Do you consider Tyson the youngest Heavyweight Champ ever?

Please accept my 2 level apology. Firstly for timing the days wrong and secondly, that comment was not designed as a response to you. I had to refresh the page prior to posting as my computer went silly and pasted the comment. Posted without proof reading. Said comment was from an entirely different thread. I clearly did not correctly copy the new comment before refreshing.

Please accept my humblest.
Interesting thread by the way. It all boils down to people's own interpretation of the word champ doesn't it. Personally, I think what he managed to do as a 20 year old in the modern era was nothing short of astonishing. To think what might have been eh?

All the best for 2011 folks

 

Why is this even being debated??? Oh I forgot, this is ESB, Where they put spin on the facts!! Listen Idiots Tyson was the youngest heavyweight champion in history, Close Thread!!

 

Exactly!!!

 

Quit splitting hairs, you miserable lonely little ******! Tyson beat 3 heavyweight champs in 3 different organizations before Patterson even beat one.
The only time Patterson beat a world Heavyweight champion/titlist was when he rematched Johansson when patterson was 26.
Tyson was the first, snap out of that dream world you seem to stuck in and learn to live with these facts.
Quit trying to change history with your red harrings already, Ok douchbag?!

 

TRUTH. Amazing how the obvious escapes people.

 

In each division there are usually 3-4 "major" belts that can be won. IMO, as long as a boxer wins at least one of them, he's a champion (even if he's not THE Champion).

For record-tracking purposes, having won the WBC title at 20, which traces its lineage to the same NYSAC title that Patterson won, Tyson is certainly deserving of being recognized as the youngest ever heavyweight champion.

Keep in mind that the International Boxing Hall of Fame also accords all four major titles equally. If you win any of the titles with any of those four organizations, you are a champion in that division and any records set or broken by winning, losing, or defending any of those titles are regarded equally. The whole concept of "real" champions has little official weight beyond the media, boxing fans and Ring Magazine.

 

Ha ha, I can see I got under your skin! Easily done I might add...

And you are correct your bull**** comparing apple to oranges are red herrings, not red harrings.

I accept Patterson's lineage and I accept Tyson's lineage I never said overwise you homeless ****! You were discounting Tyson's lineage and accepting Patterson's. I know you were trying to get it your way through deception, but I wasn't going to let you. Nice try liar, but you got caught with your pants down, only this time it wasn't with your dick in a 12 year old boy's ass.
Tyson's the younger champ, so just live with it you ****ing virgin!
Quit cherry-picking the facts to try to save face, your face isn't worth saving.

 

:deal

 

According to the IBHOF, which keeps and tracks records like the one we're currently debating, it's the WBC, IBF, WBA, and WBO. If we're going to be objective about the topic, their word is probably the best way to go.

 

Now that I've destroyed every arguement you had against Tyson being the younger champ than patterson, you're trying to change the subject.
No need to admit defeat in this manner, I don't need your admission, it is obvious.

However, if you wish to discounts the myth of your virginity by highlighting your amorous exploits with underaged boys, :nono
well, by golly, go right ahead there Mr. whistle-britches.

 

Conversely, who's to say that if there were only one heavyweight championship that Tyson wouldn't have directly gone for it at 20? If it took him longer to unify the championship than it took for Patterson to win it, it's because there was a championship he had to unify.

For many people, being the "real" champion isn't simply winning what's perceived to be the lineal title (I say "perceived" because that itself is subject to rightful debate that I'll gladly argue on another thread), it's about becoming the undisputed champion - unifying the titles. Going by that definition, *nobody* was the heavyweight champion at the time.

 

You have "boxed ears" cornered with your logic, Obviously you are correct and "boxed ears" is wrong. Be prepared for his next step; he'll be looking for spelling and punctuation errors in your post to distract from his obvious lack of boxing knowledge. Don't let him drag you off-subject.