Actual champions. Just to see if people here are consistent.

Michael Spinks

 

Michael Spinks was the champion.
Although his 2nd win over Holmes was hotly disputed.

 

Spinks was semi-retired and had relinquished the title, I say Tyson. Tyson had usurped all titles and beaten the other active titlists.

 

Spinks

 

Spinks was the Lineal champ, which is the one that matters to me. As far as I am aware Jack Dempsey hadn't fought for nearly three years before taking on Tunney but was still regarded as the champ. Spinks year between ****ey and Tyson is a drop in the ocean.

 

He wasn't held in higher regard, Rob. You're being disingenuous by claiming that the three people who picked him, myself included, would have considered him the better heavyweight.

But Spinks was lineal champion who had yet to be defeated in the ring.

Tyson was a clear favorite going into the fight, though, in spite of the fact that Spinks had looked good in dispatching the much larger GC in his previous outing.

 

Michael Spinks had a belt. He might have had two belts. One was the RING belt, the other I think his manager had made for him.
Belts mean nothing.

He was never introduced as "the challenger" against Tyson. Both were introduced as champions. Spinks was recognized by RING magazine and a couple of the smaller boxing commissions.

 

Eric Esch

 

But Tyson wasn't undisputed at that point. He held all the belts, but like Unforgiven said, belts mean little to nothing in cases like this. Spinks had defeated the reigning champion, Larry Holmes and had yet to lose in the ring. Had Tyson not faced Spinks, there would have have always been the question of how he might have fared against the previous, undefeated champion.