Records that won't be beat.

[flatnoseflynn]

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.

What's a youngert champ ?

[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.

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.

I love your sources - Google & hypothetical questions on game shows

[jaclem2]

..goodnight...those of us who know patterson was the youngest and those who think tyson was are never going to change one another's mind so think we should skip posting on this discussion and give these people some peace.

[Goodnight, Irene]

You will always have my ear, Jaclem.

[flatnoseflynn]

So Patterson was the youngert champ...............And Tyson was the youngest heavyweight champion in history finally sorted it out

[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.

I love your sources - Google & hypothetical questions on game shows

tit.

[BigJuicyHog]

Wont he have equalled it? Five years since 2006, plus another seven, equals Joes 12, no?

You cant just count from any belt, as I see it, anyway.

In that case, there arent going to be many records broken in regards to championships because there are very few "unified" champions. The days of a single belt/champion are long gone.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You're absolutely right. The records that get broken these days are financial ones. I'm sure Harry Greb would have traded in his 45-0 year for 10 or 20 million in the blink of an eye.

[Crease]

The Youngest World Champion?

Floyd Patterson - 4th Jan 1935
Won World Title - 30th Nov 56
Age: 21 years, 10 months

Mike Tyson - 30th June 1966
Won World Title - 22nd Nov 86
Age: 20 years, 4 months, 3 weeks

And that is just going by when they won their first world title belt.

[Goodnight, Irene]

The Youngest World Champion?

Floyd Patterson - 4th Jan 1935
Won World Title - 30th Nov 56
Age: 21 years, 10 months

Mike Tyson - 30th June 1966
Won World Title - 22nd Nov 86
Age: 20 years, 4 months, 3 weeks

And that is just going by when they won their first world title belt.

In other words, going by the wrong measure. A titleist & a champion are two different things. Berbick was never champ, so Tyson cant be for beating him.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Wont he have equalled it? Five years since 2006, plus another seven, equals Joes 12, no?

You cant just count from any belt, as I see it, anyway.

In that case, there arent going to be many records broken in regards to championships because there are very few "unified" champions. The days of a single belt/champion are long gone.

Unified & lineal arent always the same thing.

[Crease]

In other words, going by the wrong measure. A titleist & a champion are two different things. Berbick was never champ, so Tyson cant be for beating him.

I don't mean to take sides in this debate, sir. To be truthful, I wasn't too sure who had held a World title at the youngest age, so I did my own research and posted it here.

Of course, this is all down to interpretation, and as always, that is the trouble with having 4 champions.

Have a good day all the same.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Its not down to interpretations at all.

Have a good day, as well.

[MEISINGER]

You're absolutely right. The records that get broken these days are financial ones. I'm sure Harry Greb would have traded in his 45-0 year for 10 or 20 million in the blink of an eye.

i don't think a more true statement has ever been said

if those champs of yester year would of been able to pull in the
money of today.we would of never seen half of the records on this discussion

[gilgamesh]

Wont he have equalled it? Five years since 2006, plus another seven, equals Joes 12, no?

You cant just count from any belt, as I see it, anyway.

In that case, there arent going to be many records broken in regards to championships because there are very few "unified" champions. The days of a single belt/champion are long gone.

Generally GI makes comments I agree with, but look at it this way. Not many people dispute Hopkins claim of 20 title defenses as Middleweight Champion correct? Well The first 12 of those he was only defending the IBF title, it wasn't until his 13th and 14th bouts that he won the other two title belts. I think it's generally viewed like this. If at some point during your alphabet title reign you are able to prove yourself the legitimate Champion of the world, then all of your prior defenses of your title must then count. If they counted for Hopkins, they count for Wladimir. As he has since won another couple of titles along with the Ring Championship during his reign as IBF Champion. So in my opinion, every title defense since the Chris Byrd title win counts as title defenses.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Yep.

Unified & being the champ aren't necessarily (or even usually, in Boxing today) predicated on one another.

