I hear over and over and over again that Mike Tyson was the "youngest heavyweight champion ever." Sure, he won an organizational belt at age 20, but he didn't win the World Heavyweight Championship until he was 3 days shy of his 22nd birthday. Floyd Patterson won his title 36 days shy of his 22nd, making him the youngest World Heavyweight Champion.
If we're going to recognize Tyson as all-time youngest champ for winning an organizational belt, shouldn't we recognize Luther McCarty as the 2nd youngest champ? He won an belt, albeit one created for downright WRONG (racist) reasons, that was taken seriously at the time. Like Tyson, McCarty fought bouts that were promoted as being for the World Heavyweight Championship while there were legitimate titleholders: Spinks and Johnson, respectively.
My point is, if we keep saying that the alphabet groups are bogus and that we shouldn't recognize their belts and that there can be only one heavyweight champion, then we can't at the same time call Tyson "youngest champ ever." Tyson was great; he cleaned out the division. But even his managment at the time acknowledged that he wasn't the real champion until he beat Spinks. At age 21 years, 11 months, and 27 days.
I'm interested in hearing what other students of boxing history have to say about the subject.
Mike Tyson or Floyd Patterson youngest champ?
McCartys belt wasnt taken that seriously.
As for Tyson, his belt was disputed but why would the Spinks belt count as his world title? Spinks vacated his title when he refused to face his top contender (Tony Tucker who had a damn good chance of beating him). Tyson's claim at that point was as good as anyones.
Patterson's claim was also disputed as the title he won had been vacated and the question of his and Moores legitimacy was somewhat open to inerpretation.
Basically the question is one that is across two different eras and thus no clear answer can be given. There will always be those who say that Tyson was legit and those that say he wasnt until later.
His win is good enough for me but both his and Pattersons accomplishments areno less remarkable.
As for Tyson, his belt was disputed but why would the Spinks belt count as his world title? Spinks vacated his title when he refused to face his top contender (Tony Tucker who had a damn good chance of beating him). Tyson's claim at that point was as good as anyones.
Patterson's claim was also disputed as the title he won had been vacated and the question of his and Moores legitimacy was somewhat open to inerpretation.
Basically the question is one that is across two different eras and thus no clear answer can be given. There will always be those who say that Tyson was legit and those that say he wasnt until later.
His win is good enough for me but both his and Pattersons accomplishments areno less remarkable.
..i asked this same question a long time ago. i was too lazy to add up the years and months, but i took the same stand....tyson won his world title the night he beat spinks, and not before. as for spinks "giving up his title"...he gave up those alphabet things...and he did not lose until he fought spinks.
i don't know what was questionable about patterson's title...unless the reference is to the fight with moore itself...which some have thought suspect. but....that's nothing but conjecture without a scintilla (tyring to get that word in for along time, and now i'm not even sure i spelled it right)..of evidence. if it's because it wasn't a direct lineal title, because of marciano's retirement, between moore and patterson they had beaten the other contenders in elimination bouts and the title was legit.
actually, there hasn't been a lineal title heavyweighrt champion since gene tunney....but geez....you've got to re-start somewhere.
now...having said all that...klompton's post really sums it up....open to interpretation and subjective.
but...tyson did win the title from spinks...not earlier.
i don't know what was questionable about patterson's title...unless the reference is to the fight with moore itself...which some have thought suspect. but....that's nothing but conjecture without a scintilla (tyring to get that word in for along time, and now i'm not even sure i spelled it right)..of evidence. if it's because it wasn't a direct lineal title, because of marciano's retirement, between moore and patterson they had beaten the other contenders in elimination bouts and the title was legit.
actually, there hasn't been a lineal title heavyweighrt champion since gene tunney....but geez....you've got to re-start somewhere.
now...having said all that...klompton's post really sums it up....open to interpretation and subjective.
but...tyson did win the title from spinks...not earlier.
