Reasons why Mike Tyson:

[scorpio83]

We all know most boxing fans know that Mike Tyson was the youngest heavyweight champion at 20 when he knocked out Trevor Berbick in 2 rounds to win the WBC title. Tyson would ended up winning the WBA title from James "Bonecrusher" Smith and the IBF title from Tony Tucker, man that Spinks refused to defend, to become the youngest undisputed heavyweight champion at 21 years and 2 months even younger than Floyd Patterson by several months. Some people claimed that Patterson is still the youngest undisputed champion because Tyson knocked out Michael Spinks in 91 seconds to really claim as the undisputed heavyweight champion 2 days short of his 22th birthday. To me I find it BS.

Here are the reasons why Mike Tyson is the youngest undisputed heavyweight champion in history:
No disrespect to Michael Spinks who was the great undisputed light heavyweight champion, but he wasn't the undisputed heavyweight champion because outside his two disputed decisions against Larry Holmes and his only loss in 91 seconds to Mike Tyson, Spinks fought the unproven and undeserving challenger Steffen Tangstad and a shot Gerry Cooney. Yes, Spinks was recognized as the lineal heavyweight because he beat the man like Larry Holmes, but when Tyson won all 3 major heavyweight belts to become the undisputed heavyweight champion the sanctioning bodies still claimed Spinks as the lineal heavyweight champion because most fans still find it BS. Spinks once held the IBF heavyweight title for beating the legendary fighter that I mentioned 2 times already and refused to defend his IBF title against his mandatory challenger Tony Tucker, but instead fight a shot Gerry Cooney? Spinks' two possible cherry pick fights against men who don't deserve a fight against him at heavyweight doesn't mean he was the lineal or undisputed heavyweight champion.

Here's the definition between lineal and undisputed champion:
The lineal champion is the man who beat the man to claim that title and undisputed is the fighter who won all the major belts in one division.

To me and the boxing fans knew that Mike Tyson was rightfully is the undisputed heavyweight champion at the end of 1987 and not Michael Spinks. If Spinks ever fought some heavyweights who were at their best outside of Holmes and Tyson, then I would give him credit as the heavyweight. When Spinks finally fought Tyson on June 28, 1988, Spinks' claim as the lineal heavyweight champion that he was a paper lineal heavyweight champion all along. Like I said earlier, Michael Spinks never unified all the major belts in the heavyweight division, but Tyson did.

Even the youtuber named theFox251 explained this in his video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOadYla4 ... SwfMVD03Pg

Do the sanctioning bodies who made the claim that Michael Spinks was the lineal heavyweight champion while at the same time officially recognizing Mike Tyson as the undisputed heavyweight champion did this to confuse the boxing fans for money and stir up drama to promote their fights?

This is why I believe that once for all why Mike Tyson is still the youngest undisputed heavyweight champion.

[Tuan_Jim]

Whether you find Spinks claim "BS" or not is immaterial. Spinks beat Larry Holmes and joined a lineal line that predated the belts that Tyson unified. You can't erase this even with your skewed history gleaned from YouTube, Boxrec and Wikipedia.

As for the Cooney/Tucker question - would you rather fight Tucker, who hasn't earned his shot, for 300K, or fight Cooney, who hasn't earned his shot, for $5? There is only one sensible answer to that question.

The emergence of Tyson and reappearence of Cooney in 86/87 inflated the reigning champions purses by many millions. It was the business smarts of Spinks and Lewis that enabled them to exploit both. And Spinks of course had a rightful claim, the same way Ali had a claim when he fought Frazier in 71. So he ditched the IBF belt. What of it? What exactly were the IBF doing enforcing a Tony Tucker fight anyway?

In short, there was a reason why in 1988 Tyson/Spinks was the biggest fight ever, why Tyson was paid $20,000,000+ and Spinks $13,000,000+, and it wasn't because the public thought Spinks was the phony you have unjustly painted him to be.

[man]

some people must have enormous amounts
of free time ...

[tiny_acres]

I have no problem with people that call Tyson the youngest ever.But I still did not consider
him the champion until he beat Spinks.
I actually thought at the time that it was anyone's fight.Tyson with his power and Spinks with his
boxing skill.Man was I shocked when 91 seconds later Tyson reigned supreme.

But if Spinks would of won that fight would the same people who claim he was the youngest champion
still support that claim?Being that the undisputed would of then lost to the Lineal.
Just something to think about.