Youngest Heavyweight Champion Ever: Patterson or Tyson?

There's no need for me to recognize it, because the NBA/NYSAC recognized the press-acknowledged champions, and in turn, they became the official body, given their legitimacy by those newspapers and local bodies. That was the point of the consolidation and transformation from the NBA to the WBA. So you see, the Police Gazette you're citing doesn't require recognition from me; it's lineage is accounted for already by the current boxing organizations.

 

So you recognize lineage, thus you recognize Patterson was a younger champ than Tyson. And you recognize there is pretty no such thing as a black and white fact in boxing. So why have we been debating?

 

When thinking lineally, I go by the WBC/WBA, because they did all of the reconciliation work decades ago. Therefore there's no need to go by press recognition because the press deferred to the WBC/WBA decades before.

 

Theres a hell of a difference with the boxing news saying you were recognised as SHBF champion aged 14 when you werent even a pro, and who was the youngest world heavyweight champ. In your case it was CLEARLY a typo or a humongus error on somebodies behalf. It should not be lumped in with this debate here as there was no typo or error in the recordings of these fights mentioned

 

No, I recognize lineage and therefore I recognize that Tyson is a younger champion than Patterson because he won the same titles Patterson won (the successor to the NYSAC and NBA) at a younger age than Patterson won them.

 

Lineage recognition shows Patterson younger than Tyson. Although it could be debatable argued the WBC is an extended version of the NYSAC, and the WBA of the 60s an extension of the NBA. The Mendoza Latin American WBA coup of the mid 70s completely changed the structure of the organization and *******ized any claim to NBA heritage.

 

TBooze, i respect your opinions and know that your pretty clued up but would you please humour me and answer this question in your entire honesty?

Your on 'Who wants to be a Millionaire'. Your on £500,000 and the 1 question left, for £1,000,000, is; "Who is the youngest heavyweight boxing champion of the world?"

Your options are;
A - joe louis
B - joe frazier
C - floyd patterson
D - mike tyson

Your so excited by this that you start questioning whether your 100% sure so you take the 50/50 and it leaves you with;
C - floyd patterson

or

D - mike tyson

Now , for £1,000,000, which do you pick?

And if you say Patterson, your a ****ing liar:good

 

How do you figure lineage shows Patternson younger than Tyson?

Tyson was 20 years 145 days when he won the WBC (NYSAC) title. He was 21 years 32 days when he won the WBA (NBA) title.

Patterson was 21 years 331 days when he won those same two titles.

Going by the actual lineage of the WBA/WBC titles, Holmes was not the lineal champion when he was beaten by Spinks. The titles were previously vacated.

 

Has he used all his lifelines?

 

Not really. In the early part of the 20th century champions could go for years without facing the most qualified challenger and retain a title... Wasn't the case in the later era and rightfully so. The notion of "beating the man to become the man" is certainly an unwritten rule, but here is something written on paper and governed by law - "a champ must defend against his mandatories or be stripped" Its sort of like working in the business world. If I go to work tomorrow and tell my boss that I'm not going to fulfill my obligations to the company, but still expect to retain my title as office manager, will that work?

See my above statement... The things that applied in Dempsey's time had no bearing on boxing in the 1980's.

There were a lot of things that were done at the dawn of gloved boxing that are no longer relevant, and using an informal and unwritten system of crowning a champion is among them.

I don't have to come up with a system. Boxing already did it for us.

That poster also clearly illustrated that those "farcical sanctioning bodies" are the same organizations who Patterson's title belonged to...Therefore, if you're going to question their credibility in Tyson's case, then you have to apply the same principles to Patterson's.. Can't have it both ways.

 

I know how he'd answer. Ever seen the movie The Bucket List? See how Morgan Freeman answers the question on who invented the radio. He would go on about how Patterson was actually the youngest and give an impromptu lesson on boxing lineage and how Tyson wasn't really lineal for another year. Then, satisfied that he made his point...would choose D.

 

Trust me, I would say Patterson, and if I did not win a Million, I would be suing ITV for £2 Million, and I would win, because I am right.

It is like the question about the least number of shot needed to win a set in tennis. The correct answer (12) was not there, because the researcher did not do their job properly, and forgot that you could win three games without doing nothing (your opponent double faulting).

 

Tyson won his WBA crown in 87, over a decade since Mendoza had *******ized the NBA heritage of the WBA, with his purging of the Americana WBA, into a Latin American organization.

And history is full of *******s losing out in lineage.

 

That would be easier, perhaps they stop recording, and change the question or answers to stop the controversy?

I would one pompous arse if that happened!