Do you consider Tyson the youngest Heavyweight Champ ever?

Of course he is.

Winning a WBC title makes you a champion, whether it be 1986 or 2011.

Beating Berbick at age 20 for the WBC title makes Tyson the youngest heavyweight champion ever. Similar to 1 + 1 equalling 2.

Now if the question was who was the youngest lineal heavyweight champion ever, then that goes to Floyd, as Tyson didn't win it until he was 22 (technically 21, but he turned 22 a few days later)

 

ha ha ha ha, oh man you are easy!

 

How old was Patterson when he won the "lineal" title? Marciano was the lineal champ and he had retired.

 

Well, my argument is that a champion is anyone who wins one of the four major titles recognized by the IBHOF, which avoids the highly subjective task of trying to determine who is and who isn't a "real" champion.

For many, the lineal title loses its lineage when it's broken by something like a retirement or some other vacation. In that sense, the heavyweight lineage has been broken for decades - several times.

One last point - Patterson's heavyweight title was the NYSAC heavyweight title, which later rolled up into the WBC. Tyson's WBC belt DOES trace lineally to Patterson's NYSAC title. In fact, it's the closest thing to a real lineal title that exists in boxing.

 

I don't claim to be a historian on how you determine lineage, but back then, there was only 1 title, which Floyd won at 21.

Whether he was lineal or not, I honestly don't know. Isn't 'lineal' a bit controversial anyways, in that just as you mentioned, when a lineal champion retires, how do you determine who's the next lineal champion.

Nonetheless, I'm with you. Unless someone can present an argument that a WBC title does not make you a world champion, then there is no argument as to who is the youngest heavyweight 'champion' ever.

 

There were 2 titles then, but Patterson was recognized by both.

I agree that "lineal" can be controversial. Hell, you can say that the lineage stopped decades ago.

 

Come on now, WBC is and has always been a 'world title'. WBF has never, and never will. Is Berto a current world champion? Is Floyd a 5 weight class champion? While the answer probably should be 'no', it still is 'yes'.

I know where your coming from though. As I said earlier, if the question is worded slightly differently by adding one word ('lineal'), the answer is different. And perhaps that's a better question to ask.

Still, Tyson unified and won the lineal title 18 months after Berbick. Including a famous KO 1 over the guy everyone knew who the champion was.

 

Which is exactly the point I made a little while ago. Rather than get into the messy discussion on "lineal", just go by the four major bodies that award belts. Or if you're a super stickler, go by the two historical bodies - the WBA and WBC. Either way, Tyson is rightfully regarded by history as the youngest ever heavyweight champion.

I've only seen small fringe elements on boxing websites like this who still try to argue in favor of Patterson. I get their line of reasoning, but it introduces way too much subjectivity into the mix. Patterson won the WBC/WBA predecessor title, but he didn't win it linealy because it was a vacant title. Likewise, Tyson won the WBC title, but he didn't win it "linealy" because it was vacated by the lineal champion. If there's any difference at all, it's that the WBC title was not vacant at the time Tyson won it - he took it from the champion who continued the lineage split by Holmes vacating the title.

 

Marciano retired undefeated, the lineal title retired with him. Top contenders Patterson and Archie Moore (light heavyweight champ) fought for the vacant title. Patterson won, starting a new lineage or lineal championship.

People are calling Michael Spinks the lineal champ when he really wasn't. Michael spinks beat Larry Holmes for the title that Larry won from Ken Norton who literally had the WBC crown given to him after the fact when he beat Jimmy Young. Larry later dropped the WBC title and was given the IBF title.
Don't get me wrong, Mike Spinks was a good champ and I consider Larry Holmes one of was top 3 GHC's of all time. I just think people are getting too hung up on this "lineal" champ thing and using it to throw a ****** wrench into the discussion.

