BoxRec

Ambling Alp wrote:Spinks was no longer the "top dog." He pulled out of the tournament which he had comitted to, to get an easier payday against weaker competition. There is more to being the real champion than just winning the title. You have to defend it against the best available.

I like Spinks and detest Tyson. Spinks already did more than most thought he would do by beating Holmes. However, by not continuing to fight the best, he gave up the claim as being the "man or top dog or whatever you want to call it.

Tyson was the real champion after winning that tournament.

And that was the general consensus at the time. He had pretty much beaten most of the top HWs around. Spinks was the big $$ fight because he had a very well known name due to his fights with Holmes. However, Tyson was the man and deservedly so. For those who don't get it, just check his record leading up to the Spinks fight. No ATGs on the list, but it was a pretty long string of very impressive wins over world class contenders and title holders. He had almost cleaned out the division, which very few HWs had ever done.

No great Tyson fan here, but the man put up a hell of a run leading up to Tokyo.

Guess we should revise Sonny Liston's title reign to having run from about 1960 or 1961 through to '64, since he'd cleaned out the division prior to facing Patterson, too, right guys?

dempseyfire wrote:Tyson loses to Douglas with Cus alive or not.

Way too many Tyson fans conjure up Cus D'Amato like some magical fairy who via his magic sprinkle dust made Tyson a forever disciplined, sane individual who would never self-destruct. And even that said, Douglas boxed a perfect fight vs Tyson and styles-wise OWNED him that night, regardless of Tyson's personal issues.

I don't believe Cus D'Amato was a magic fairy but I do believe Douglas was a very luck fighter.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Guess we should revise Sonny Liston's title reign to having run from about 1960 or 1961 through to '64, since he'd cleaned out the division prior to facing Patterson, too, right guys?

Exactly.

Similarly Ingo, Douglas and Rahman were never champions because even though they beat the champ they were fluke wins and they were not as good as man they dethroned.

Grimm wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Tyson loses to Douglas with Cus alive or not.

Way too many Tyson fans conjure up Cus D'Amato like some magical fairy who via his magic sprinkle dust made Tyson a forever disciplined, sane individual who would never self-destruct. And even that said, Douglas boxed a perfect fight vs Tyson and styles-wise OWNED him that night, regardless of Tyson's personal issues.

I don't believe Cus D'Amato was a magic fairy but I do believe Douglas was a very luck fighter.

What the hell does luck have to do with the sustained beating he gave him?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Guess we should revise Sonny Liston's title reign to having run from about 1960 or 1961 through to '64, since he'd cleaned out the division prior to facing Patterson, too, right guys?

Irene, I guess maybe you weren't alive during the time, but there were very few credible people who considered Spinks as "The Man". The Spinks v Tyson fight was a big event because Spinks was just about the only guy left for Tyson.

BTW, you do know that during his first reign Foreman held the title only about a year and a half and successfully defended it only twice, once against King Roman? And during his second title reign he made one "successfull" defense before he was stripped for not fighting Schulz again? And unlike Tyson, he spent many years avoiding the top guys in the division waiting for a title shot rather than earning it.

I was never much of a Tyson fan, and think that that the Douglas that beat him probably would have beaten him at any time during his career, but it's really sad to see so many posters on here who are unable to recognize the accomplishments he did have. He burned very brightly for a short time, but during that time he pretty much cleaned out the division, which very few other HWs ever did. I don't have him in my top 10 ATG HWs list, but I wouldn't argue with someone who has him highly rated. Once you get past Louis and Ali there is plenty of ammo to belittle just about every other HW in history.

Ezzard wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Guess we should revise Sonny Liston's title reign to having run from about 1960 or 1961 through to '64, since he'd cleaned out the division prior to facing Patterson, too, right guys?

Exactly.

Similarly Ingo, Douglas and Rahman were never champions because even though they beat the champ they were fluke wins and they were not as good as man they dethroned.

I don't think you and Goodnight are understanding my point.
This is different than Liston's situation. Patterson's claim was more legitimate, and he never willingly gave up the title. Liston could have fought better competition in 1961, and Patterson was fighting a decent challenger (Johansson.) Yes Liston should have got a title shot a little sooner but that is different than what happened with Tyson and Spinks.

