A question to those who say Tyson was the lineal champion going into the Spinks fight

imo, i think it's as specious as any claims that tyson was lineal champ

i can't give a long, historically contextual argument only that to be the lineal champ, you have to BEAT the lineal champ. if the champ retires, a new lineage has to be created

in neither of these cases did the champ retire, so it belonged to johnson and spinks respectively

 

Who would argue that Tyson was linear before Spinks? That's just silly.

 

I'm not sure the argument was that Tyson was really lineal going into the Spinks fight? That would be complete hyperbole. However, you could certainly make a case that he was rightfully the top Heavyweight going into the fight. Much like Holyfield was really the top Heayvweight after beating Tyson and Moorer in 97, while the Lineal Champ Foreman did nothing and dropped out of every serious ranking system.

 

Yes I agree with it. Of course, boxing managed to sidestep Sam Langford and proceded onward with Willard taking the crown from Johnson, and Dempsey taking it from Willard, but the principle was correct... Winning the title by beating "the man" is only half of the formula to being a champion.. If you want to STAY champ, then you have to defend it... One of the many differences between boxing 100 years ago as opposed to today, is that its more strictly governed, and champions are held more accountable for their actions and non-actions... Jack Dempsey for example, never would have gotten away with sitting on the crown for 3 years with no defense... The sport evolved in its governance and for good reason......


SIDENOTE - I considered Tyson as the champ on the night he entered the ring with Spinks, with Michael as being the most qualified challenger, but nothing more...

 

Axel Shultz should have been the lineal champ. :shock:

Wasnt the Tyson fight even marketed as being for the Undisputed and Lineal title?
People still regarded Spinks as the lineal champ from what I can remember.

 

Imagine that:
Champion: Axel Shultz
1. Evander Holyfield
2. Lennox Lewis

I believe so, Spinks lineal claim was all he had going for him. Had the fight not happened and Spinks continued to beat up unranked exhibition level opponents once a year I think Tyson would have still been largely recognized as the real Champion, lineal or not. I just question the worth of the "lineal" claim in many instances.

 

Bingo.. And I've been saying the same or similar thing for years... This is the reason why the logic that spinks " was the champ", doesn't work because by this thought process, he could have gone on for years taking on soft paydays, while guys like Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe and Lewis would have been labeled as carbon copies, and no one would have fallen for it...

 

If chuck wepner had been around that year, it would have looked like this:

Champion: Chuck Wepner

1. Chuck Wepner
2. Chuck Wepner

 

Precisely why I worded my response like this:

Would you say that Champions of 100 years ago were held MORE accountable or LESS? If your answer is the latter of the two, then I'd say its a pretty hard case to make. It was a period when champions could go for literally years without fighting anyone, let alone a worthy contender, and when denying a challenger a title shot soley for the color of his skin was deemed acceptible..

 

Actually they are held accountable. They lose their title if they dont fight them.