28 years ago today...

[Spicoli]

Forgive me, I neglected to write youngest man to win a version of the Heavyweight Title. EVERYBODY knows Wilfred Benitez is the youngest man inclusive of all weight classes.

My Mum does not...

WBO was garbage at the time, nobody gave that Title any respect. It was WBA, WBC, and IBF.

The WBO was an off shoot of the WBA, so why were they garbage and the WBA were not? Also as we found out another off shoot of the WBA, the IBF, had a President taking bribes at the time, yet they get respect? And do not get me started on Suliman and his cronies...

Lineage was broken because lineal Champ Michael Spinks retired as Champ.

Spinks did not retire pre Tyson, with the exception of a short period in the late 1970's. I think you are getting confused when the Jinx gave up the IBF crown to fight Cooney. Then Spinks was debating whether to have the knee surgery he required, as the Tyson fight did not look like happening, on his and Lewis' terms.

In 1989, prior to the 1990 Douglas fight, I distinctly remember Ring Magazine had Mike Tyson at pound-for-pound #1.

Alas, not so:



Sorry about that, it is an old scan, and I do not have the original magazine now.

But here is The Ring's first offical pound for pound rankings:



Now, although there is no date, Carbajal was 32-2, which meant the rankings began around early 1995...

Pretty certain that was July of 95' and awarded days prior to his fight with Vasquez and stayed ahead of Jones jr until mid 96. Only belt he came in with that night I think as the crook Sullie'dman made the WBC 'unavailable' for whatever reason.

Have never understood or put much stock into P4P myself. Its all very up for interpretation and somewhat of a marketing tag line. Though the Rings intention was to call BS on the alphabet boys and recongnize who they deemed the very best with no smoking mirrors and massaged rankings.

[Master]

Tyson did become undisputed heavyweight champion forget the WBO and WBAA titles Brit Kid.

[Fenster]

I wasn't around back then so wouldn't know, but it definitely is possible that he was ranked #1 over Sweet Pea because when he KTFO Spinks, Pernell was coming off a loss JLR a few short months before. It was a bullshit decision, but still technically a "loss", so Sweet Pea couldn't have been #1 at the time Tyson beat Spinks.

My point was 'The Ring' did not rank fighters pound for pound before 1995...

In 1989, yeah Whitaker despite the Ramirez fix... I mean robbery (so sue me Senor Suleiman), was not pound for pound a contender for the #1 spot, but Chavez was. And some had the Kid from Culiacan ahead of Tyson, pound for pound.

This says Tyson was Ring ranked P4P no.1

The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 1989 - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia

Is it a mistake?

[Beanflicker]

My point was 'The Ring' did not rank fighters pound for pound before 1995...

In 1989, yeah Whitaker despite the Ramirez fix... I mean robbery (so sue me Senor Suleiman), was not pound for pound a contender for the #1 spot, but Chavez was. And some had the Kid from Culiacan ahead of Tyson, pound for pound.

This says Tyson was Ring ranked P4P no.1

The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 1989 - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia

Is it a mistake?[/QUOTE]

I think it's legit, I have a bunch of Ring magazines from pre-1995 (I'm at work right now so can't double check) that I'm 99.9% certain had p4p ratings.

[Beanflicker]

I think it's legit, I have a bunch of Ring magazines from pre-1995 (I'm at work right now so can't double check) that I'm 99.9% certain had p4p ratings.

[Fenster]

I think it's legit, I have a bunch of Ring magazines from pre-1995 (I'm at work right now so can't double check) that I'm 99.9% certain had p4p ratings.

I'm pretty sure @Britkid has/had all those mags as well?

I've used those ratings to bolster my argument about several topics, over the past few years, it'll be funny if they're actually incorrect ()

[Spicoli]

95' was just the beginning of a "official" belt. Funny given how subjective and open to opinion p4p really is.

[ross]

Yeah it is just opinion but Mike Tyson at that time back then was seen as unbeatable. The other top fighters around would have all had percieved weaknesses or losses as skilled and consistent as they were they didnt have that aura of invincibility and destruction where it was possible to see Mike beating any fighter in history (at that point)

[bradlee180]

Britkid, despite all his smugness and self-assuredness is simply wrong in several of his would-be corrections. I remember Ring in '89 and Tyson was #1 Pound-for-Pound. The Great Julio Cesar Chavez was #2. Ring pound-for-pound began in 1995, my rosy red rectum!!!
And I reiterate: nobody gave WBO any respect at all at the time. Effin' guy pullin' "WAA Heavyweight Champ" out of his @$$? For $#!t's sake!!!!