There was a lot of debate as to who the real "champion" was in 1987. Spinks probably had as good of a claim as anyone else , but by no means was it clear cut. He won the title from a man (Holmes) who had refused to defend against the top contender (Page). You could certainly argue that Spinks was never the man or the top dog or whatever you want to call it.

Spinks had committed to the 8-man HBO tournament. The idea of the tournament was to clear up the whole mess. He pulled out rather than fight the #1 conteder tony tucker in the first round. Whoever won the tournament deserved to be regarded as the real champion. That was Tyson.

As Great John L mentioned, the older Foreman refused to defend against the best. I (and many others) no longer considered him to be the real champion by the time he fought Shannon Briggs.
When you blatantly refuse to fight fight anyone remotely close to the best, you are no longer the man.

The moment you decide to use opinion to decide who the champ is then the whole concept of a champion just evaporates.

Didn't Paterson defend againt a guy having his debut fight? I'd say that's about as far from being as close to the best as could possibly be.

But that's just my opinion. And that's the problem.

Your approach raises hundreds, if not thousands, of legitimate questions when you change the rules.

When exactly did Tommy Burns lose his title?

When did Charley Burley/ become the man?

When did Ezzard Charles win the Lightheavyweight championship?

When did Holmes lose the title?

Did Jersey Joe first win the title when he lost a decision to Louis that many thought he won?

Etc...

Once you open the door to the general consensus as being the law then the whole thing falls apart.

This is not about my opinion.
Calling Spinks "the man" is nothing more than opinion, as technically it would be calling anyone that. With Spinks one that was not shared by many. There really is not much to back it up.

First, Patterson had a much stronger claim to winning the championship than Spinks.
When Spinks beat Holmes, Holmes was no longer the man. He was legitimately stripped of his WBC title. He was handed the IBF title which didn't even exist previously.

Beating a guy who no longer will fight the best does not make you "the man".
Even if you consider Spinks to be the man after fighting Holmes, I don't see how you can after he gave up his IBF title, pulled out of the HBO tournament which he had committed himself to.
The reason there was the HBO tournament was because there was a lot of interest in having "the man". If Spinks had won that he would have been "the man."
Yes Patterson made some easy title defenses. (You can say that about just about everyone.)
However he did defend against serious challengers as well.

Burns lost the title when he lost to Johnson. Not sure if Burley was ever the man, hard to say. (Obviously he should have got a title shot.)Charles was the certainly the best lightheavyweight for several years. Holmes lost the title the WBC fairly stripped the title when he would not fight the best. (Do you consider Ali to be the champion until 1971?) Of course Walcott was not the champ when he didn't get the decision against Louis.
None of this has much to do with Michael Spinks.

I don't see why this opens up hundreds of questions. Why on earth is it so cut and dry that Spinks was the man until 1988?
By name, the man", means there is very little dispute.

Ezzard wrote:The moment you decide to use opinion to decide who the champ is then the whole concept of a champion just evaporates.

Didn't Paterson defend againt a guy having his debut fight? I'd say that's about as far from being as close to the best as could possibly be.

But that's just my opinion. And that's the problem.

Your approach raises hundreds, if not thousands, of legitimate questions when you change the rules.

When exactly did Tommy Burns lose his title?

When did Charley Burley/ become the man?

When did Ezzard Charles win the Lightheavyweight championship?

When did Holmes lose the title?

Did Jersey Joe first win the title when he lost a decision to Louis that many thought he won?

Etc...

Once you open the door to the general consensus as being the law then the whole thing falls apart.

I just honestly cannot escape the logic behind what Ezz is saying here. How can you really disagree with the above?

x2 here.

Ambling Alp wrote:This is not about my opinion.
Calling Spinks "the man" is nothing more than opinion, as technically it would be calling anyone that. With Spinks one that was not shared by many. There really is not much to back it up.

First, Patterson had a much stronger claim to winning the championship than Spinks.
When Spinks beat Holmes, Holmes was no longer the man. He was legitimately stripped of his WBC title. He was handed the IBF title which didn't even exist previously.

