Records that won't be beat.

[The Great John L]

Tyson was the man, Spinks was the champion. Recognizing Bonecrusher Smith, Tony Tucker or Trevor Berbick over larry Holmes is exceedingly silly.

If you want to banty about the term "lineal", then you need to trace the championship, and the championship that Ali held was won by Tate. It may be silly, but it is a fact. Holmes was obviously the best HW of his era, and one the best of all time, but he never saw fit to make an attempt to unify.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Tyson was the man, Spinks was the champion. Recognizing Bonecrusher Smith, Tony Tucker or Trevor Berbick over larry Holmes is exceedingly silly.

If you want to banty about the term "lineal", then you need to trace the championship, and the championship that Ali held was won by Tate. It may be silly, but it is a fact. Holmes was obviously the best HW of his era, and one the best of all time, but he never saw fit to make an attempt to unify.

Michael Spinks was the Heavyweight champion of the world until Tyson slaughtered him.

And if you want to take the stance you appear to be offering. It was vacant until Tyson fought Spinks. So either way, your "facts" don't add up to your post. You're going past Holmes not unifying, in your world he was never part of the equation.

[flatnoseflynn]

Excuse me, Patterson was 21.

Nevertheless, that's the record. Tyson was 22 when he won the championship. The record is with Patterson. I'm honestly sick of hearing that Tyson BS.

You will keep hearing it, google 'youngest heavyweight champion' and youll get Mike Tyson, the vast majority don't care what a small clique of snobs on boxing messageboards think about not beating the 'real champion' blah blah
Mike Tyson is the youngest heavyweight champion, end of

Agreed

[The Great John L]

And if you want to take the stance you appear to be offering. It was vacant until Tyson fought Spinks. So either way, your "facts" don't add up to your post.

I have no idea how you can propose that as taking "the stance you(I) appear to be offering". You sound quite confused. Let me try again.

Ali retired after he beat Leon in the rematch. A subsequent tournament was held to fill his vacant tile, with Tate winning the tournament. Perhaps you missed all of that. As I noted, I agree that Holmes was the best HW of his generation, but Ali's title was won, in the ring, by John Tate. It's actually quite simple, and is the same basic process that occured several other times throughout the history of the division, with little dispute.

Now please explain how this somehow implies that the title was vacant until Tyson fought Spinks? That is actually what you seem to be proposing.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

And if you want to take the stance you appear to be offering. It was vacant until Tyson fought Spinks. So either way, your "facts" don't add up to your post.

I have no idea how you can propose that as taking "the stance you(I) appear to be offering". You sound quite confused. Let me try again.

Ali retired after he beat Leon in the rematch. A subsequent tournament was held to fill his vacant tile, with Tate winning the tournament. Perhaps you missed all of that. As I noted, I agree that Holmes was the best HW of his generation, but Ali's title was won, in the ring, by John Tate. It's actually quite simple, and is the same basic process that occured several other times throughout the history of the division, with little dispute.

Now please explain how this somehow implies that the title was vacant until Tyson fought Spinks? That is actually what you seem to be proposing.

Ali's title was vacated, in a situation where there are two organizations what in the world convinces you that a certain vacant match up carries more weight than the other one?

Somebody is incredibly confused, and it isn't me.

LMAO that John Tate was the undisputed champion of the world. This is a perfect case of why lineal became a stupid conversation as the belts fragmented. If you think Tate/Coetzee carried more weight than Holmes/Norton, more power to you. But if you want to say that Larry holmes was never recognized as the champion of the world?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

HBO dictated that Tyson was going to be the youngest heavyweight champion in history and good for them. But it was no different than Top Rank saying that Pacquaio vs David Diaz was for the Lightweight crown.

Anybody who had any questions about it piped down after Weaver beat Tate anyway.

[The Great John L]

Ali's title was vacated, in a situation where there are two organizations what in the world convinces you that a certain vacant match up carries more weight than the other one?

I guess you need a little more history.

Spinks was stripped stripped of the title he won from Ali for giving Ali a rematch. When Ali regained his championship, he announced his retirement. The WBA then sanctioned a tournament to determine a succesor. Tate won the title that was Ali's. Norton was given a belt by the WBC because it didn't like the fact that Ali was getting a rematch. Holmes had plenty of credibility, but his "title" was not the one that Ali gacve up upon his retirement. I don't know why you find this so complicated.

If you care to acknowledge "title" that was given to Norton as legitimate, then so be it. But the fact is that Tate won the championship that was held by Ali, and that really can't be logically disputed. You can say Holmes was more legitimate titleholder, but he never won the title that Ali relinquished when he retired.

LMAO that John Tate was the undisputed champion of the world. This is a perfect case of why lineal became a stupid conversation as the belts fragmented. If you think Tate/Coetzee carried more weight than Holmes/Norton, I would question if you're over 12 years old but more power to you. If you want to say that Larry holmes was never recognized as the champion of the world?

