Spinks Was still The Ring Magazine Champ..

Fury announced his retirement and a follow up call from the Ring editor confirmed that yes indeed Fury was serious. Thus Usyk vs AJ 2 was FOR the championship. Usyk won and became the new champion.

Very true that Patterson remains the youngest true heavyweight champion. Mike Tyson did not win a comparable title until he beat Spinks.

 

I didn't know about Ring's decision being based on Fury's faux retirement but for me personally, I had voiced my feeling that even if it was a bogus retirement, he should then logically not have the title anymore, if he wants to float that out there for his own reasons, whatever they may be. So, if that was something they made a decision on, it's pretty much fine with me. Usyk should deserve to be the face if Fury doesn't want the responsibility of acting like the champion. All the talent in the world doesn't make you want to act right.

 

I agree. When I read Ring followed up with a phone call and Fury confirmed he was retiring there is no ambiguity. Exact same scenario occurred in 1970. Ali announced his retirement and a follow up call by Fleischer to Ali confirmed he was serious. Ring made the heavyweight title vacant with the winner of Frazier vs Ellis the new champion.

 

I disagree on Patterson being the youngest Heavyweight champion, it's still Tyson, it's not Tyson's fault that there was only 1 belt per weight class in Patterson's era. Although you might not count his WBC win over Berbick as the "official" Heavyweight title, Tyson then went on and unified the WBA and IBF, beating both Smith and Tony Tucker who Spinks refused to fight. Spinks had nothing but his name going into that Tyson fight while Tyson was the undisputed champ. By the time they were the same age, Patterson had only won a vacant belt vs a Light Heavyweight, having only beaten one top 10 ranked HW contender prior. Mike Tyson on the other hand at 21 years of age and 10 months unified the HW division while beating half a dozen or so top 10 ranked Heavyweights.

 

Patterson won the historic title, the one that counts, at an earlier age than Patterson. Thus Mike was the youngest belt holder winning the titles from fighters who were really never the true champion. When Patterson beat the number one contender Moore, after Marciano retired and the title vacant, he became the true historic lineal heavyweight champion. A far more prestigious title.

 

Well, in the last 36 years, new people took over the magazine.

In the past, they used to just recognize what happened inside the ring and who were the actual champions.

Today's group likes to pretend they can control boxers. And if a boxer doesn't do what they want, they strip them.

Fury was the Ring Champ at the start of 2022, fought twice as many times as Usyk that year, never lost, and finished the year as the #1 contender.

It made no sense. Still doesn't. Fury will be a three-time Ring champion if he beats Usyk, and he still hasn't lost.

Just shows how their designation means less than it used to.

 

Well yeah, again there was only 1 title in Patterson's time, 3 in Tyson's. Tyson was "thee" world champion at 21 years when he unified all the titles at Heavyweight in August 1987, something that hadn't been seen since Leon Spinks vs Ali in 1978. Spinks had nothing but his name and the Ring Magazine trophy going into that Tyson fight which was discontinued several months after for years until it was brought back up again around the turn of the century.

 

Spinks beat the true champion in Holmes. Spinks never lost that title in the ring until Tyson beat him. Thus Tyson only became the true champion when he beat Spinks. Berbick was never heavyweight champion of the world as he never beat Holmes who was the true champion during his paper only reign. None of the opponents Tyson fought were true champions until he faced Spinks.

 

I guess it just comes down to how much do you value the lineal title, especially if there's no belt behind it? Do we count Tyson Fury's fights vs Seferi, Pianeta, Schwarz or Otto Wallin as world title fights despite no official belt being on the line? How about Ali's vs Quarry or Bonavena? Then there's Foreman, after getting stripped of the IBF and WBA titles were his fights vs Crawford Grimsley or Lou Savarese considered true world title fights? Was Shannon Briggs held in higher esteem in his showdown vs Lennox Lewis? As I recall Briggs came out first and it was seen as his first world title fight despite being the "lineal" champion.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree I suppose. I think Tyson became the youngest true Heavyweight champion once he won all the belts in August 1987 at 21 years and 1 month compared to Floyd Patterson at 21 years and 11 months.

 

Fury became champion by beating Wlad. Period.

Ali retired in 1970 so the winner of Frazier Ellis crowned the new true champion. Ali’s bouts vs Quarry and Bonavena were non title bouts.

Foreman beat Moorer who was the true champion. He remained champion until losing to Briggs.

Lewis did not become champion until he beat the champion. That was his win over Briggs.

Belts are meaningless. It’s all about HISTORY.

 

Ali, like Fury, Spinks and Foreman were stripped, the "lineal title" is only a title by name, it's meaningless once you lose an official world title. You can't tell me Shannon Briggs was the true Heavyweight champion of the world from 97 through 98 or Fury was the Heavyweight champion of the world from 2016 through 2018 while obese, coked up, suicidal and nearly 500 pounds, that's absurd to even think about.

 

Nope. Tyson was the champ. He entered the ring as the champ. An undisputed one at that. And Spinks was the challenger.

 

Nope. Patterson won the vacant title so he wasn't "Lineal" either.

Tyson is the youngest heavyweight champ of all time.

 

That’s just factually, objectively false.

 

Or how much you value the belts, with no lineal weight to them.