Tyson v Spinks - Who was THE champ....?

So is there any point in the lineal title?

 

Spinks was teh CHAMP cos he had LINEAR WORLD TITLE [Ring Mag belt] And never lost teh LINEAR WORLD TITLE [Ring Mag belt] - except when he got his GIFT, when Old Homer was ROBBED in teh rematch. :deal


Tyson just had 3x paper ABC soup titles. :rofl

 

The Heavyweight version is the defining title in not just boxing, but sports. A line that can go back to the days of Broughton and the beginnings of the modern era of the sport.

All the Classic Eight lineages, all have a history that stretches for at least a century, but of course the Heavyweight version is the most iconic.

It is starting point for anyone interested in the history of this great sport, because following the lineage leads to stories about all the greats, from those who won the title, to those who failed, and to those who never got a shot.

 

I understand what you're saying but if you follow the lineal title only, then you leave out on so many significant and great fights. It gives a somewhat distorted historical view

Spinks had 5 HW fights. 2 against an over the hill Holmes ripe for a fighter of Spinks' style, one against the hapless Tangstad, one against a drug and drink sodden Cooney, and finally was KO'd by Tyson. It doesn't read well does it?

 

It doesn´t matter if it reads well or not. He was the champ.

 

History is rarely pretty, but by following a black and white standard, you help take out some of the peer pressures that can warp history. As no one other than the fighters and their connections can dictate things.

 

Both. It needn't be "either...or".

Spinks beat the man, an incontrovertible claim. But the very organization that legitimized his title stripped him due to noncompliance.

Tyson came along to wrest Spinks' belt by defeating Spinks' successor as well as the other two existing title-holders. A perfectly legitimate route to the undisputed title.

As the introductions put it, Tyson had the belts yet Spinks had a claim.

 

I consider it to have been a unification bout, like Tyson-Smith and Tyson-Tucker.

 

Interesting way of looking at it. i like it.

 

Tyson was the man as far back as early 87... he was thee ****IN man in 88 when he faced Spinks... & even more so 91 seconds into their fight

 

Yep, Tyson was the man of moment, some of us figured Spinks could outpoint him, but no, Tyson was the man. Still 91 seconds previous to this, Spinks was the Champ.

 

Wasn't it TYSON-vs-SPINKS instead of SPINKS-vs-TYSON?

The champ's name goes first.

 

With hindsight, the victors name tend to go first. Pre fight, it is the money fighter...

 

Spinks.

The man that beat the man is all that matters in a world of multiple belts.