Heavyweight Tournament with a Twist: The Winner...

What if all the Queensberry Rules Linear Heavyweight World Champions had fought each other (in their prime) under London Prize fighting Rules?

Let us say each fighter gets six months training to learn the art of bare knuckle fighting before the competition begins.

Obviously one or two of these fighters has fought under London Prize so you may feel they have an advantage.

The draw was done on (total) length of reign (in years), with the tie breaker being listed alphabetically.

There were 35 generally recognized Linear Champs, so for all those who reigned for less than a year, I listed them on their actual length of reign thus, the bottom six, need to go though a preliminary round, to get to the main draw.

I only voted, to break a tie, once the poll has closed.

Preliminary Round:

James Douglas beat Shannon Briggs
Marvin Hart beat Michael Moorer
Hasim Rahman beat Leon Spinks

First Round:

Muhammad Ali beat Marvin Hart
Tommy Burns beat Michael Spinks
James J Corbett beat Max Baer
Jack Dempsey beat Buster Douglas
Bob Fitzsimmons beat Max Schmeling
George Foreman beat Jersey Joe Walcott
Larry Holmes beat Riddick Bowe
Evander Holyfield beat Joe Frazier
Jim Jeffries beat Ezzard Charles
Jack Johnson beat Primo Carnera
Lennox Lewis beat Ingemar Johansson
Sonny Liston beat Jim Braddock
Joe Louis beat Hasim Rahman
Rocky Marciano beat Jack Sharkey
Gene Tunney beat Jess Willard
Mike Tyson beat Floyd Patterson

Second Round

James J Corbett beat George Foreman
Jack Dempsey beat Tommy Burns
Bob Fitzsimmons beat Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes beat Gene Tunney
James J Jeffries beat Sonny Liston
Jack Johnson beat Rocky Marciano
Joe Louis beat Evander Holyfield
Mike Tyson beat Lennox Lewis

Quarter Finals

Jack Dempsey beat Larry Holmes
James J Jeffries beat Jack Johnson
Joe Louis beat James J Corbett
Mike Tyson beat Bob Fitzsimmons

Semi Finals

James J Jeffries beat Joe Louis
Mike Tyson beat Jack Dempsey

Final

Mike Tyson beats James J Jeffries

 

I can see your point, but I would like to think that the vast majority have enough intelligence and thought on this forum, to understand what they are voting on.

But maybe there is a need to prove my faith...

So for the next round, the first fight will not have the option of a vote. I will give the thread 48 hours, and look at comments made to decide who would of won a vote.

After that, I will go back to the voting system, but will only count those who have shown they understand the stipulations by the comments made on the thread with no vote.

If you have not posted on that first thread, then you can still have your vote counted, if you post a comment (and vote) on any future threads.

Apologies to those who (rightly) may consider this patronizing.

 

I personally disagree, but have since edited the post, to try and resolve the concerns of some.

 

...

 

I would disagree with the winner, but the Quarters I think showed that all the right people were there.

That is probably when Tyson should of gone, but I accept he may of had a chance against Fitzsimmons and could of beaten Dempsey, but Jeffries? Well, to quote the great Homer:

"When will people learn, Democracy doesn't work."

 

Tyson was a very popular mainstream boxer, and I will admit with no shame, due to a naive but sweet innocence, growing up, I was suckered into the hype. But over the years, your realize the phenomenon that you thought was totally unique, had happened time and again in boxing.

John L, somewhat ironically Jeffries, Dempsey, Louis, Liston and Foreman; were all at one time or another given the unbeatable brooding monster build up before Tyson.

But Tyson was the last and still has his fans and admirers and as long as he is the last truly global boxing superstar, I guess he always will.

But to have a grown up debate on something like this, you need a little more substance in your debate to truly justify Tyson's victory here, as being anything other than name recognition and popularity.

Because there is part of me that thinks Tyson could of been one hell of a London Prize fighter, and I think it is a sound argument, but nobody in the Tyson camp, has put the argument across. Which is disappointing and yes shows the flaw in the Tournament.