Who do you rank higher: Johnson or Dempsey?

How can you not care about having a consistent set of rules to define lineage?

 

Lineage doesn't pay my bills sorry. I guess rating Dempsey ahead of Tyson would have saved me the interrogation but i have to be true to myself

:good

 

Did Tom Sharkey have the organizational belt in his livingroom?

 

Jim Corbett anounched his retirment while he was champion so Bob Fitzsimmons fought and beat Peter Maher for the vacant title. Tom Sharkey later beat Fitzsimmons by DQ and then lost to Jeffries by decision.

When Corbett anounced his comeback he was acepted as the champion again untill he lost to Bob Fitzsimmons.

If we can acept Tyson as the champion without beating Spinks then we must also accept Bob Fitzsimmons as the champion after he beat Peter Maher and thus Tom Sharkey after he beat Fitzsimmons.

I that case the legitimate heavyweight lineage would be

Sullivan
Corbett
Fitzsimmons
Sharkey
Jeffries

 

Things were different back then. Back then, people had no problem with a champion sitting on his rear end for years wothout defending the crown. Now there are rules against this, and I think rightfully so. Spinks didn't even have a belt when he fought Tyson, and he knew what the consequences would be for not taking the proper fights, so it's his fault.

 

But you have to have a consistent rule set across eras.

How can you not?

 

Janitor,
It's possible for a champion to be stripped of his title. Michael Spinks refused a mandatory and was stripped of all official recognition of his championship, so in my mind when Tyson defeated Tucker, and earnt the final piece of the "championship pie" so to speak, he became the heavyweight champion by my reckoning. WBA, WBC and the IBF all agreed on the notion that Tyson was the champion.

By your logic, if Michael Spinks had never fought again after Cooney, and insisted he was still active (despite not fighting), then he'd still be champion. That's clearly nonsensical.

 

Great post!!!:good

 

To call Johnson a "talentless freak of nature " and a "circus attraction",defines you completelyand irrevocably as a fool .Try wrestling.

 

I'm with you mate.

Tyson was the real goods and the true champion by 1987, despite whatever the Ring magazine rated Spinks. Afterall it wasn't the ring's title that the two men were fighting for now was it?

As for losing sleep over the issue?????

 

In regards to Tyson there were 5 men Pre-Tyson with a claim to being number 1:

Spinks - linear champ - beat Holmes

Tucker - Spinks mandatory, Spinks ducked him and was stripped, Tucker picked up the belts

Holmes - many had Holmes beating Spinks in the rematch, which surely made him the people's champ?

Berbick - WBC champ, not a good claim for no1 but beat Pinklon Thomas for the belt who Holmes had been ducking

Smith - beat Witherspoon in 1 round who had arguably beat Holmes when he was champ. Again not a good case for no1.

Tyson beat them all, does it matter which order he did it in? He also beat the other top contenders like Pinklon Thomas, Bruno, Tubbs and Biggs. Would beating Spinks first and then the other 4 make him greater in anyones eyes here? He literally cleaned out all of the top 10 with the possible exception of the frozen out Witherspoon.

 

In my eyes, Tyson was the champ before he fought Spinks. He just had to make it official and it took 90 seconds.

 

I did say IF!