Will Tysons record of youngest Champ ever be beaten?

Well, I never had you down as such a great fan of the huge risk taking Hungarian - I may have to remember this.

 

Like I say, Erdei gets thrown in a lot in debates like this. Its just a cross I've got to bear!!

 

Don't worry, I can see why you don't recognise Tyson unifying the WBC, WBA and IBF, HW titles, in absolutely devastating style and yet hold Zsolt Erdei on a pedestal.

I'm just being a bit funny now, I shall say no more.

I see the value of lineal titles too, but perhaps with say, for example, the Erdi case at one extreme, the Tyson one is at the other end of the spectrum and you have to make exceptions to the rule at times (though I know perhaps technically you can't really do that) - but nothing is always black and white and strictly ridged, imo.

 

Heres a thought for you:

When Tyson beat Berbick for the WBC title, Spinks had won the lineal and IBF titles from Holmes (who had beaten Berbick in a WBC title defence before Tyson) less than a year earlier.

How the hell could anyone consider Tyson to be THE champ at that point?

In his next fight Tyson won the WBA title against Bonecrusher Smith who was another who had lost to Larry Holmes in a WBC title defence (who Spinks had beaten less than a year earlier).

Again, at that point, Spinks still had by far the stronger claim to be THE champ.

After Tysons fight with Tucker its debatable. Tyson has the belts, is fighting better opposition while Spinks is taking easy clearly doesn't "fancy it" with Tyson. I'd still stick with the lineal champ in that situation but I can understand other people would lose patience with Spinks and recognise Tyson.

IMHO Tyson cannot be reasonably recognised as the champ after the WBC/WBA fight with Smith and his displays/ wins after that (inc. Spinks) don't affect that at all. World titles arn't awarded retrospectively on the back of future performances.

 

Well at that time I still believe that he was younger than Floyd.

At the end of the day Gaz, you talk about retrospectively viewing things, but if you came out with the comments you have today, when Tyson was undefeated and ruling the roost, I think you'd have been chased out of town. It's only though retrospection and his fall from grace that has allowed people to pick holes.

I admit that I was fairly young at the time, but I don't remember there EVER being any question as to who was the champ, Tyson could have held no belts and everyone would have known he was the man - it was simply never a question.

Anyway, I do very much see your cold hearted technical points.

 

No mate, you're missing the point. I'm not using hindsight to put down Tyson, that last post of mine is just a time line of things as they happened (ie. how we saw the situation unfold). How can you dispute the Berbick/ Smith points (you didn't address them though, TBH) ?

Would you call Tyson the champ because he beat a couple of Holmes victims when Spinks, who beat Holmes for THE title, was still active?

If you don't remember Tyson as being not unquestionably the champ at that time then I guess you were too young (sorry, I know that sounds patronising!), The Ring had Spinks as champ.

Its easy to look back and see that Tyson was the best of the post-Holmes heavies but that doesn't make him THE champ in 1986-1988
because he beat a couple of Holmes victims who happened to have picked up a couple of belts.

 

Sorry Gaz, he held the WBC, WBA and IBF titles, the only major world titles at the time, that made him the champ in my eyes.

We'll just have to leave it at that.

 

Both the WBC and WBA belts were won against fighters who wern't good enough to win Holmes title!!!

Go ask this question on the Classic Forum.:good

 

I'm with Gaz :deal

 

Nah, I've got my own opinions, I love the Classic Forum, but everything they say is not always right, everything is largely about opinions, they can also be over meticulous at times too.

Have you got a link to the Ring Rankings of the time? there used to be one kicking around here in the tools section in the Classic forum (it looks like they've sadly removed it now though)- not that it's necessarily definitive to the argument what Ring said.

 

That's put a dent right in his argument.

 

Sorry, I'm just not having a boxer being the WBC, WBA and IBF champion (in a time when they were the only belts), not being the champ.

 

To be quite honest with you 'Jon'.

I'm pretty much a big deal around these parts. Now I don't want to start anything off with you but it's pretty much the norm for arguments to stop around here once i've intervened. :good

Just to let you know 'and-all' :good

 

Great, but have you got a link to the Ring Rankings of the time?

 

Is this what you're looking for?

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings:_Heavyweight--1980s