreman was the champion in 1996 and only these fights count. If not, I asked politely and without anger which of Tyson's championship fights count and which don't, which of Lewis' championship fights count and which don't, and to be honest, I didn't receive an answer. In general, it seems that George's second reign after defeating Moorer, which was in fact a parody (Schulz, Grinskey, Savarese), was formally as good as the first (Roman, Norton) and even longer and involved more fighting. This is complete nonsense but I'm waiting for this comparison

 

Yes, all of those examples hold. What’s the argument Tyson against Holyfield was for the real title? That it was more in demand for people to watch?

 

I am not stating a theory. I am following objective reality.

 

I’ll go back & check in a minute but I thought I answered the Tyson one at least as I could do it off-hand. He beats Spinks then made two defenses (Tubbs was one, I think Bruno was the other), then loses to Douglas. That’s it for his reign. Lewis became champion beating Briggs, & whoever he beat up until losing to Rahman are his defenses. When he beats Rahman, he then (I think) makes two defenses - Tyson & Klitschko.

Ali retired in 1979. He was the challenger against champion Holmes.

 

So you want to say that the most important success of Tyson's entire career was the fight with Tubbs and probably with Bruno and that's it? and Lewis became champion only in 1998, when he fought Briggs, and if it weren't for Briggs, the fights with Holyfield would have been irrelevant?

 

Help me understand this because I don’t think I’m getting the guidelines you’re using clearly. It appears as if you’re basing champ status off bigger profile fights which are garnering more interest?

 

no, it is always a matter of contract. nothing is one-size-fits-all. But I base the status of champion on the fact that someone is number 1 in a given period and proves it in the ring. Quality matters more than quantity. I cannot agree that the fight with Bruno and Tubbs is Tyson's entire legacy, since he looked much, much better against Berbick than against Bruno. I really appreciate Tyson's performance against Frazier, Ribalt and Stewart, even though they were not fights of any status, but he looked better in them than against Bruno, much better. In general, Tyson was held in exceptionally high regard during 1986-1991, as he had many great, dominant victories over today's very underrated boxers whose lives he sometimes destroyed. I don't think that any other boxer in the best period of his career, starting from Green and ending with Ruddock, could go this route as well as Tyson, although I know that I will soon be hated.

 

It's foolish to put importance on lineage in cases when it's clear the lineal champion is not the best fighter in the division who is fighting the best contenders. Spinks arguably lost to Holmes in the rematch and defended against the fringiest of contenders in Steffen Tangstad and an alcoholic Gerry Cooney. Tyson from Berbick to the Spinks bout fought a myriad of solid contenders and beat them all in very convincing fashion. It was clear to everyone who knew even a little bit about the sport that Tyson was leagues better than Spinks in terms of accomplishment. Spinks as "lineal champion" was merely a label at that point, and it was proven when Tyson obliterated him.

The lineal championship is unquestionably prestigious but very much overhyped in many circumstances, especially in the case of Spinks when he had such a lame run with the title whilst Tyson was cleaning out the division and had unified the alphabet titles.

 

It’s not the extent of his legacy but it is the extent of his championship reign.

 

Very much a subjective measure & slippery slope. Mines objective & clear.

 

If, based on linear criteria, you concluded that the biggest and most important defenses in Tyson's career were Tubbs and Bruno, then you have reached a dead end. I'm leaving aside the lack of logic because Tubbs was ahead of Spinks and the fight with Bruno was Tyson's weakest performance in a title fight in the 1980s.

 

The anticipation of a Tyson fight was like the Superbowl.

 

Maybe championship is meaningless then. Tyson was clearly the best pre-Spinks

 

The clear best fighter in the world not being the lineal champion isn't a concept confined to the multi-ABC title era.

Liston was clearly the best HW in the world for a good while before he won the title and his historical standing should reflect this.

The same applies to Tyson and the HW lineage.

You can respect lineage and factor in who the best in the world was for a period of time, into your historical rankings, if they were clearly different fighters.

 

It was an event. He was the biggest star in the world. Bigger than Jordan.