[Crease]

Generally GI makes comments I agree with, but look at it this way. Not many people dispute Hopkins claim of 20 title defenses as Middleweight Champion correct? Well The first 12 of those he was only defending the IBF title, it wasn't until his 13th and 14th bouts that he won the other two title belts. I think it's generally viewed like this. If at some point during your alphabet title reign you are able to prove yourself the legitimate Champion of the world, then all of your prior defenses of your title must then count. If they counted for Hopkins, they count for Wladimir. As he has since won another couple of titles along with the Ring Championship during his reign as IBF Champion. So in my opinion, every title defense since the Chris Byrd title win counts as title defenses.

Agreed.


And susually if you are a World Champion in a weight, and his title reign is long enough (like Hopkins, Wlad Klitchsko, Joe Calzaghe) he will usually have unification fights against the other champs at the weight. While doing this concretes his place as the number one in the division, all his title defences still count even before the unification fights.

[Crease]

In other words, going by the wrong measure. A titleist & a champion are two different things. Berbick was never champ, so Tyson cant be for beating him.

And so, using your logic... By your accountability:

1. Ernie Terrell was never World Champion when the WBA withdrew their recognition of Muhammad Ali because he changed his name.
2. Jimmy Ellis was never World Champion when Ali was stripped and banned from boxing for noe entering the army draft.
3. Joe Frazier was never World Champion until he eventually beat Ali in 1971.
4. Tim Witherspoon & Pinklon Thomas were never World Champions, because Larry Holmes choose to fight under the IBF banner.
5. John Tate, Mike Weaver, Michael Dokes, Gerrie Coetzee & Tony Tubbs were never World Champions.

All following your reasoning, of course.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Ellis won a tournament after Ali was stripped. If that didn't do it, coupled with Ali not fighting for years, his fight with Frazier did.

The rest of them were never THE Heavyweight champion of the world. Just belt holders.

[Crease]

The rest of them were never THE Heavyweight champion of the world. Just belt holders.

You do realise that you are cutting out huge swathes of the history of Heavyweight boxing...
Why can't you just come to temrs with the fact that there are four major World Titles?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

The rest of them were never THE Heavyweight champion of the world. Just belt holders.

You do realise that you are cutting out huge swathes of the history of Heavyweight boxing...
Why can't you just come to temrs with the fact that there are four major World Titles?

You asked a question and I answered it. If you read my posts instead of assuming you will see that I've said many times that lineal titles are useless in this fragmented era. But that doesn't make every Tom, Dick and Harry who carries a belt the champion of the world.

Trevor Berbick was the WBC champion. That's something Boxers strive for and he can be proud of it.. Marvin Hagler was the champion of the world. Why can't you just come to terms with the fact that they are different achievements all together? It isn't that complicated bro. There are certain situations where a debate can be had. Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tubbs or Bonecrusher Smith are not in that realm.

[Roars Like Me]

Chavez must have felt good at one stage, he must have been 80 odd without defeat prior to the Sweet Pea draw.

Sven Ottke deserves a mention surely the ammount of hometown decisions he had can't be beat

[Crease]

But that doesn't make every Tom, Dick and Harry who carries a belt the champion of the world.

Well sir. It would be hard to be a World Champion without them.

Trevor Berbick was the WBC champion. That's something Boxers strive for and he can be proud of it.. Marvin Hagler was the champion of the world. Why can't you just come to terms with the fact that they are different achievements all together? It isn't that complicated bro. There are certain situations where a debate can be had. Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tubbs or Bonecrusher Smith are not in that realm.

And so you think that the WBC title is the one, true belt. And that should be the aim for every boxer, the WBC title of their weight division?
Is that waht you're saying? Because if you aren't, why would you single out the WBC title?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Ummm, I singled out the WBC belt because that's the one that Trevor Berbick had. A different example could have been a different belt. Perhaps it is too complicated for you.

[Ezzard]

Ellis won a tournament after Ali was stripped. If that didn't do it, coupled with Ali not fighting for years, his fight with Frazier did.

The rest of them were never THE Heavyweight champion of the world. Just belt holders.

I agree.

But I do have a place in my heart for the lineal champ but realise many don’t care. I also like The Ring belt holders (but I’m sentimental).

Winning a ABC title is something for a fighter to be proud of but the Berbick-Hagler comparison is spot on.