Mike Tyson's amazing NEGATIVE records

Right. There were colored champs when there was the color barrier. Different promoters were holding tournaments when Tunney retired and Louis retired and Marciano retired.

I've always compared it to "reasonable doubt" in a criminal trial.

Someone can say what about this or what about that ... pointing the other way ... but be reasonable.

If Larry Holmes wasn't the undisputed heavyweight champion after stopping Mike Weaver in a title fight nine months before Weaver won the WBA belt and after stopping Ali in a title fight ... who was the actual World Heavyweight Champion?

Who could say "Larry's not the champion, I AM, and here's why he isn't and I AM."

Holmes was the World Heavyweight Champion.

 

The only person performing "gymnastics" here is you pretending one belt had more value over another.

Riddick Bowe was rated #1 by Ring when he won the WBO heavyweight title. He wasn't before. He was after. I have the Ring magazines. He stayed at #1 until well into 1996.

So, if you were alive in 1995 and you were listing who the most prestigious champs in order from one to four, how would you list them? The champions were Bowe, McCall, Seldon and VACANT.

Is Bowe last, behind VACANT, because the WBO belt meant nothing?

Your "type" who focuses on belts, belts, belts are focusing on the wrong thing. It's the fighter who has the belt.

Yesterday, I said if Lewis and Holyfield dropped a belt, their fight would still have been for the undisputed title ... because they were the two best, everyone agreed they were, no one else had a legit claim to the title other than the two of them.

And you said NO, IT WOULDN'T for the undisputed title ... because a belt would be missing.

Not that it wouldn't because someone was BETTER than Lewis or Holyfield ... a BELT wasn't there. (Like the goddamn belt was fighting, not the fighters.)

That's beyond LUDICROUS. And you're so brainwashed you don't even realize it and get mad when people point it out to you.

You're trying to explain how the WBO wasn't "major" and your examples are because the other orgs were so terrified of them that they all three ganged up on them to try to make them meaningless, and the three orgs together still FAILED.

Because it's not about THE BELTS. Nobody gave two craps about the WBA belt when Bruce Seldon had it. It's about who has them.

The WBO was involved in the first Super Middleweight unification. Leonard and Hearns was billed as for the WORLD Super Middleweight title. The WBC and WBO titles were on the line.

The IBF and WBA created super middleweight titles years before, and theirs weren't considered as significant as those two new belts. Because Leonard and Hearns had those two belts. It was about the fighters. They fought, the belts didn't.

It's not mental gymnasitcs, it happened.

As far as belt dropping in that era, Bowe dropped the WBC belt. Tyson dropped the WBC belt. Foreman dropped the WBA and IBF belts. Lewis dropped the WBA belt to fight Grant.

Moorer dropped the WBO belt so he could fight the undisputed champion Holyfield (who only had two belts) ... and Moorer WON the undisputed title by beating Holyfield. Having an undefeated WBO champ drop a belt and then beat the world champ doesn't prove the WBO is a lesser org, it proves the WBO fighters were not only fine, some were better than the guys with the other belts.

Hell, Foreman lost a WBO title shot to Morrison when Moorer dropped the belt, and Foreman won the World title in his next fight. Bowe was rated the #1 heavyweight when he won the WBO belt a year later.

How is any of that damaging to the WBO? How does that make it a lesser belt when the guys who couldn't even win it are winning the WORLD title?

The problem with you guys is you focus on THE BELTS.

Follow the fighter.

Who was the goddamn undisputed World Heavyweight Champion in 1980, if it wasn't Larry Holmes after the Ali fight? Tell me.

If you can't, you have no legs to stand on.

 

Ali until the Holmes fight


You are 100% right about the belts.


But I think we probably should give the kid a chance. I too was all ideological, particularly about belts, when I stepped up from casual fan to nerd. It does take a while for the cynicism to build. I am sure if they carry on as a fan they will get to our level of cynicism eventually. And then they will be arguing about Tyson in an alleged technical sense; that knee dip would cost him against Ali etc!

 

Okay.

 

I'm pretty sure you could do one of these for every champ if you wanted to.

 

That's not a poster, dumbass. That's from a spread in KO Magazine. I subscribed to KO Magazine. Did you? Of course not. Because you weren't even born. Can't you read KO Magazine on it? (KO Superfight Special #3).

Should I go downstairs and find the issue for you?

Here's the fight poster.

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/xhgAAOSw3mpXLU9-/s-l1600.jpg

Are we done now?

Who was the goddamn undisputed World Heavyweight Champion in 1980, if it wasn't Larry Holmes after the Ali fight? Tell me.

If you can't, you have no legs to stand on.

 

Save this post.

You'll marvel at it one day.

 

You're holding it up like it's proof of something. It's one magazine spread in one magazine.

There were a lot of boxing magazines. Some came out every month. Some came out every couple weeks. (They were printed on paper. Paper is made from trees.) And the Leonard-Hearns fight was promoted heavily in all of them for weeks and months and issue after issue.

You post one two-page magazine spread that someone bothered to scan and post online from one issue of one magazine, you think it's the offical poster, and yell AH HA!! This is how it WAS ALL SOLD.

One image, that you didn't even know what the hell you were looking at until I told you.


You're an idiot. I'm going now.

 

Does this link make my point stronger?

This content is protected