Youngest Heavyweight Champion Ever: Patterson or Tyson?

This is still going? atsch

 

Its not Sam Langfords fault that he fought in an era where he was denied the right to fight for the title due to the colour of his skin.

I am still not going to retrospectivley make him champion because he beat all the contenders that the champion should have been fighting.

 

HAHA get used to it. Theres a lot of bored people at work on here.

 

Simplicity comes when one goes by written rules and laws that govern a certain area or entity, such as government, school policy and yes even a sport like boxing. Matters, however, are only "complicated" when people introduce unofficial doctorines or unwritten rules that are shaded in grey and have no official authority.

 

We have essentialy accepted these unofficial doctorines and unwritten rules for over a century now.

I don't think that I can be held responsible for introducing them.

 

That's why there's chocolate and vanilla. You go with your take and I'll go with mine.

 

I know I know. i'm a bit green.

 

Thought I'd past this clip for everyone.. This is the introduction for Tyson vs Spinks.. Tyson is announced as both the undefeated and undisputed heavyweight champion of the world, while Spinks is announced as being the champion by Ring Magazine and boxing illustrated..

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aASFYQOUCEU[/ame]

 

The irony being when Lee left the WBA he gained instant credibility by recognizing lineage and giving his new IBF belts to Holmes and Hagler...

 

This. :deal

 

Undisputed: Unchallenged, undoubted, unquestioned, accepting...

Clearly, by the announcement; The Ring and Boxing Illustrated, challenged, doubted, questioned and were unaccepting of Tyson as Undisputed Heavyweight Champion...

 

For whatever it is worth, Tyson himself saw Spinks as the biggest scalp out there.

That was probably due to the notion of lineage, which he as a historian would have been acutely aware of.

 

I covered this earlier. "Still recognised by MANY, including Ring magazine and Boxing Illustrated" .... Therefore the label "Undisputed" for Tyson is clearly a nonsense .... Everyone knows Spinks and his many supporters DISPUTED Tyson's claim to the championship, and that's basically the whole basis for this conversation.
Tyson BECAME truly undisputed only when he KO'd Spinks.

Interestingly, on a related note, Lennox Lewis continued to be billed as "Undisputed" AFTER the WBA and the IBF stopped recognising him in 2000-'02.

 

Buffer was wrong about Tyson being undisputed champ, just like he was about Ali winning his third title in "1979" in the same announcement.

I guess the organizations are all we've got for naming champions and running boxing (dammit), but I really hate them. They've done so much harm to boxing. I want it cut and dried and as lineal / linear as possible. I'll concede that I'm probably living in a fantasy land in recognizing a way of running boxing that went away forty years ago.

If we're going to recognize the organizations naming of Tyson as champion before he beat Spinks, thus recognizing his three belts and the various doings of the ABC groups, where does it end? Or for that matter, where does it start?

Is Ali a four-time champ because he won the WBA belt four times (Liston I, Terrell, Foreman, Spinks II)?

Is Luther McCarty one of the youngest heavyweight champions ever because he won the white title at age 21?

It could almost be claimed that Joe Louis is a two-time champ by virtue of beating BBBC champ Lee Savold (but the BBBC refused to recognize victor Louis and shifted it's recognition to Charles).

When did Larry Holmes reign really start and how many defenses did he actually make?

Is there a specific year when the WBO became legit? Is Ray Mercer a former champion? Michael Bentt?

It's all too confusing.

 

i reiterate my earlier post. tyson was younger, end of thread