Beating a guy who no longer will fight the best does not make you "the man".
Even if you consider Spinks to be the man after fighting Holmes, I don't see how you can after he gave up his IBF title, pulled out of the HBO tournament which he had committed himself to.
The reason there was the HBO tournament was because there was a lot of interest in having "the man". If Spinks had won that he would have been "the man."
Yes Patterson made some easy title defenses. (You can say that about just about everyone.)
However he did defend against serious challengers as well.

Burns lost the title when he lost to Johnson. Not sure if Burley was ever the man, hard to say. (Obviously he should have got a title shot.)Charles was the certainly the best lightheavyweight for several years. Holmes lost the title the WBC fairly stripped the title when he would not fight the best. (Do you consider Ali to be the champion until 1971?) Of course Walcott was not the champ when he didn't get the decision against Louis.
None of this has much to do with Michael Spinks.

I don't see why this opens up hundreds of questions. Why on earth is it so cut and dry that Spinks was the man until 1988?
By name, the man", means there is very little dispute.

Hang on this is really hard to follow (which is the whole point).

Holmes wasn't the champ because he gave up the WBC title and took the the made up IBF title (though the WBC title had been made up at some point in the past). So having the IBF title meant he wasn't champ.

Then Spinks is no longer the champion because he gave up the IBF title? So this time giving up the IBF title has the opposite effect!

So is the IBF title meaningful or meaningless?

How does any of thsi relate to Tyson then who also won the IBF title? Did it make him the champ? Or was it the WBC title? Or was it the WBA title? How do I know? Or, more importantly, how can anyone know?

They can't.

Now, if your argument is that Tyson appeared to be the best fighter and he'd fought the best opposition then I'm totally in agreement. BUT that can be said of many, many fighters throughout history.

Tommy Burns was defending against relatively timid opposition. Johnson appeared to be better fighter and was beating better opposition. He should have been made the champion much earlier.

Charles was best fighter at 175 and fought the best opposition so by this logic at some point he became champ when Lesnevich didn't grant him a shot. When exactly did this happen?

You don't have to answer these questions. They are just examples to show how this arbitrary system doesn't work.

Well of course it's hard to follow. Which is one of the points I have been making.
The arbitrary system? If you really want to, you could say the case for any heavyweight champion was arbitrary. What really made John L Sullivan the champion? What really made Marvin Hart the champion?

It is arbitrary to consider Spinks the champion when he beat Holmes and still the champion until he lost to Tyson.

Holmes gave up the WBC belt rather than defend it against the top challenger. He was given the IBF title because of his name. I don't think that makes him without question the real champion.

Tyson became the real champion when he won the tournament that was set up to include the fighters who had a claim as the champion. All excpet for spinks particiapted. (Spinks originally agreed, but pulled out. )

These other cases such as Burns/Johnson and Charles/Lesnevich are entirely different situations.

You have to realize that the sport was run a lot different until the 1960s.
Seldom did a governing bodies that make the champion fight the top challenger. If Burns or Lesnevich were told they had to defend their title against the top challenger or lose it, they almost surely would have defended it.

About the only good thing about the governing bodies is that they do make the champion fight the #1 challenger once a year.

The only way to justify that Spinks was without question the real champion from the time he beat Holmes until the time he lost to Tyson is to subscribe to the theory that a "real champion" is always still the "real champion" when he is stripped of his title.

Let me ask these questions:

1. Do you consider Ali the "real champion" all the way up to 1971?
2. Was Ali the "real champion" after beating Spinks?
3. When exactly did Holmes' reign as the "real champion" begin?

I would be interested in seeing Ezz and Goodnight answer these three questions.

They are not different situations at all, unless your argument is that the alphabet boys are actually the way we should classify boxing. If you believe in the divine right of the alpha boys then fine, at least then you’re being consistent.

Burns was not fighting the top contenders so at some point, by your system, he should have been stripped and the title handed to Johnson. When was this? It’s no different to the Holmes situation or the Spinks situation. It’s obvious to me that the more “opinion” is used the worse the system. BUT I don’t actually care…all I care about is that there is an attempt at consistency so everyone gets the same treatment. Now if you want to crown Tyson because of Spinks “poor” opponents then it has to be the same for everyone else.

The real issue is that this can go on and on, ripple through every division to the beginning of boxing.

