What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?

[marbleheadmaui]

well this has degenerated into nonsense even faster than I had imagined...

As the immortal sportswriter Dan Jenkins wrote "It ain't hard to f##k up...it just takes time!"

I was quoting the immortal David Letterman during an interview with the immortal MR. T.

Geeze and I thought I was up on all my Mr. T related stuff! My bad

Oh then you MUST WATCH THIS. It is truly hilarious.

Thanks for that! How the heck does Mr. T stay in character and not bust out laughing? "I'm hoarse because Hulk was choking me!"

He is a man of MANY talents.


Words of wisdom.

"Everybody gotta wear clothes and if you don't you'll be arrested"

Ok THAT on the other hand was more than a little disturbing and I had to stop watching. I prefer to remember Mr Tero's "I live alone! I train alone! I'll win the title alone!

[IamInuit]

Please the term begs the question for its own need. It's Who beat Whom not who beat whom who beat the other guy. Taylor beat Hopkins. He never beat those Bernard did. Lineal is a metaphor for alphabet.

Boxing has always been (and despite the present dilapidated state) hopefull will always remain a sport analagous to "King of the Hill." There is one hill (in boxing a division) and room for only one king at a time at the top of the hill. The way to become king is to take the hill from the current king.

Having some corrupt friend build another hill nearby and point at you and say "You're a king too!" carries no drama, no honesty and starts something we are seeing today. We have what? Around 100 "champions" just with the four biggest groups. Heck that doesn't even include the IBO/IBC type groups.

Believing these alphabet titles mean anything is like believing a division "championship" in baseball is the same as winning the World Series. It's just silly.

That's right and the term lineal is no different. Its like p4p. Absolutely meaningless today. A buzz phrase for popularity. Toss all the freakin tin for all I care.

But that's just not true. At least not always true. Look at a guy like Wonjonkam, one of maybe 6-7 real champs around today. That line goes from him to Naito to him to Tunocaos to 3k Battery all the way back to Miguel Canto in the mid 1970's. Sergio goes through BHOP who began a new line when he beat Keith Holmes and became THE MAN at 160. The crowns were earned directly, not by appointment by some authority.

Now like I said, there's only AT MOST 6-7 champions today. The rest? Contenders with jewelry. I don't want to throw out the idea of titles completely (as you seem willing to do) because i think it is elemental to the sport and I don't really know what it looks like without the concept of a championship.

Look it cant be both untrue and true at the same time. That's the crux of its problem. It doesn't really mean anything.

[scratching head] WHAT can't be true and untrue at the same time?

1. If you mean linearity cannot be reestablished once broken, I disagree. It has happened many times. It usually consists of either there being only two logical candidates and they meet ( Root and Hart meeting after Jeffries retired) or if there are more, that one guy beats the hell out of enough of the rest that by acclimation (and sometimes gradually) the educated boxing public is persuaded (BHOP at 160 after Leonard had left the division or Mike Spinks consolidating things after Bob Foster retired).

2. If you mean ALL divisions must have linear champs at a point in time for the premise to work, again I disagree. Fighters retire. fighters move up and until one guy clears away the mess, however long that takes? The crown in that division is vacant. I'd argue at least ten divisions today have vacant championships.

Scratching head as to why you are scratching your head. This theory of lineal is flawed and if you ever want to debate it then start a thread.

[marbleheadmaui]

Please the term begs the question for its own need. It's Who beat Whom not who beat whom who beat the other guy. Taylor beat Hopkins. He never beat those Bernard did. Lineal is a metaphor for alphabet.

Boxing has always been (and despite the present dilapidated state) hopefull will always remain a sport analagous to "King of the Hill." There is one hill (in boxing a division) and room for only one king at a time at the top of the hill. The way to become king is to take the hill from the current king.

Having some corrupt friend build another hill nearby and point at you and say "You're a king too!" carries no drama, no honesty and starts something we are seeing today. We have what? Around 100 "champions" just with the four biggest groups. Heck that doesn't even include the IBO/IBC type groups.

Believing these alphabet titles mean anything is like believing a division "championship" in baseball is the same as winning the World Series. It's just silly.

That's right and the term lineal is no different. Its like p4p. Absolutely meaningless today. A buzz phrase for popularity. Toss all the freakin tin for all I care.

But that's just not true. At least not always true. Look at a guy like Wonjonkam, one of maybe 6-7 real champs around today. That line goes from him to Naito to him to Tunocaos to 3k Battery all the way back to Miguel Canto in the mid 1970's. Sergio goes through BHOP who began a new line when he beat Keith Holmes and became THE MAN at 160. The crowns were earned directly, not by appointment by some authority.

Now like I said, there's only AT MOST 6-7 champions today. The rest? Contenders with jewelry. I don't want to throw out the idea of titles completely (as you seem willing to do) because i think it is elemental to the sport and I don't really know what it looks like without the concept of a championship.

Look it cant be both untrue and true at the same time. That's the crux of its problem. It doesn't really mean anything.

[scratching head] WHAT can't be true and untrue at the same time?

