Trevor Berbick vs Pinklon Thomas

[dempseyfire]

In essence Norton, Holmes, even Ali when he regained the title
from Spinks were just titlists...

How do we pick and chose which is the legitimate title and which
is not.

'lineage'...?

Yes.

90% of the time, lineage will more often than not show you who the true champ is, although I'd argue that in some circumstances a la the 175 lb class right now, that doesn't hold true.

[Robinson]

I know it does get confusing...for example with as you mentioned the LHW
title...I had to try and explain who the champ is of the LHW's while I was
watching RJJ-Calzaghe. It just got too confusing.

I think the coloured champions of the past should be aknowledged as champions
as much as say ABC ones.

And if we are going by lineage does that mean that Terrel was the champ and
not Ali ? As Ali was stripped of the 'linear' title that he was holding...Or does the
linear have to absolutely be taken from the champ...unless in the case of retirement.

So Ali-Spinks was for the TRUE HW title, whereas Holmes-Norton was a fight to
become a mere titlist...

[purple.obi]

Its true that Pinky was regarded as the top heavy in the world by many when he met Berbick as Holmes was fading. Berbick was a very good fighter... I actually rate Tysons ko of Trevor as probably his finest performance... though having said that Berbick fought the entirely wrong fight that night trying to trade with Tyson!.
By the way I do have Berbick vs Thomas and its a very good fight!.... 8) [/quote]

Wow, this is a good topic. Big Pinky Thomas fan. I hope to eventually see a lot of his pre-Tyson fights eventually. Pink was cool, he was getting a lot of attention from the top magazines of the day like KO Magazine. I've only seen clips of Pink's match with Berbick, but his match against Gerrie Coetzee is currently available on YouTube, and is excellent. I've never boxed, but I haven't clue as to what Berbick was attempting to do against Tyson. He was like a sacrificial lamb, seemed to hardly throw anything. Pink got blown out by Tyson of course, and his last hurrah was against Evander Holyfield, where he looked just awful. I know he fought on, but Pink was done after the Holyfield match as any kind of serious contender. But he still was briefly a good champ. I hope he puts out that book he's talked about. Books on boxers are usually always good reading.

[Robinson]

purple,

re- Tyson-Berbick I think Berbick was stun when he felt the
first tyson blow and just could not get into the fight therafter.

Berbick had just never been hit by hard heavy shots like that,
also I think you will find that Berbick takes his time to get into
the fight, as was the case with the Thomas fight he really started
kicking into gear after the fifth or so round.

Tysons win over Berbick is certainly a damned impressive win,
but sadly as many do not appreciate that era of HW it gets over
looked and under appreciated.

Bert Sugar or Hauser were not that impressed so maybe thats why
its not heralded as such a great feat.

[p4p1]

I know it does get confusing...for example with as you mentioned the LHW
title...I had to try and explain who the champ is of the LHW's while I was
watching RJJ-Calzaghe. It just got too confusing.

I think the coloured champions of the past should be aknowledged as champions
as much as say ABC ones.

And if we are going by lineage does that mean that Terrel was the champ and
not Ali ? As Ali was stripped of the 'linear' title that he was holding...Or does the
linear have to absolutely be taken from the champ...unless in the case of retirement.

So Ali-Spinks was for the TRUE HW title, whereas Holmes-Norton was a fight to
become a mere titlist...

[Goodnight, Irene]

I know it does get confusing...for example with as you mentioned the LHW
title...I had to try and explain who the champ is of the LHW's while I was
watching RJJ-Calzaghe. It just got too confusing.

I think the coloured champions of the past should be aknowledged as champions
as much as say ABC ones.

And if we are going by lineage does that mean that Terrel was the champ and
not Ali ? As Ali was stripped of the 'linear' title that he was holding...Or does the
linear have to absolutely be taken from the champ...unless in the case of retirement.

So Ali-Spinks was for the TRUE HW title, whereas Holmes-Norton was a fight to
become a mere titlist...

You've no doubt often heard Norton's name mentioned as one of, "the greatest Heavyweights never to win the title..."

This is why I consider Holmes the division champion only upon Ali's retirement, not following his victory against Norton. This is one of those "10%" cases DempseyFire mentioned, where the linear champion (Coetzee) probably shouldn't supercede Holmes, who was far-&-away the best 200+lber on the planet when Ali retired in late-79.