Of course Holmes was never the undisputed "champion", anymore than a guy like Eusebio Pedroza. As I've explained, he was the best HW of his era, but never unified the belts and was therefore just a titleholder. Tyson unified the belts at the age of 21 years and a few months. There was no lineal champion, but if you want to make the silly "lineal" argument, then the title held by Tate and company was the "lineal" title that Ali held, not the belt that Mike Spinks was stripped of.

Your arguement of may be compelling for you, but it really doesn't help in the discussion.

Are you saying that Floyd Patterson was a more legitimate champion when he beat Archie Moore, after having only a handful of fights in the HW division, than Tyson who had beaten Berbick, Smith, Thomas and Tucker? In fact, Tyson also beat Biggs, Holmes and Tubbs prior to reaching the age that Patterson was when he beat Moore.

[The Great John L]

HBO dictated that Tyson was going to be the youngest heavyweight champion in history and good for them. But it was no different than Top Rank saying that Pacquaio vs David Diaz was for the Lightweight crown.

Anybody who had any questions about it piped down after Weaver beat Tate anyway.

What does Weaver beating Tate have to do with your first paragraph?

Perhaps you should step back and take a deep breath because your posts are becoming a little garbled.

[addi]

and if you know your history........why bother....tyson is the youngest heavyweight champion in history and if you dispute that then you'r an idiot...

[SaadOffTheDeck]

HBO dictated that Tyson was going to be the youngest heavyweight champion in history and good for them. But it was no different than Top Rank saying that Pacquaio vs David Diaz was for the Lightweight crown.

Anybody who had any questions about it piped down after Weaver beat Tate anyway.

What does Weaver beating Tate have to do with your first paragraph?

Perhaps you should step back and take a deep breath because your posts are becoming a little garbled.

I'm sorry you're so confused. The two paragraphs are separate thoughts, sorry for not clarifying that big guy. You need to stop taking deep breaths of that glue.

When Weaver beat Tate, the small portion of people that felt there was no definitive champion sided with Holmes. Well, everyone but you that is. I guess you prefer to invent this delusion that you're on. Kudos for coming off as condescending when you're completely wrong. That takes gumption.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

and if you dispute that then you'r an idiot...

[addi]

and if you dispute that then you'r an idiot...

thats skunk for ya

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Ali's title was vacated, in a situation where there are two organizations what in the world convinces you that a certain vacant match up carries more weight than the other one?

I guess you need a little more history.

Spinks was stripped stripped of the title he won from Ali for giving Ali a rematch. When Ali regained his championship, he announced his retirement. The WBA then sanctioned a tournament to determine a succesor. Tate won the title that was Ali's. Norton was given a belt by the WBC because it didn't like the fact that Ali was getting a rematch. Holmes had plenty of credibility, but his "title" was not the one that Ali gacve up upon his retirement. I don't know why you find this so complicated.

If you care to acknowledge "title" that was given to Norton as legitimate, then so be it. But the fact is that Tate won the championship that was held by Ali, and that really can't be logically disputed. You can say Holmes was more legitimate titleholder, but he never won the title that Ali relinquished when he retired.

LMAO that John Tate was the undisputed champion of the world. This is a perfect case of why lineal became a stupid conversation as the belts fragmented. If you think Tate/Coetzee carried more weight than Holmes/Norton, I would question if you're over 12 years old but more power to you. If you want to say that Larry holmes was never recognized as the champion of the world?

Of course Holmes was never the undisputed "champion", anymore than a guy like Eusebio Pedroza. As I've explained, he was the best HW of his era, but never unified the belts and was therefore just a titleholder. Tyson unified the belts at the age of 21 years and a few months. There was no lineal champion, but if you want to make the silly "lineal" argument, then the title held by Tate and company was the "lineal" title that Ali held, not the belt that Mike Spinks was stripped of.

Your arguement of may be compelling for you, but it really doesn't help in the discussion.

Are you saying that Floyd Patterson was a more legitimate champion when he beat Archie Moore, after having only a handful of fights in the HW division, than Tyson who had beaten Berbick, Smith, Thomas and Tucker? In fact, Tyson also beat Biggs, Holmes and Tubbs prior to reaching the age that Patterson was when he beat Moore.

Ali's title didn't have to be held by Holmes. A series of fights rendered it a lesser belt. You're really pushing the lineal BS to an extreme there. Lineal is a nice thing to link the past to the present. As the belts grew and grew it became more and more useless. Anybody who thought John Tate was more of a champion than Larry Holmes would be laughed out of any discussion at the time and still now. That's just ridiculous.

Tyson had put together quite a string of wins. But he had not beaten Spinks and his march to the crown was not complete until he did.

I was only laughing because your stance is astounding. I expect more from you.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Thank you to Saad for saving me the trouble, though I see its been in predictable vain against the wall of nonsense hes met.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Excuse me, Patterson was 21.

Nevertheless, that's the record. Tyson was 22 when he won the championship. The record is with Patterson. I'm honestly sick of hearing that Tyson BS.

