fighters who destroyed the champion in their world title debut

[Scott9945]

Okay...whatever. Again, that was not Tyson's championship debut. Spin it however you want.

People who still follow lineage will tell you this, but it was clearly not Tyson's first world title fight. Eventually everyone will accept that the concept of lineal titles is obsolete and gone forever.

[SBleeder]

Okay...whatever. Again, that was not Tyson's championship debut. Spin it however you want.

Who had defeated Spinks for the title?

[SBleeder]

People who still follow lineage will tell you this, but it was clearly not Tyson's first world title fight. Eventually everyone will accept that the concept of lineal titles is obsolete and gone forever.

Lineal titles are the only titles worth following. The word "champion" implies singularity. There cannot be four world champions at the same time.

[Scott9945]

Lineal titles are the only titles worth following. The word "champion" implies singularity. There cannot be four world champions at the same time.

In principal I totally agree with you. But the lines have become so blurred that following that has become nearly impossible (and certainly impractical) in most divisions. As time passes, this will only get worse. Boxing may not have changed for the better, but it has changed for sure and forever.

[GeneralZod]

Who had defeated Spinks for the title?

Larry Holmes

and

Lineal titles are the only titles worth following. The word "champion" implies singularity. There cannot be four world champions at the same time.

Agreed by all means.

[Welter_Skelter]

Hatton Tszyu

[Anthony342]

People who still follow lineage will tell you this, but it was clearly not Tyson's first world title fight. Eventually everyone will accept that the concept of lineal titles is obsolete and gone forever.

Yes, but it wasn't until Tyson beat Spinks that he was really and truly the "World Heavyweight Champion". That lineage still existed back then, so I don't see anything wrong with people considering Spinks Tyson's first "true" World Heavyweight Championship fight, as Spinks was lineal/Ring Heavyweight Champion at the time, the title that counts the most to many fans. Before then, Tyson had just beaten three belt holders. The Spinks win made Tyson lineal champion.

I do agree these days it's very difficult to follow lineage though, which kind of started to become difficult in the '80s. So I'll still go with Tyson-Spinks myself, if you want to go with Berbick that's fine.

[Scott9945]

Yes, but it wasn't until Tyson beat Spinks that he was really and truly the "World Heavyweight Champion". That lineage still existed back then, so I don't see anything wrong with people considering Spinks Tyson's first "true" World Heavyweight Championship fight, as Spinks was lineal/Ring Heavyweight Champion at the time, the title that counts the most to many fans. Before then, Tyson had just beaten three belt holders. The Spinks win made Tyson lineal champion.

I do agree these days it's very difficult to follow lineage though, which kind of started to become difficult in the '80s. So I'll still go with Tyson-Spinks myself, if you want to go with Berbick that's fine.

I was around when both Tyson and Spinks held titles. And I can assure you that almost everyone, both inside and outside the business, considered Tyson the best heavyweight in the world and a legitimate titleholder. Spinks was just a future Tyson victim to them and his pathetic title reign (Stephan Tangstad and Gerry Cooney?) was a joke. Only boxing purists (a very small minority) considered Spinks the true champion. That is the reality.

I'd love to see one champion in each division, but the TV networks and promoters don't feel the same way. And if I were speculating, my money would be on them. When I was a kid and there was only one boxing champion, people used to joke that in pro wrestling every territory would have its own "world champion". And now things are reversed. One company dominates pro wrestling, and boxing has multiple champions in every single division. TV networks don't want to put up big bucks for a fight that doesn't have a world champion in it. So with the money there the obvious short sighted answer is to create more "world titles". Like it or not, this is the world that we live in now.

[Anthony342]

I was around then too, so I know all that. And I don't like it. And if a guy just has a piece of the title, he's not usually the true world champion anyway. Don't know why people like multiple champions. Seems to be one of the reasons why boxing is more of a fringe sport in the US. At least Tyson had all major belts by then.

Yeah wrestling is more like MMA, where one company dominates and usually has only one major competitor at a time until they get bought out. A UFC title is about as close to a Ring championship as you can get in MMA right now. At least when watching a UFC or Bellator event, it's pretty easy to tell who the champions are.

And I only care about undisputed, Ring and lineal titles when it comes to champions in boxing, with a few rare cases where someone was unable or didn't need to unify, like I heard here happened in tha case of Mike McCallum. Were there many other guys like that?

[rsf]

Jackie paterson when he beat Peter Kane for the world flyweight title