And Michael Spinks? Insinuating I'm confused? I've never heard anything so disgusting, you owe me an appy-polly-loggy! His knees were so f*<ked going into the Tyson fight, he basically only went through the motions in training camp. Any serious fight-fan already knew he was finished. It was just hype and building up the gate to suggest Spinks had a chance. He had been stripped of that last title, but people still saw him as the lineal guy. His entire camp and Spinks himself knew he didn't have a prayer. Huge payday, and after the 1st knockdown, that man did go out on his shield by electing to come forward back into the lion's den rather than staying away. Respect to Michael Spinks.

I'll admit to a little brain-damage, and my memory may be a bit f*<ked nowadays, and this stuff took place 28 years ago, but I remember this, and I can swallow it when I'm wrong. Some people just can't stand to be wrong. They'll go to great lengths obsessing, picking out every little detail eventually settling on spelling mistakes if there's nothing else to be had, trying to craft the perfect post, and when they make a flub (and more than one in this case), they just cannot stand to be wrong, so go back and edit! That's revisionism!



britkid and the bradguy are just going to have to agree to disagree...

[Beanflicker]

For a heavyweight to get p4p #1 recognition is truely impressive, given the fact that the honor is biased towards smaller weights. Especially when JCC was like 70-0 at the same time.

[Beanflicker]

God damn, why did Mike have to shit the bed against Buster Douglas? Tyson vs Holyfield circa 1990 would have been incredible.

[bradlee180]

Don't f*<k with me, I have OCD.



I know The Truth about Boxing....

.

[imp]

Many talk of his power and speed... But his peek a boo defense was such a thrill to watch.

Please dont bring Wlad into this..

[Britkid]

Britkid, despite all his smugness and self-assuredness is simply wrong in several of his would-be corrections. I remember Ring in '89 and Tyson was #1 Pound-for-Pound. The Great Julio Cesar Chavez was #2. Ring pound-for-pound began in 1995, my rosy red rectum!!!
And I reiterate: nobody gave WBO any respect at all at the time. Effin' guy pullin' "WAA Heavyweight Champ" out of his @$$? For $#!t's sake!!!!

Well The Ring did go bust in 1989... . And yes the July 1995 issue of The Ring was the 'offical' start of The Ring's pound for pound ratings; here is better image courtesy of well known boxing site, with weirder ratings than the WAA; for which I deserve a medal for getting them mentioned three times in a thread now!



And my point was you cannot be an 'undisputed' champion, it is a silly term, almost as silly as suggesting you can rate every fight from the 4' 4" straw-weight, to the 7' 10" Heavyweight, as if they all weighed the same...

Tyson from Tucker to Douglas was a superb fighter, and maybe the best, but my point was it was not as crystal clear as you initially made out.

And Michael Spinks? Insinuating I'm confused? I've never heard anything so disgusting, you owe me an appy-polly-loggy! His knees were so f*<ked going into the Tyson fight, he basically only went through the motions in training camp. Any serious fight-fan already knew he was finished. It was just hype and building up the gate to suggest Spinks had a chance. He had been stripped of that last title, but people still saw him as the lineal guy. His entire camp and Spinks himself knew he didn't have a prayer. Huge payday, and after the 1st knockdown, that man did go out on his shield by electing to come forward back into the lion's den rather than staying away. Respect to Michael Spinks.

So I was right then, he did not retire. But kudos my friend to bluster a whole paragraph out of 'Britkid was right'.

I'll admit to a little brain-damage, and my memory may be a bit f*<ked nowadays, and this stuff took place 28 years ago, but I remember this, and I can swallow it when I'm wrong. Some people just can't stand to be wrong. They'll go to great lengths obsessing, picking out every little detail eventually settling on spelling mistakes if there's nothing else to be had, trying to craft the perfect post, and when they make a flub (and more than one in this case), they just cannot stand to be wrong, so go back and edit! That's revisionism!



britkid and the bradguy are just going to have to agree to disagree...

By using your memory, you are revising history, we all are, memories are not film, they change. But kudos to you, you have a passion and you have a solid argument, but there are always different sides to the story. And you will notice I have no issue playing Devil's Advocate, to create a debate.

[Bobthepen]

God damn, why did Mike have to shit the bed against Buster Douglas? Tyson vs Holyfield circa 1990 would have been incredible.

Yup. He'd have got knocked out by Holyfield instead.