KO magazine installed Pinklon Thomas as the man after he beat Weaver. By your reckoning this is fine. But to me it’s just making a bad situation worse.

But the alpha boys don’t rate one another’s titlists so the #1 contender is more likely the #4 contender. So at least they have to fight the #4 contender. I think we should hold back the ticker-tape parade.

Mike Spinks, beat Holmes, re-matched Holmes, took an easy defence, beat Cooney (and many of us thought Cooney would beat him) and finally lost to Tyson. It’s hardly a terrible string of contenders. Okay, not great, but even so…

There was no one to strip Burns. The was also no system to rank Johnson the #1 contender. As I said the situation was different back then so the rules have need to be different. Burns was never given the choice of fight so and so or you lose the title. You can't impose modern rules that did not exist during his day.

As I have said before, it is not just that Spinks gave up the title. It is that the title that he won was not as legitimate as what other champions won. You could make a case for spinks beating Holmes as being for the real title. but it certainly is not an airtight case.

You act like Spinks was without question the real champion during all of this time. I have said why it is not so clear.
You could also make a case that the WBA champion or the WBC champion was the real champion.
None of these had airtight cases.

The HBO tournament set out to determine who the real champion was. Maybe the way it was setup was not perfect, but atleast it was an attempt.
Whoever won the tournament deserved to be regarded the real champion. That is why I consider Tyson the real champion, not because he beat the best competition.

I am trying to be consistent. That is why I asked you questions to see your logic.

You didn't respond to my questions. I responded to yours.

Burns-Johnson is an example, nothing more… I could list over a hundred of them. the rights and wrongs are not the point, the point is consistency. If you’re not consistent then what we’re talking about is something closer to favouritism.

Spinks never gave up the title. He gave up the IBF belt that neither of us are able to define as anything other than a belt with, well, the initials “IBF” on it.

I don’t believe the alphabet boys bring any particular legitimacy to anything. They simply allow the fights to be marketed as title fights and so make more money. They are prestigious for the boxers and denote a certain quality but they do not prove anything.

I believe there was already a champion so all the tournament did was try and bring all the belts together. It was wrong of Spinks to drop out, but like I said there have been hundreds of wrongs in the history of the sport.

You’re not being consistent at all. You’ve created one set of circumstances for Tyson and then flat out refused to apply them to anyone else.

There are three issues here…

1) You have decided to strip Spinks on the basis that he wouldn’t fight Tucker.
2) On doing this you refuse to acknowledge that this kind of behaviour is the norm and not the exception in boxing.
3) You refuse to apply this logic to any other example.

To answer your questions as best as I can (all but question 2 are irrelevant).

1) If Ali did not have a license to box, or was unable to box because of the legal situation then unfortunately he would have to lose the title. You can’t have the sport grind to a halt because of personal circumstances. It’s very, very regrettable but I don’t see any other outcome. You may know more about the situation than me, though.
2) Ali was champ, lost to Spinks. Spinks became champ. Ali beat Spinks in the rematch. Ali became champ.
3) Hardest question to answer. Someone has to take over. Ali had retired (unlike Spinks) so we had no linear concept. Nobody had a legitimate claim. Holmes kept on winning and eventually faced Ali. It’s a grey area. Nobody had a true claim at that time but Holmes proved himself by beating the previous champion and beating some of the WBA champions. But pragmatically the sport needs a champion and Holmes became that man. He earned it. Now once the champion is re-established then we have a clear and simple system. In your interpretation when did Holmes become champion?

My logic is consistent, treats everyone the same and despite the odd blip is totally transparent.

Your logic is totally reliant on perception, treats everyone differently and has more blips than BoxBuzz’s heart monitor would register with him sitting on a St Tropez beach in August [apologies to Buzz but he’s the only chap on here cultured enough not to be out of place on the Cote D’Azur!].

I guess I will foucs on #3. "3) Hardest question to answer. Someone has to take over. Ali had retired (unlike Spinks) so we had no linear concept. Nobody had a legitimate claim. Holmes kept on winning and eventually faced Ali. It’s a grey area. Nobody had a true claim at that time but Holmes proved himself by beating the previous champion and beating some of the WBA champions. But pragmatically the sport needs a champion and Holmes became that man. He earned it. Now once the champion is re-established then we have a clear and simple system. In your interpretation when did Holmes become champion?"