1. If you mean linearity cannot be reestablished once broken, I disagree. It has happened many times. It usually consists of either there being only two logical candidates and they meet ( Root and Hart meeting after Jeffries retired) or if there are more, that one guy beats the hell out of enough of the rest that by acclimation (and sometimes gradually) the educated boxing public is persuaded (BHOP at 160 after Leonard had left the division or Mike Spinks consolidating things after Bob Foster retired).

2. If you mean ALL divisions must have linear champs at a point in time for the premise to work, again I disagree. Fighters retire. fighters move up and until one guy clears away the mess, however long that takes? The crown in that division is vacant. I'd argue at least ten divisions today have vacant championships.

Scratching head as to why you are scratching your head. This theory of lineal is flawed and if you ever want to debate it then start a thread.

I was scratching my head because I didn't understand your point. We are already debating it, why start a thread? Any response to my latest? And "it's imperfect" ain't much of an argument. The question is not perfection (we're humans), it is "best available."

[IamInuit]

Please the term begs the question for its own need. It's Who beat Whom not who beat whom who beat the other guy. Taylor beat Hopkins. He never beat those Bernard did. Lineal is a metaphor for alphabet.

Boxing has always been (and despite the present dilapidated state) hopefull will always remain a sport analagous to "King of the Hill." There is one hill (in boxing a division) and room for only one king at a time at the top of the hill. The way to become king is to take the hill from the current king.

Having some corrupt friend build another hill nearby and point at you and say "You're a king too!" carries no drama, no honesty and starts something we are seeing today. We have what? Around 100 "champions" just with the four biggest groups. Heck that doesn't even include the IBO/IBC type groups.

Believing these alphabet titles mean anything is like believing a division "championship" in baseball is the same as winning the World Series. It's just silly.

That's right and the term lineal is no different. Its like p4p. Absolutely meaningless today. A buzz phrase for popularity. Toss all the freakin tin for all I care.

But that's just not true. At least not always true. Look at a guy like Wonjonkam, one of maybe 6-7 real champs around today. That line goes from him to Naito to him to Tunocaos to 3k Battery all the way back to Miguel Canto in the mid 1970's. Sergio goes through BHOP who began a new line when he beat Keith Holmes and became THE MAN at 160. The crowns were earned directly, not by appointment by some authority.

Now like I said, there's only AT MOST 6-7 champions today. The rest? Contenders with jewelry. I don't want to throw out the idea of titles completely (as you seem willing to do) because i think it is elemental to the sport and I don't really know what it looks like without the concept of a championship.

Look it cant be both untrue and true at the same time. That's the crux of its problem. It doesn't really mean anything.

[scratching head] WHAT can't be true and untrue at the same time?

1. If you mean linearity cannot be reestablished once broken, I disagree. It has happened many times. It usually consists of either there being only two logical candidates and they meet ( Root and Hart meeting after Jeffries retired) or if there are more, that one guy beats the hell out of enough of the rest that by acclimation (and sometimes gradually) the educated boxing public is persuaded (BHOP at 160 after Leonard had left the division or Mike Spinks consolidating things after Bob Foster retired).

2. If you mean ALL divisions must have linear champs at a point in time for the premise to work, again I disagree. Fighters retire. fighters move up and until one guy clears away the mess, however long that takes? The crown in that division is vacant. I'd argue at least ten divisions today have vacant championships.

Scratching head as to why you are scratching your head. This theory of lineal is flawed and if you ever want to debate it then start a thread.

I was scratching my head because I didn't understand your point. We are already debating it, why start a thread? Any response to my latest? And "it's imperfect" ain't much of an argument. The question is not perfection (we're humans), it is "best available."

Or sustainable. Like linear.

[marbleheadmaui]

Please the term begs the question for its own need. It's Who beat Whom not who beat whom who beat the other guy. Taylor beat Hopkins. He never beat those Bernard did. Lineal is a metaphor for alphabet.

Boxing has always been (and despite the present dilapidated state) hopefull will always remain a sport analagous to "King of the Hill." There is one hill (in boxing a division) and room for only one king at a time at the top of the hill. The way to become king is to take the hill from the current king.

Having some corrupt friend build another hill nearby and point at you and say "You're a king too!" carries no drama, no honesty and starts something we are seeing today. We have what? Around 100 "champions" just with the four biggest groups. Heck that doesn't even include the IBO/IBC type groups.

Believing these alphabet titles mean anything is like believing a division "championship" in baseball is the same as winning the World Series. It's just silly.

That's right and the term lineal is no different. Its like p4p. Absolutely meaningless today. A buzz phrase for popularity. Toss all the freakin tin for all I care.

But that's just not true. At least not always true. Look at a guy like Wonjonkam, one of maybe 6-7 real champs around today. That line goes from him to Naito to him to Tunocaos to 3k Battery all the way back to Miguel Canto in the mid 1970's. Sergio goes through BHOP who began a new line when he beat Keith Holmes and became THE MAN at 160. The crowns were earned directly, not by appointment by some authority.