Still, if you were so inclined to get technical about it, there it is --- Larry Holmes: NEVER World Heavyweight champion

[dempseyfire]

I know it does get confusing...for example with as you mentioned the LHW
title...I had to try and explain who the champ is of the LHW's while I was
watching RJJ-Calzaghe. It just got too confusing.

I think the coloured champions of the past should be aknowledged as champions
as much as say ABC ones.

And if we are going by lineage does that mean that Terrel was the champ and
not Ali ? As Ali was stripped of the 'linear' title that he was holding...Or does the
linear have to absolutely be taken from the champ...unless in the case of retirement.

So Ali-Spinks was for the TRUE HW title, whereas Holmes-Norton was a fight to
become a mere titlist...

You've no doubt often heard Norton's name mentioned as one of, "the greatest Heavyweights never to win the title..."

This is why I consider Holmes the division champion only upon Ali's retirement, not following his victory against Norton. This is one of those "10%" cases DempseyFire mentioned, where the linear champion (Coetzee) probably shouldn't supercede Holmes, who was far-&-away the best 200+lber on the planet when Ali retired in late-79.

Still, if you were so inclined to get technical about it, there it is --- Larry Holmes: NEVER World Heavyweight champion

Coatzee was NEVER linear champion. Spinks had lost to Ali . . upon Ali's retirement he doesn't suddenly get the title back. Holmes became the linear champion upon defeating Ali in 1980.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I have never accepted the argument that a fresh champion is crowned, & has it taken away from them in a linear context if the previous champ (who retired as such) returns.

Lineage can fairly deemed to continue in the absence of a champion. Sorry, but if you leave, the door closes. The world doesn't freeze, & then spring back to life because you need money, or are impelled by social impetus, or any other reason. Life goes on, & in coming back, you are afforded an undeserved title shot, in many instances. That's good enough. I refute the argument that Holmes, Johnson & Charles were never linear champ until they beat returning ex-titleists Ali, Jeffries & Louis, respectively.

[observer1]

Berbick is obviously under-rated, but me was his own downfall. His Psychological issues obviously got to him in the end, with his bout with Tyson arguably ending his career

[p4p1]

Berbick is obviously under-rated, but me was his own downfall. His Psychological issues obviously got to him in the end, with his bout with Tyson arguably ending his career

dont yah remember it was the poisen in the hotel aircondition that beat him not tyson

[purple.obi]

Of the 1990's crop Bruce Seldon was the one who disapointed me the most. He had such exception athletisicm but seemingly on the surface of it had a glass jaw and poor determination in the big ones.[/quote]

Seldon was never a favorite of mine, but he hung in there. I remember Oliver McCall as the first guy to expose Seldon's, well, Seldon did not respond well when things were not going his way from what I remember. Donovan "Razor" Ruddock has been mentioned. Even though he didn't become a world champ, physically/athletically he was incredibly awesome. Maybe not the boxer Pinklon Thomas was, but gosh, he possessed incredible determination. And it was very cool when he became associated with Floyd Patterson! Sorry about getting off topic, but both Thomas and Ruddock are two of my fave heavies from the Tyson era. Ruddock-Lewis, to me, was as compelling as Hagler-Hearns. Ruddock meant Lewis serious harm! Just didn't work out that way.

[dempseyfire]

I have never accepted the argument that a fresh champion is crowned, & has it taken away from them in a linear context if the previous champ (who retired as such) returns.

Lineage can fairly deemed to continue in the absence of a champion. Sorry, but if you leave, the door closes. The world doesn't freeze, & then spring back to life because you need money, or are impelled by social impetus, or any other reason. Life goes on, & in coming back, you are afforded an undeserved title shot, in many instances. That's good enough. I refute the argument that Holmes, Johnson & Charles were never linear champ until they beat returning ex-titleists Ali, Jeffries & Louis, respectively.

If the linear champ, like Marciano, retires, then a new one can be named when the two top-rated (by general concensus, not an ABC org) guys fight it out for the vacant belt. THis is what happened in Patterson-Moore and Schmeling-Sharkey. But it doesn't suddenly go back to the guy Ali beat, who was Spinks. Spinks was not linear champ at anypoint AFTER he lost to Ali in New Orleans.