The eighties is one of the few era I can actually see some legitimacy in stripping fighters like Spinx and it starts with Larry Holmes. Holmes ducked and dodged several of the best contenders out there, tossed belts away and helped the proliferation of sanctioning bodies by single handedly giving legitimacy to the IBF. He had won several questionable decisions prior to his fight with Spinks. Then Spinks wins disputed decisions over Holmes (both of which I feel Spinks deserved but many dont). Then, instead of defending against worthy, talented contenders Spinks goes and fights Cooney and Tangstaad, refuses to enter the unification tournament, and plays the media by saying he may or may not be retired. So I dont agree that Spinks was a lock as the undisputed world heavyweight champion.
As for Moore-Patterson I wasnt referring to any controvery in terms of the fight or outcome. I dont see anything suspicious there. My point is that Patterson, like all fighters who fought for a vacant title, didnt immediately gain acceptance as THE guy. Similar to Schmeling/Sharkey, Charles, Hart/Burns, etc. Same with Klitchko now. It always takes these guys time and fights to establish their legitimacy if they can last that long.
As for Moore-Patterson I wasnt referring to any controvery in terms of the fight or outcome. I dont see anything suspicious there. My point is that Patterson, like all fighters who fought for a vacant title, didnt immediately gain acceptance as THE guy. Similar to Schmeling/Sharkey, Charles, Hart/Burns, etc. Same with Klitchko now. It always takes these guys time and fights to establish their legitimacy if they can last that long.
re
But Klitschko is in a different category altogether in that he got his shot based on a loss and then it was a fight against Corrie Sanders, so actually Klitschko has about as much claim as John Ruiz does because the title was more, or less given to him.
As to the others...I have always tried to follow by the man who beat the man and when the man retires, then the heavyweight that clears out the division, such as Joe Louis did and then Ezzard Charles becomes the man. I agree with Klompton about Moore and Patterson as I feel that it is along the same lines as the title that Klitschko won, which Ali came along and straightend the division out. It's hard for me to go against Holmes and even Spinks, although they both did fail to fight the very best available...Spinks a whole lot more so than Holmes because Holmes did fight a lot, but the title that Spinks won was the IBF, which was a low blow to the sport as all sanctioning bodies are because it was new and Holmes grabbed a hold and made the belt legit, which in the long run has really hurt boxing.
Tyson won the WBC first from Berbick, who had taken it from Pinklon Thomas, who had taken it from Tim Witherspoon, who had won the vacant title shortly after he had lost a close decision to Holmes, so how legit was the Witherspoon-Page bout for the WBC title?
It's a mess to try to sort out and it's hard for anyone to claim that they are correct as there are many different arguments that can be made, primarily because of all of the options available in regards to a world title...which is why I hate the sanctioning organizations so much...it has really made the job of record-keeping more difficult than it really should be!
As to the others...I have always tried to follow by the man who beat the man and when the man retires, then the heavyweight that clears out the division, such as Joe Louis did and then Ezzard Charles becomes the man. I agree with Klompton about Moore and Patterson as I feel that it is along the same lines as the title that Klitschko won, which Ali came along and straightend the division out. It's hard for me to go against Holmes and even Spinks, although they both did fail to fight the very best available...Spinks a whole lot more so than Holmes because Holmes did fight a lot, but the title that Spinks won was the IBF, which was a low blow to the sport as all sanctioning bodies are because it was new and Holmes grabbed a hold and made the belt legit, which in the long run has really hurt boxing.
Tyson won the WBC first from Berbick, who had taken it from Pinklon Thomas, who had taken it from Tim Witherspoon, who had won the vacant title shortly after he had lost a close decision to Holmes, so how legit was the Witherspoon-Page bout for the WBC title?
It's a mess to try to sort out and it's hard for anyone to claim that they are correct as there are many different arguments that can be made, primarily because of all of the options available in regards to a world title...which is why I hate the sanctioning organizations so much...it has really made the job of record-keeping more difficult than it really should be!
I think the same thing also applys when people say Hopkins is the longest reigning middleweight champion, he won a title in 1994 but has only been champion since he beat Trinidad in 2001.barry wrote:which is why I hate the sanctioning organizations so much...it has really made the job of record-keeping more difficult than it really should be!
The same problem again when De La Hoya claims to be a five division champion. The alphabet belts cloud the issue.