Which is a greater achievement, Tyson becoming a champion at 20 or Foreman becoming a champ at 45?

AMEN. Tyson was younger than Ali, but older than Floyd when he beat Spinks for the real thing. Tyson-Berbick was just a #7 vs. #1 bout between contenders and is just another example of how boxing gives the middle finger to its own history.

Berbick wasn't the heavyweight champion. It's as simple as that.

 

Foreman's win seemed the most improbable.

Tyson was favored to win by KO. The only thing surprising about Tyson's win was how easy it was. Everyone, including Tyson, thought he'd have to work a little harder. Tyson was disappointed it ended so quickly.

On the other hand, the only person who thought George would beat the undefeated, 35-0, two-division champ Moorer that night was George. His coworkers (Lampley and Merchant) didn't. Fellow boxers didn't. His employer, HBO, didn't. His wife didn't. Jim Lampley's stunned call "It happened! It happened!" told the whole story. Nobody thought it would happen. Then it did.

 

Spinks got stripped. Tyson beat Tucker to become undisputed champion. That's the date he became the World Champ, which is still younger than Patterson. Patterson won the vacant title, so his claim isn't that great but it still goes down in history as the youngest...BEFORE Tyson became the youngest champ. Let's not take that away from Tyson now too.

"Lineal" is mythic. It's a mythic title declared by a magazine. It holds no merit. It wasn't Mike Tyson's fault that Spinks declined to face his #1 contender. THus, SPinks lost his title, lineal or not.

Here's a thread if you'd like to look back... https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/youngest-heavyweight-champion-ever-patterson-or-tyson.279531/

 

Good to see the odd post mate. You are killing it with your books, way to go. After many years i have finally come around to your way of thinking on Tyson - Holmes too. We had a good lengthy debate on that one!

 

I'd have to go with Foreman at 45.

 

Good to see you posting again! Been a while.

As you say, Tyson didn't win the lineal title until he beat Spinks. And when it comes to impressive manner of winning the lineal title Tyson not only lags Foreman, but also Ali who was just past 22 when he beat the seemingly invincible Liston.

Tyson's road to that moment was very, very impressive, though. Running right through Berbick, stopping Thomas and winning a wide decision over Tucker. An awesome run, no doubt. But winning the lineal title at 45 was just something totally unheard of in 1994 and still is, even though a fighter's prime nowadays often is in his late 20's to early 30's. As JT said, he bettered the standing record by 8 years. That's akin to how Bob Beamon smashed Jesse Owen's long standing long jump record. Both are unique occurances in respective sports.

 

Spinks got stripped by whom? If you are going to uphold the shenanigans of some WTF sanctioning body, you'll blast your argument to pieces. Forget "lineal" --at the time Tyson fought Spinks, Spinks was recognized as the champion by The Ring, which was the most credible ratings at the time. Tyson was rated #1. Even if you are not big on Spinks being recognized (and I'm not, for different reasons), he and Tyson were the top two and recognizing that bout makes the most sense.

"Lineal," by the way, actually finds it's roots long before The Ring started using it as a means to cut through the idiocy perpetuated by the networks and the sanctioning bodies, but it was often used since the 1910s to identify the same --that whole "the man who beat the man" thing. Of course it's got breaks, which is why only a #1 vs #2 bout should be recognized, which is precluded by a rankings organization that is based on merit and a rational system, not pay-offs, favors, and the like.

Recognizing Tyson-Tucker is one you hear less often. Tucker was rated #7 at the time. How would you justify that? Please don't mention the IBF fakeness --Douglas was #7 and Tucker #8 when they fought for that vacant nonsense. That's no championship. And please don't bring up that DEAD "unification" argument-- unification of BS is more BS.

 

Yeah well, your (formidable) arguments about Hagler vs. Duran, et al, still haunt my conscience...!

 

if u mean just one title, which you must do since u said 20, then foreman.

The difference being this - you thought Tyson might actually win a title after seeing his previous, even though you may not expect him to. Whereas you thought foreman would end up in a wheelchair for life just with his "warm up" fights.

 

I think Wladimir or Vitali could probably both beat Moorer in their 40s. The Wladimir that nearly beat Joshua probably beats Moorer.

 

Also, I don't see how beating Holmes necessarily makes Spinks the man to beat. Holmes post-Cooney was blatantly ducking the best fighters in the world. It's doubtful he was still the best heavyweight in the world by the time Spinks beat him.

Also, its unclear if Holmes was ever lineal himself, he never unified.

 

That Wladimir was 41, though, not 45. And the average age of top fighters is significantly higher today than it was in 1994.

 

Unified what? "Unification" has made zero sense from the beginning. And the funny thing is the same guys who throw rocks at the WBS boys use it as if it means something. It's farcical.

The fact is, as you say, Holmes never once fought the #2 when he was #1 and that casts doubt on his status as anything more than a belt-holder. But he was certainly the premier heavyweight in the world until Spinks beat him.

 

No, he wasn't the premier heavyweight given his blatant ducking of the best heavyweights in the world. How can he be number 1 when he won't fight Thomas, Tubbs, Witherspoon, etc?

 

Spinks got stripped by the IBF, the same organization who crowned Tucker as it's champ. I would've said by the same bodies that ranked Floyd Patterson and Archie Moore as their top contenders for Marciano's vacant belt, but that was where the WBC and WBA branched off from years later.

Who's the youngest then? Patterson? He won a vacant belt. Was he the best at the time? Maybe, maybe not. But the sanctioning body, or commission, or whoever was in charge of the ratings board, anointed Patterson and Moore as their top 2 dogs. What happens if Marciano came back 2 years later? Would he be the considered the rightful champ?

Spinks beat Holmes in the rematch, then unranked Tangstad and then a comebacking Cooney, hardly the top contenders to his IBF strap and mythical "lineal" title. He got stripped for not fighting the best, and rightfully so. Same as Foreman years later.

Those are the rules. No unfair play about it.

It's a convoluted mess, but check out Demigawd's thread on the subject. It makes the most sense to me.
https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/youngest-heavyweight-champion-ever-patterson-or-tyson.279531/