Youngest Heavyweight Champion Ever: Patterson or Tyson?

How old was Peter Jackson and when was his last fight prior to facing Jim Jeffries?

 

Were blacks not allowed to challenge for the title? Were blacks for the most part shut out of competitive boxing in the early times? I say that because of the now white to black ratio in boxing. Point being many blacks didnt compete in boxing because they couldnt get very far so really the playing ground is a lot more even now, then it was back then, even with the politics of promoters and sanctioning bodies.

 

I disagree with a lot of what you say here.
Take Ernie Terrell, for example, and his WBA title. It was a joke title, and the WBA were not to be taken seriously.
Just because some dodgy "officials" organise themselves into a boxing body, doesn't make their rules and diktats legitimate.
Sometimes they are deemed unanimously wrong, and even their champions admit that their titles are not the real championship.
Sometimes the sanctioning bodies have good cause, but not often.
The NBA and NYSAC tried stripping heavyweight champions in the 1920s and 1930s - but no one took them seriously, so I dispute your historical details. It wasn't them who decided who the champion was, it was the fans and the press.

You are right about Patterson though, his claim was weak, IMO. He seems to have been undisputed, but you're right, he was just thrust on the public and world as a champion. I think him being a young former Olympic champion and favourite of the NY press, in a weak era, helped him though.

 

Jackson was 36, very sick and had not had a serious fight for six years.

But he was recognized by the Police Gazette as World's Champion, and Jeffries took that claim away from him.

The same as Ali was 38 and ill when he lost to Holmes and put the final piece in the jigsaw that legitimize the Black Cloud's claim to the World Championship.

And the same happens if Lennox is foolish enough to comeback this year and fight a Klitschko.

Age, health and inactivity is not taken into account by Boxing's cruel Lineage.

 

Discrimination has always hurt the sport, be that 1811, 1911 or 2011.

Black fighters were respected by a minority of journalists, who helped fight their corner and get them the recognition they deserved.

Johnson's right to act the way he did was fair enough, but it led to political pressure that cost his race 20+ years of further ridiculous discrimination.

Boxing as a rule was far from perfect, but no sport in the Western white world was less racist, pre World War II. Which is not really good thing, and shows the prejudices that many had to overcome, and indeed still do.

 

We agree to an extent.
I think Patterson was the youngest UNDISPUTED champion, simply because Tyson was disputed by Spinks, very reasonably. For whatever reason, no one seemed to dispute Patterson.
Patterson was never the LINEAR champion first time around though. And his claim to being the "real" world's champion. Is weak. That's where I disagree with many here.

Tyson's claim to being the REAL champion was stronger than Patterson's ever was. For a start, he was "linear", IF Holmes was the real champion (and that's up for debate), he beat Spinks in the ring, won universal recognition AND he beat a load of real contenders.

 

fair enough.. You are certainly a lot more reasonable on this subject than quite a few others have been.

 

I think RETIREMENT and RESIGNATION should end or break the lineage, otherwise it's just ridiculous.
Muhammad Ali was the FORMER champion in 1980, even Jeffries was largely considered the FORMER champion in 1910.
Joe Louis was FORMER champion in 1950, even if Charles wasn't universally recognized as the new champion.

Lennox Lewis resigned the title. You might as well bring back Gene Tunney and call him champion.

I believe lineage has it's place, and is important, but not to the degree you're saying.

 

Unforgiven, Magoo, Lefthook, Demigawd and anyone I forgot to mention...EXCELLENT JOB! :good

 

Agreed,

The concept of lineage has to have its limits, otherwise Lennox Lewis could return to the sport tomorrow, lose to a 15-12 journeyman, crowning that journeyman as the new champ.. It doesn't work.

 

:deal Exactly... its just too flawed overall to assign any kind of exact science to it. Lets just say some champions had more credible claims to the title, be it by fighting a credible challenger, or whatever, but thats up to the whole boxing community to decide.

 

How come?

 

I think the best and fairest way is to get rid of theoretical lineage and go with what the IBHOF says is the definition of a champion - anyone who holds one of the four recognized sanctioning bodies. That's how official records are kept and that's what we should go by so we don't have people arguing over whether Tyson was the youngest heavyweight champ despite the record books saying he was.

 

But lineage does not work like that.

Lewis did indeed announce his retirement, but he never (helped) crowned a new champ and no one has a big enough claim since then, to claim the World Championships, thus if Lennox comes back, it would be a title fight.

Mad I know, but this boxing, and lineage is strange in other aspects of life, thus it is double crazy in boxing!

 

I think the best and fairest way is to get rid of theoretical lineage and go with what the IBHOF says is the definition of a champion - anyone who holds one of the four recognized sanctioning bodies. That's how official records are kept and that's what we should go by so we don't have people arguing over whether Tyson was the youngest heavyweight champ despite the record books saying he was.