What was Mike Tyson's greatest win ?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[IamInuit]

Anyway strayed off topic here. Still think its the back to back Razor fights.

[generalbulldog]

Tyson's greatest wins were and not in any order. Spinks, Berbick, old Holmes, Ruddock, Tucker.

And Peter McNeely.

[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.

[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.