Now like I said, there's only AT MOST 6-7 champions today. The rest? Contenders with jewelry. I don't want to throw out the idea of titles completely (as you seem willing to do) because i think it is elemental to the sport and I don't really know what it looks like without the concept of a championship.

Look it cant be both untrue and true at the same time. That's the crux of its problem. It doesn't really mean anything.

[scratching head] WHAT can't be true and untrue at the same time?

1. If you mean linearity cannot be reestablished once broken, I disagree. It has happened many times. It usually consists of either there being only two logical candidates and they meet ( Root and Hart meeting after Jeffries retired) or if there are more, that one guy beats the hell out of enough of the rest that by acclimation (and sometimes gradually) the educated boxing public is persuaded (BHOP at 160 after Leonard had left the division or Mike Spinks consolidating things after Bob Foster retired).

2. If you mean ALL divisions must have linear champs at a point in time for the premise to work, again I disagree. Fighters retire. fighters move up and until one guy clears away the mess, however long that takes? The crown in that division is vacant. I'd argue at least ten divisions today have vacant championships.

Scratching head as to why you are scratching your head. This theory of lineal is flawed and if you ever want to debate it then start a thread.

I was scratching my head because I didn't understand your point. We are already debating it, why start a thread? Any response to my latest? And "it's imperfect" ain't much of an argument. The question is not perfection (we're humans), it is "best available."

Or sustainable. Like linear.

Sure it is sustainable, just not infinitely so. And it is FAR more sustainable than any ABC group which can simply reach in and declare a champion without any justification at all. In what way does the WBA having THREE 126 champions sustain something in a more useful way that the lineal concept? BTW, I'm out for th evening. Thanks for the conversation!

[IamInuit]

Please the term begs the question for its own need. It's Who beat Whom not who beat whom who beat the other guy. Taylor beat Hopkins. He never beat those Bernard did. Lineal is a metaphor for alphabet.

Boxing has always been (and despite the present dilapidated state) hopefull will always remain a sport analagous to "King of the Hill." There is one hill (in boxing a division) and room for only one king at a time at the top of the hill. The way to become king is to take the hill from the current king.

Having some corrupt friend build another hill nearby and point at you and say "You're a king too!" carries no drama, no honesty and starts something we are seeing today. We have what? Around 100 "champions" just with the four biggest groups. Heck that doesn't even include the IBO/IBC type groups.

Believing these alphabet titles mean anything is like believing a division "championship" in baseball is the same as winning the World Series. It's just silly.

That's right and the term lineal is no different. Its like p4p. Absolutely meaningless today. A buzz phrase for popularity. Toss all the freakin tin for all I care.

But that's just not true. At least not always true. Look at a guy like Wonjonkam, one of maybe 6-7 real champs around today. That line goes from him to Naito to him to Tunocaos to 3k Battery all the way back to Miguel Canto in the mid 1970's. Sergio goes through BHOP who began a new line when he beat Keith Holmes and became THE MAN at 160. The crowns were earned directly, not by appointment by some authority.

Now like I said, there's only AT MOST 6-7 champions today. The rest? Contenders with jewelry. I don't want to throw out the idea of titles completely (as you seem willing to do) because i think it is elemental to the sport and I don't really know what it looks like without the concept of a championship.

Look it cant be both untrue and true at the same time. That's the crux of its problem. It doesn't really mean anything.

[scratching head] WHAT can't be true and untrue at the same time?

1. If you mean linearity cannot be reestablished once broken, I disagree. It has happened many times. It usually consists of either there being only two logical candidates and they meet ( Root and Hart meeting after Jeffries retired) or if there are more, that one guy beats the hell out of enough of the rest that by acclimation (and sometimes gradually) the educated boxing public is persuaded (BHOP at 160 after Leonard had left the division or Mike Spinks consolidating things after Bob Foster retired).

2. If you mean ALL divisions must have linear champs at a point in time for the premise to work, again I disagree. Fighters retire. fighters move up and until one guy clears away the mess, however long that takes? The crown in that division is vacant. I'd argue at least ten divisions today have vacant championships.

Scratching head as to why you are scratching your head. This theory of lineal is flawed and if you ever want to debate it then start a thread.

I was scratching my head because I didn't understand your point. We are already debating it, why start a thread? Any response to my latest? And "it's imperfect" ain't much of an argument. The question is not perfection (we're humans), it is "best available."

Or sustainable. Like linear.

Sure it is sustainable, just not infinitely so. And it is FAR more sustainable than any ABC group which can simply reach in and declare a champion without any justification at all. In what way does the WBA having THREE 126 champions sustain something in a more useful way that the lineal concept? BTW, I'm out for th evening. Thanks for the conversation!

Its sustainable through a tube. Evening.

[BIG H]

When did Lennox Lewis become World Champion? I know thw answer, I'm just asking

[ross]

When did Lennox Lewis become World Champion? I know thw answer, I'm just asking

Briggs after Forman got robbed.

[johnsebastianmiran]

I don't normally go off the grid but Razor Ruddock and Tyson had more give and take than Tyson ever engaged in after the Loss to Douglas he was trying to establish himself once again as a holy terror and Razor was not making it easy.