 

The lineage was broken by Holmes himself when he vacated the WBC title. It created a split lineal title. As far as the WBC was concerned, there's no difference between what Holmes did by giving up the title and what Marciano did by retiring. They both vacated the title. By rights, that made whoever became the WBC champion next the *lineal* champion because the WBC's lineage could be traced directly back to the first heavyweight champion. The problem was the same could be said of the NBA (WBA) title. Holmes split the two, which caused there to be *two* lineages from that point on.

If Tyson cannot be given credit for winning the WBC title because it was vacated by Holmes, then Patterson cannot be given credit for winning same title because it was vacated by Marciano. The WBC and the WBA are *the* lineal titles. Anybody who wins one or the other is picking up a championship that can be traced to the very beginnings of boxing.

Considering the fact that Holmes was neither the WBA nor the WBC champion at the time he fought Spinks, I'd argue that Tyson had effectively unified the lineal titles the day he beat Bonecrusher Smith.

 

lineal schmineal! :roll: NEWSFLASH: Ali wasn't champ when Holmes beat him and Spinks wasn't champ when Tyson beat him. In both occasions Spinks and Ali were former champs who were now challanging for a HW title(s).
When the fights happened, the champions defending their titles dominated the former champs. Come on, this isn't rocket science, really it isn't that difficult. atsch

 

The lineal title you're referring to does not exist aside from the Ring magazine title, which isn't in any way, shape or form an official title. You're basically passing around an imaginary crown that you're calling "the linear title". There's no such thing. The lineal title is the WBC title. The NBA didn't even award titles at the time - it just went along with whatever the NYSAC (WBC) said until it decided to get into the title-awarding business itself and just auto-awarded a belt to the WBC heavyweight champion. The WBC/WBA then became the de facto lineal championship. If vacated for any reason, the lineage broke, but they're the only official titles that can be traced to the beginning of modern boxing.

You're referring less to lineal titles and more to a belief in a lineal champion, regardless of the titles. From a record-keeping perspective, that approach can't work, because there's no quantifiable objectivity there.

 

Incorrect. There are two lineal titles. The NYSAC title and the NBA title. One became the WBC and the other became the WBA. Those two titles, more than any other, are directly traced to the lineage of every champion in the modern era of boxing. Those are the ONLY two measures you can use to objectively declare someone the lineal champion. And if there are two boxers, one with each of those titles, then the lineage has split, because both titles have claim to the historical line of champions, which is, after all, the definition of "lineal".

So I very much disagree with your statement that the lineal title cannot be broken. It can be. It has been. It is now.

From the tone of what you're arguing, you're basically saying the titles don't matter; the WBC and the WBA don't matter; only the lineage of who beat the previous champion matters. The problem with that line of thought is, what happens when the champion retires? Who becomes the lineal champion in your eyes? You can't dismiss the major organizations in one breath and then return and accept their judgment when they each declare their #1 and #2 contenders will fight for a championship that you've ceased to recognize. It creates a mess of continuity.

Case and point: Who is the heavyweight champion today? What will happen if Vitali beats Haye, and then Vitali and Wlad both retire having never faced each other? Would that be the end of heavyweight lineage forever to you, or would you decide to return to what the WBC and WBA have to say? They'll each have their own champions and their own number 1 contenders. What if Lennox Lewis comes back? He never lost his title in the ring. Would he automatically be reinstated as the lineal champion to you? How do you deal with lineage in each of these cases? There's no objective way to do it. The only objective option we have (and this returns to my original point) is to go with what the IBHOF says - that a champion is anyone who wins one or more of the four major titles. If you want to trace historical lineage, follow the historical belts. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

So, in your opinion, Holmes won this sacred "lineal" title designation that you are hung up on by beating an old and sick Muhammad Ali. The defeat of damaged goods in the form of Ali was the only road to Holmes being "THE" champ in your eyes? You seriously wouldn't consider Holmes THE champ if he hadn't beat shakey Ali?

OMG, I ****'n had enough of this O.C.D. bull**** from you dudeatsch I'm done with this thread.

 

Tyson is the youngest.Its not his fault 3 different fighters held the belts at the time.