[Bricks]

I've never boxed, but I haven't clue as to what Berbick was attempting to do against Tyson. He was like a sacrificial lamb, seemed to hardly throw anything

berbicks legs were shaking at the prefight instructions, he was very nervous. Yet as was his nature he fought very bravely and in the first really tried trading with Tyson and backing him up.
The fact all his punches missed and he felt Tysons freakish power and speed must have been terryfying to behold.
That punch in the second round which hit berbicks hip and knocked him down 3 times had the capacity to create inertia. Tremendous velocity. The internal damage must have last weeks.

[overhand_right]

Berbick just had a clumsy strategy of trying to bully Tyson and tackle him head on. Tyson really was a bad fight for him stylewise.

The notion of Berbick's legs trembling before the fight though is pretty ridiculous though. Care to prove this?

[Goodnight, Irene]

"If the linear champ, like Marciano, retires, then a new one can be named when the two top-rated (by general concensus, not an ABC org) guys fight it out for the vacant belt. THis is what happened in Patterson-Moore and Schmeling-Sharkey. But it doesn't suddenly go back to the guy Ali beat, who was Spinks. Spinks was not linear champ at anypoint AFTER he lost to Ali in New Orleans." - DF

I agree Spinks isn't a two-time champ. Ali regained the title, at which point you had two belt-holders --- linear champ, Ali, & WBC titleist (note the use of this word in place of, "champion") Holmes. Then, Ali retired. Tate took that belt, but he didn't beat Ali in the ring for it, meaning you now have a choice --- Holmes, clearly the number one HW in the division, or Tate, who owns a quasi-linear belt. Upon Ali's retirement in late '79, I consider Holmes to have taken championship status. He didn't need to beat a retired (read: no longer relevant) Ali to get it.

I normally would favour someone in Tate's position, but Holmes was overwhelmingly superior, not unlike the Jones-Michalczewski Light-Heavyweight scenario of the 1990's.

[overhand_right]

Holmes was overwhelmingly superior because he wouldn't mix it up with the WBA lot and fought mostly bums extending his reign by years.

The odd occasion he did fight the WBA crew - Weaver, Bonecursher, & Witherspoon - he had life or death, or escaped with an undeserved points nod.

I doubt his reign would have been that long had he boxed the likes of Dokes or Page or Tubbs or Thomas or Spoon in a rematch. Just my opinion, of course.

[dempseyfire]

"If the linear champ, like Marciano, retires, then a new one can be named when the two top-rated (by general concensus, not an ABC org) guys fight it out for the vacant belt. THis is what happened in Patterson-Moore and Schmeling-Sharkey. But it doesn't suddenly go back to the guy Ali beat, who was Spinks. Spinks was not linear champ at anypoint AFTER he lost to Ali in New Orleans." - DF

I agree Spinks isn't a two-time champ. Ali regained the title, at which point you had two belt-holders --- linear champ, Ali, & WBC titleist (note the use of this word in place of, "champion") Holmes. Then, Ali retired. Tate took that belt, but he didn't beat Ali in the ring for it, meaning you now have a choice --- Holmes, clearly the number one HW in the division, or Tate, who owns a quasi-linear belt. Upon Ali's retirement in late '79, I consider Holmes to have taken championship status. He didn't need to beat a retired (read: no longer relevant) Ali to get it.

I normally would favour someone in Tate's position, but Holmes was overwhelmingly superior, not unlike the Jones-Michalczewski Light-Heavyweight scenario of the 1990's.

But having the linear champ's old belt means NADA. Tate was never any quasi-linear champ.

Now, if Ali had retired, Holmes is the number#1 guy, but he'd hae to defeat the clear concensus #1 guy. I'm not sure who that was at the time after Ali retired . . .maybe Shavers since he beat Norton? So Holmes could've and would've been linear champ had Ali not come back, but the Ali fight solidified everything and made it clear cut.

[purple.obi]

This (my) post is basically pointless D , but Donald Curry and Pinklon Thomas (tho' Pink much faster) seemed to paralell each other. After their first loss, both fighters, who were I guess briefly both considered the best in their respective weight class, just did not bounce back. I remember Larry Merchant referring to Pinklon as possibly a "shot" fighter during the Tyson-Pinklon telecast. Pink gave it his best shot to kick Tyson's ass, but he was so listless when he faced Holyfield. :??