Youngest Heavyweight Champion Ever: Patterson or Tyson?

Damnit! Colonel Bob Sheridan.:verysad

 

Who cares about the underlying politics. That doesn't take away from the fact that the NBA was rolled into the WBA and claims it as a predecessor organization. Talking about latin american takeovers of boxing organizations as a reason to deny Tyson recognition for a feat is reaching quite a lot. If you're going to trace the origin and history of the WBA, it points directly to Patterson's old title. Analyzing it further than that is trying too hard to engineer a point.

Thinking we'll just have to agree to disagree!

 

The #1 and #2 fighters in the world as designated by...the sanctioning body. Not the press or popular decree, but by the NBA and NYSAC. If you recognize Patternson and the Mongoose as the #1 and #2 heavyweight contenders (despite the fact that neither of them were heavyweights), then you recognize the authority and decision-making of those sanctioning bodies.

 

I don't agree that champions are appointed by popular decree. That's simply not true. Every champion in every division is a titleholder. There are no beltless champions, and there haven't been any beltless champions since the creation of sanctioning bodies which currently supercede the press and "popular opinion". I've never seen or heard of someone introduced as the the champion of the world without having a sanctioned title since the introduction of sanctioning bodies. So I disagree with your entire premise that sanctioning bodies are meaningless and champions are identified by popular decree. That's simply not the case. Hell, the press doesn't even cover boxing anymore. Are you saying that if Dan Rafael says that Audley Harrison is the heavyweight champion that it is so?

One other point - weight classes are maintained by the sanctioning bodies. The reason there is a 140 lb division is because the WBC, WBA, IBF, and WBO each started awarding belts at 140lbs. If they decided to start awarding belts at 151lbs, then that becomes a new weight class - as decreed by those sanctioning bodies. And the champion of those divisions are those who those sanctioning bodies designate. Where does popular opinion fit in there?

 

Who cares? They're magazines. They don't order matches, make matches or sanction matches. Are you saying that if the Topeka Times disputes the status of a champion that they can't be considered undisputed? What about ESPN? Yahoo?

 

I think we're starting to go in circles a little bit here just for the sake of arguing. It's clear that there are two schools of thought:

1. Sanctioning bodies are meaningless and the titles they award are worthless. Lineage is more important and champions are appointed by the press and "the people".

2. Sanctioning bodies award championships and therefore they determine the champions, and their authority in recognizing champions supercede any other groups, newspapers, or fight fans.

We've been trying to reconcile these two views for 11 pages and we simply can't do it. For me, the bottom line is that "lineal titles" are imaginary, and being imaginary, records have no place being based on them. If you're going to have a tangible record like, "youngest heavyweight champion", you have to base it on a tangible championship, not some vague notion of your perception of "lineage", since the lineage itself was broken and re-established by the decree of the very organizations whose authority you deny. The only tangible championships are those awarded by the bodies who award the championships. The records, which are reported by the IBHOF, include anything sanctioned by the IBF, WBO, WBA and WBC. Anything beyond that, IMO, is basing it on personal bias or a notion of a press-designated champion which stopped being used 90 years ago.

That's all I have to say on the topic. But this was a great discussion!

 

This has gotten twisted, chopped and screwed. You've done a good job staying composed. I'm wondering when you're gonna snap!

 

Actualy the magazines have acted as kingmakers long before the santioning bodies were in existence. Before the dawn of gloved boxing infact. The certainly weild a lot more clout than the IBHOF which you cite to legitimise the sanctioning bodies.

 

Yep. Just like John Ruiz won the WBA title after Lewis ditched it.

Yep. It's how Marvin Hart became linear champion of the world, a feat that Tyson accomplished in 1988 by beating Spinks.

Yep. Just like Mike Tyson never beat the Man... Until 1988.

 

Michael Spinks, against Gerry Cooney. Introduced as "Heavyweight Champion Of The World"

Marco Antonio Barrera was acknowledged as the featherweight champion when he fought Manny Pacquiao, but he "only" held the Ring magazine belt. I don't remember many fans who doubted Barrera or Pacquiao as being champion.

 

What do you think a "sanctioning" body does when it "sanctions" matches ?

I could set up a sanctioning body from my bedroom today, with a three-letter acronym, print out some letter-headed paper, make some shabby belt, and go see which match I can sanction.
You think that makes me more "LEGIT" than a leading boxing magazine ?

 

And there have been literally dozens of organizations that were probably started in the fashion that you describe, but the difference between most of them and the sanctioning bodies is that the WBA, WBC and the IBF were the recognized authorities at the time of Tyson vs Spinks. Tyson had acquired the belts of all three of these organizations, while Spinks had been stripped of the one and only portion of the title that he had. I think you're also going over board when you suggest that these entities may have been constructed on a whim. The WBC and WBA were long standing organizations that many champions had held prior to Tyson's acquistion of them. The IBF was a newly formed title, but was still the very same piece that both Holmes and Spinks had worn before Tyson. You may not like the politics that surround and dictate the actions of these bodies, ( neither do I ), but they were the recognized authorities and likewise, recognized Tyson as their champion...

To clearify, I had great respect for Spinks' status as the man who beat Holmes and still felt that this claim gave him a prescence in the heavyweight division.. He was certainly the most qualified and entitled to fight for the crown, and in a sense was still a champion of sorts in his own right.. But, I still maintain that the official title belonged to Tyson, by way of facing the top challengers and unifying all governing bodies.. To me, that's a lot more than beating one man, for one fragment, then losing that fragment for not fullfilling an obligation as a title holder. I agree with such posters as yourself, Janitor and a few others that the lineage of the title has some importance, but we can't just turn over the governance of boxing to a vague and unwritten notion that historically has been proven to have its fair share of holes ( not that title elimations, sanctioned by alphabet bodies don't. )

If you don't agree that Tyson was undisputed by way of Spinks' prescence in boxing, then fine. Our views on the differences between a champion and a lineal champion, may never meet in the middle. But one thing that I do feel is true, is that Tyson should be considered the youngest champion of all time, and a very real champion at that. He certainly did a lot more to warrant that claim than Patterson did, who himself was appointed champion by way of elimination and not beating the previous holder.

 

I think that a lot of the credibility of the bout came from the fact that they were designated as the #1 and #2 contender by Ring Magazine.

 

30 years ago TODAY - "And weeeee...have a new era...in boxing!"

20 year old Iron Mike Tyson. Still the youngest heavyweight champion of the world.

 

Tyson over Berbick .. twenty .. it is what it is ..