Yes but my point was that Michael Spinks never wanted any part of Tyson, he later admitted this.. So how can you hold it against Mike for not having the oppourtunity to fight for the world title earlier.. Also, you could also say along the same lines you just have, that he became champ in 87 when he beat Larry Holmes then, since Holmes regained his title beating Spinks in the rematch.. Right?

Also Mike Tyson is listed in the history books as becoming the youngest world champion ever, so I guess it counts in most people eyes. By your thoughts he wouldn't be the youngest ever then? .. I think Patterson would have won it around the same age if you are saying Tyson wasn't champ until 88.