You say Holmes proved himself by beating the former champion and beating some of the WBA champions? That doesn't hold water going by your previous logic. Beating a former champion does not make you the champion. Beating a fighter who was at one time a WBA champion but doesn't have that title when you beat him does not make you the champion.
You are using your own opinion here to make Holmes the champion, which is what you are accusing me of doing. If you can't even pinpoint a specific time when a fighter becomes a champion, then there has to be some doubt.

Of course this relevant. If you won't give Tyson the title for beating anyone with a claim and willing to fight in the HBO tournament, you can't give the title to Holmes either. Like you said, it is a gray area. If it is a gray area to regard Holmes as champion, then it has to be a gray area to consider Spinks the champion because his only claim is having beaten Holmes. I believe Holmes became the champion when he beat Norton, but it is a gray area. By your own logic, you can't say that holmes was the champ when he beat Norton becasue you considered Leon Spinks the chap at the time. Some cases are more of a gray area than others.

I as not giving Tyson any special treatment. I certainly don't like him at all and have no reason to favor him. Spinks is one of my favorite fighters. I was comparing the Spink-Tyson situation to Ali-Ellis and Ali/L. Spinks/Norton/Holmes becasue they are much more similar situatuion than Tommy Burns/Jack Johnson.

The bottom line is that is a gray area to consider some guys the champion. Jimmy Ellis is one with a lot of gray area. I consider Marvin Hart and Larry Holmes to be the real champion, but there is a little bit of gray area there.
There has to be atleast some gray are to consider Spinks the champion. You have to concede that.

I knew your questions were just a smokescreen which is why I resisted answering them.

My way of thinking is for the most part totally straight-forward with the odd grey area. Your way of doing it is just one huge grey area because it’s just based on you deciding because Leon re-matched the old, and possibly greatest ever, champion he should be stripped. Or that Michael not fighting Tucker was somehow so abhorrent that he needed to be stripped of the title too.

It doesn’t really matter to me how you or anyone wants to classify the champ as long as they are consistent. If not then it’s just plain favouritism. Now if you’re going to tell me that you consider Jackson, Langford, Wills, Burley, Marshall as champs too then that’s fine.

Well of course I asked the questions becasue I was forcing you use your own logic where it does not work.
holmes never actaully beat a real champion and really has no more claim to the title than Tyson did before he beat Spinks. You cited Holmes wins over fighters who were not even WBA champions at the time as a major part of your case for Holmes. Yet you don't count Tysons wins over the current WBA, WBC and IBF champions. That is ridiculaus.

Of course there have been many cases where a fighter was not stripped and should have. Of course the "governing bodies have mostly been corrupt.
However, when they do something right and strip someone who won't defend the title, then we should not ignore that either.

You have to take title strippings for not defending the title against the top contender into account. If you don't look at what you have to do:

For example, Harold Johnson can't be considered the light heavyweight champion. He won the vacant title when his predecessor (Archie Moore) was stripped for not fighting him. It follows that Wille Pastrano (who beat Johnson) would not be a champion either.

Sometimes it's clear cut, sometimes there is a little grey area and sometimes there is a lot.

I am being consistent. This has nothing to do with favoritism. I have no reason to show favortism toward Tyson who I despise over Spinks who was one of my favorite fighters. I don't conisder Ali's win over Spinks to be over the real champion. Guess what? I like Ali.

I judge fighters by the rules and norms of their times. That is why I consider Burns the champ for as long as I do. Obviously Jackson, Langford etc should have got title shots. But I can't assume they would have won the title and call them champions regardless of how good they were. And I can't say that the champions that did not fight them should have their title reigns shortened because I think they may have lost.

Do you really think that Jack Dempsey would have gone three years without defending his title if he threatened to have his title stripped if he did not fight the top contenders? I certainly he would have defended it. However, he was not threatened to, like Spinks was.
You have to judge people by the rules of their times and muddle through the best that you can.

Ambling Alp wrote:
But I can't assume they would have won the title and call them champions regardless of how good they were. And I can't say that the champions that did not fight them should have their title reigns shortened because I think they may have lost.