You will keep hearing it, google 'youngest heavyweight champion' and youll get Mike Tyson, the vast majority don't care what a small clique of snobs on boxing messageboards think about not beating the 'real champion' blah blah
Mike Tyson is the youngest heavyweight champion, end of

You are right about one thing - I will keep hearing it whilever morons like your good self go straight from watching ESPN re-runs to posting here. LOL.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Excuse me, Patterson was 21.

Nevertheless, that's the record. Tyson was 22 when he won the championship. The record is with Patterson. I'm honestly sick of hearing that Tyson BS.

You will keep hearing it, google 'youngest heavyweight champion' and youll get Mike Tyson, the vast majority don't care what a small clique of snobs on boxing messageboards think about not beating the 'real champion' blah blah
Mike Tyson is the youngest heavyweight champion, end of

Agreed

LOL.

[jaclem2]

.....i don't think any future heavyweight champion will have the total of 122 fights in his career that ezzard charles had. a few of those first few fights fights are disputed by boxrec, but it's still a higher number than any will reach. truthfully it's not a record i'm fond of as he had way too many fights when he was all through because he needed the money.

i haven't seen the records of willie pep and ray robinson's winning streaks here...no way will they ever be equaled.

oh, just to calm things down, mike tyson won the heavyweight title when he knocked out michael spinks.

lineal may not mean much any more...in fact it didn't come into use until the alphabet boys started throwing titles around.....but it has more legitimacy than the jokes of the various sanctioning bodies. true, we'll get an occasional "champion" like whats-his-name who won that crappy decision over george foreman, but i think in the overall picture it still has the more legit substance.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Right. Patterson holds the record, not Tyson.

Funny how no one who says its Tyson will never tell you Trevor Berbick was champ of the world in 1986. That says it all.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Thank you to Saad for saving me the trouble, though I see its been in predictable vain against the wall of nonsense hes met.

The oddest part is listening to a guy who swears that I've never seen Lyle/Foreman talk like he actually was around when the world thought Michael Dokes was the man and Larry Holmes was nothing more than a paper champion. Worse than that, Holmes was never a factor in the Heavyweight title picture until he fought Tyson. That is historically poor posting. Hopefully John L is sleeping it off.

[flatnoseflynn]

Thank you to Saad for saving me the trouble, though I see its been in predictable vain against the wall of nonsense hes met.

The oddest part is listening to a guy who swears that I've never seen Lyle/Foreman talk like he actually was around when the world thought Michael Dokes was the man and Larry Holmes was nothing more than a paper champion. Worse than that, Holmes was never a factor in the Heavyweight title picture until he fought Tyson. That is historically poor posting. Hopefully John L is sleeping it off.

Goodnight Irene......You my friend are very pedantic

[Counter-puncher]

Thank you to Saad for saving me the trouble, though I see its been in predictable vain against the wall of nonsense hes met.

The oddest part is listening to a guy who swears that I've never seen Lyle/Foreman talk like he actually was around when the world thought Michael Dokes was the man and Larry Holmes was nothing more than a paper champion. Worse than that, Holmes was never a factor in the Heavyweight title picture until he fought Tyson. That is historically poor posting. Hopefully John L is sleeping it off.

Goodnight Irene......You my friend are very pedantic

do you understand 'pedantic' to mean 'the opposite of wrong'?

[flatnoseflynn]

The oddest part is listening to a guy who swears that I've never seen Lyle/Foreman talk like he actually was around when the world thought Michael Dokes was the man and Larry Holmes was nothing more than a paper champion. Worse than that, Holmes was never a factor in the Heavyweight title picture until he fought Tyson. That is historically poor posting. Hopefully John L is sleeping it off.

Goodnight Irene......You my friend are very pedantic

do you understand 'pedantic' to mean 'the opposite of wrong'?

Pedantic..............overly concerned with minute details or formalisms.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Minute details - like a complete fact (which you are now quietly conceding under the false premise that its a, 'minute detail.')

Like I said - the people who say Tyson was the youngert champ ever will, at the same time, never consider Berbick the champion of the division. Its a hole which cannot be ignored.

[addi]

Minute details - like a complete fact (which you are now quietly conceding under the false premise that its a, 'minute detail.')

Like I said - the people who say Tyson was the youngert champ ever will, at the same time, never consider Berbick the champion of the division. Its a hole which cannot be ignored.

hahahahaha ridiculous. if you was asked the ? who was youngest heavyweight champ ever on millionaire, and you said anything but tyson you'd lose. berbick was heavyweight champ. stop rewriting history. going by your theory there must be loads of records you dont recognise.

[Giancarlo]

WBA is a recognised championship so Valuev was a champion. Sorry FACT

Keyboard Warrior

Thanks for letting us know you started following the sport yesterday. We'll let you get a year or two under your belt before we continue.

15000 post? mate you must have a sad life and before you get the grammer comments out tell somebody who cares