Will Tysons record of youngest Champ ever be beaten?

That's the one, thanks - was searching everywhere for that.

So they had Spinks as Champ, bit like (though not in many ways) like they have Hopkins P4P no 4 right now and for the long foreseeable future.

Well, as I say, I don't remember there being a huge amount of appreciation for a HW Spinks at the time and as others have stated in the thread too, they don't remember it being that way either.

I stand by my belief that Tyson was the man at the time and being in possession of all three belts made him that. To put the icing on the cake, he later went on, when given the chance, to more than prove it, demolishing Michael.

Those are just my thoughts and opinions, we can't all agree all the time.

The man who held all three belts was the champ in my eyes, that's just my point of view and remains my view.

Though, yes, I do know/see that you can make a case that technically he wasn't.

 

Tyson was a red hot favourite at 1/5 to beat Spinks.

 

A clip from the time:

http://news.google.co.uk/newspapers...70416&dq=mike+tyson+youngest+ever+champ&hl=en

"They say i've bitten off more than I can chew". :-D

 

I wasn't talking about the Ring Champ, which is still ultimately simply opinion and is/was not necessarily universally recognised anyway.

Tyson went into the Spinks fight a 1/5 favourite, which just displays the feeling about the two at the time.

Anyway, I didn't know Spinks was Ring Champ for all that period, so you learn something new everyday I guess. :good

Cheers old timer.

 

That period 86-88 most people thought Tyson would beat Spinks and waiting for the fight to happen was just a matter of waiting for Tyson to "dot the i's and cross the t's" on his collection of belts and win the last, lineal, title from Spinks.

The pre fight odds or the way he dealt with Spinks doesn't mean though that winning a couple of belts from people who wern't good enough to beat the real champ (Holmes) that Tyson was THE heavweight champ in 86-87.

What if Tyson had of beat Berbick and Smith but lost to Tucker? Would you still call him THE champ 86-87? Thats what I mean about you "backdating" Tysons title reign on the back of his future performances.

Going by this thread is certainly easy to understand how the Alphabet Boys got such a stranglehold on the sport!!!

 

TBH if this wasn't a "Tyson" question and was just "Fighter A, Fighter B" then there wouldn't be this debate.

Fighter A beats the lineal and generally considered the best champ and stays active. Over the course of next year or so Fighter B picks up 2 belts beating fighters that had already been beaten trying to win the title against old lineal champ.

Who has the stronger claim to be the champ at that time? Fighter A all day long.

 

...but he held all three belts after beating Tucker and that's where I drew the line.

The bottom line is, personally I'd call the man who holds every single belt in the division, champ (especially given the phenomenon and favourite to knock anyone else out Tyson was), you don't, unless it's lineal as well.

We just all have different preferences.

 

Yep, I think this one we'll just have to "agree to disagree" on.

 

If we're just including the big three, even then it seems unlikely mate. How many 20 year olds are holding a big three title, in any division, now?

 

Great, I can now remove my "Tyson - legend - baddest man on the planet 86-90", teeshirt.

I do see your points I really do and if I'm honest, I did learn a little I didn't know.