But that's exactly what you have done. That's my whole point.

Ezzard wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:
But I can't assume they would have won the title and call them champions regardless of how good they were. And I can't say that the champions that did not fight them should have their title reigns shortened because I think they may have lost.

But that's exactly what you have done. That's my whole point.

^^^No sh!t. Wow. Alp, surely you see this. You are frankly too good not to...

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:
But I can't assume they would have won the title and call them champions regardless of how good they were. And I can't say that the champions that did not fight them should have their title reigns shortened because I think they may have lost.

But that's exactly what you have done. That's my whole point.

^^^No sh!t. Wow. Alp, surely you see this. You are frankly too good not to...

Thank you.

I don't think you know what I meant by this. Maybe I should have worded it differently. I am referring to fighters like Tommy Burns, Jack Demspey etc. You can't say that they were not really champions for as long as they were because they didn't fight so and so. Their reigns can't be shortened. They were champions until they lost it or retired.(Read what I was saying right before this.)

I do think it is fair to criticize the champions from long ago who didn't fight the best. However, they should be consider the champion until they either lost it in the ring or voluntarily gave it up.

I was not referring to anyone who fought much later on (such as Michael Spinks) and had their titles stripped for refusing to fight the top challenger. I do think they are no longer the champion and they should have their titles shortened. They knew what the rules were and still refused to defend their title. A real champion would not do that.
That is totally different from champions from earlier eras who did not have those rules. I am almost positive that Dempsey, Burns and most others would have defended their titles against the top challenger if they were faced with having it stripped. There is no way that Jack Dempsey would have pulled out that tournament and lose his title.

I have tried to explain this so many ways and you guys keep misinterpreting what I am saying. I don't like the alphabet soup organizations but they are the hand we have been dealt with. Might as well support the one good thing that they do.
I am not be biased or showing favoritsm. I pretty much go by a few simple guidelines.
I will try again:

1.If a champion is stripped of his title because he refused to fight the best than he should not be regarded as the champion any longer.
2. That does not apply to champions from the early days when there was no mandatory defenses. They were operating under the rules and customs of the times.
3. I am willing to give spinks the benefit of the doubt as being the champion after beating Holmes. However it is a gray area and I understand others that do not. (Obviously you guys do.)
However he refused to put title when he knew that he would be stripped if he didn't. Morever, he had earlier committed to it.
Tyson won the tournament that had included anyone else with any claim. That is more than Larry Holmes ever did. So therefore (like almost everyone at the time) I consider Tyson the champion immediately after winning the tournament.

Now you guys can go off on a tangent again, go ahead but those 3 rules are pretty much it in a nutshell. This covers about 99% of the cases. Sometimes something weird can come up and you have to muddle through as fairly as you can.

Think about it. If a champion can not lose the title becasue he is stripped, what wif a guy won the title, and then never fought again but didn't offically retire. ie if Lennox Lewis had not offically retired, you would still have to accept him as the champion even though he has not fought for several years.

If you don't agree with me,fine. Like I have said, sometimes (most of the time forutnatley)there aree clearcut cases, sometimes there is a little gray area and sometimes there is a lot.
Sorry that you can't consider Harold Johnson a champion because he succeeded a champion who was stripped for not defending against the top challenger.

Tyson is the champ from the time he beat Berbick. Rather than creating maybes we should thank Tyson for giving the division some structure after the mess it was in. It was his not his fault ther were four different champions IBF WBC WBA and the Ring belt. Tyson beat everyone in the tournament and beat Spinks. He tidied up the mess. In 1994 the divison got messy again with Foreman stripped again Tyson cleaned up the mess fought Bruno and Seldon, and then lost to Evander who was seen as the man who lost to Lewis who had consensus until he retired, now we have a tag team brothers duo.

Fourstarzzzz wrote:I know he lost to Douglas, but I think there were many factors involved and it seemed like all of the planets aligned right that night. However, if Cus lived and Tyson did not go mental and beats Douglas, who would have beat him eventually? I think he would have lost eventually to a Holyfield/lewis type but mostly due to age. Thoughts?

I think Holyfield would've beat Tyson if they fought - he's basically a better version of Douglass..... 8)