FIGHTBEAT #11 IN THE WORLD!

Great.

 

One. Then he had his title stolen from him. Sharkey would have been his second defense and Walker his third. Then Baer knocked him out. Tyson only made two defenses of the title. :dunno:

Yes. His knockouts against Max Baer, Primo Carnera and Jack Sharkey proved that he was already great. His pre-Schmeling run was arguably more impressive than Tyson's pre-Douglas run, even though it only lasted half as long. Were Larry Holmes and Michael Spinks "great" when Tyson beat them?

He was only 30 when he quit in the Holyfield rematch. Schmeling never quit in his prime; he quit on an injury when he entered the ring with an infection and a fever.

How many times did Mike Tyson fight Joe Louis? When Mike Tyson faced a great heavyweight in his prime, he lost. Every time.

Tyson should have been disqualified in the first round in that fight.

Really? In 2005, Lisa Scott interviewed 10 of the greatest trainers of all time, and asked them what their top-10 lists looked like.

• Lou Duva: Ranks neither Schmeling nor Tyson in his top-10, but gives Schmeling and Walcott an "Honorary Mention."
• Jimmy Glenn: Ranks neither Schmeling nor Tyson in his top-10.
• Al Certo: Ranks Schmeling at #10, but doesn't rank Tyson.
• Angelo Dundee: Ranks Schmeling #9 of all time. Doesn't have Tyson in his top 10.
• Gil Clancy: Ranks Tyson #10, but doesn't rank Schmeling.
• Buddy McGirt: Ranks Tyson #7, but doesn't rank Schmeling.
• Kevin Rooney: Ranks Tyson #4, but of course he trained Tyson, so his views might be biased. He doesn't rank Schmeling.
• Freddie Roach: Ranks Tyson #8, but doesn't rank Schmeling. He ranked James Toney as the #10 heavyweight of all time. :doh:
• Miguel Diaz: Ranks Tyson #2, but doesn't rank Schmeling because he only ranks fighters after 1965.
• Manny Steward: Ranks Tyson #10 of all time, but doesn't rank Schmeling.

Ring magazine's top 50 fighters of all time as of 1999:

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Evander Holyfield
4. George Foreman
5. Larry Holmes
6. Rocky Marciano
7. Sonny Liston
8. Joe Frazier
9. Jack Johnson
10. Jack Dempsey
11. Ezzard Charles
12. James J. Jeffries
13. Jersey Joe Walcott
14. Mike Tyson
15. Gene Tunney
16. Harry Wills
17. Sam Langford
18. John L. Sullivan
19. Max Schmeling
20. Max Baer
21. Floyd Patterson
22. Ken Norton
23. Riddick Bowe
24. Bob Fitzsimmons
25. Joe Jeannette
26. Jimmy Bivins
27. Jerry Quarry
28. Jack Sharkey
29. Archie Moore
30. Sam McVey
31. Cleveland Williams
32. Lennox Lewis
33. Earnie Shavers
34. Jim Corbett
35. Ernie Terrell
36. Michael Spinks
37. Jimmy Young
38. Zora Folley
39. Ingemar Johansson
40. Ron Lyle
41. Tim Witherspoon
42. Jimmy Ellis
43. Mike Weaver
44. Michael Moorer
45. James J. Braddock
46. Tommy Farr
47. Tommy Burns
48. Tommy Gibbons
49. Pinklon Thomas
50. Michael Dokes

Bert Sugar ranks neither man in the top 10, and has Tyson at #100 on his list of the 100 greatest fighters of all time. He doesn't have Schmeling.

There are a lot of people who rank Schmeling not too far behind Tyson. Very few people have him higher than #8 or #10, and he's often in the bottom half of the top 20. Here's how I see the two:

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Jack Johnson
5. Joe Frazier
6. Sonny Liston
7. George Foreman
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Rocky Marciano
10. Lennox Lewis
11. Jack Dempsey
12. Mike Tyson
13. Gene Tunney
14. Ezzard Charles
15. Jersey Joe Walcott
16. Max Schmelling
17. Jim Jeffries
18. Sam Langford
19. Riddick Bowe
20. Floyd Patterson

 

REED and Rubio - stop the smacktalking NOW in GD or MM or TAAA. Take it to Smacktalk.

Last time.

Man, you two are going at it in every other thread (it seems).

 

There was absolutely no smacktalk in my last post. Even REED was cutting down on it. We were mostly sticking to boxing. You're overmoderating again. 90% of what we were writing had to do with boxing.

 

Wonderful and I noticed that towards the middle of the thread, so well done....

But I saw "decrepid", "nuthuggery", "idiot", "idiotic", and so on.

And it's starting to get old.

Glad you both corrected.

 

You're just overdefining smacktalk. If you're playing basketball with a neighbor and say, "your momma's so fat that you have to roll twice to get off of her," it's just a way to get into the game. I don't see why anyone would have been offended by what we posted in this thread.

 

Perhaps it's the Medication, but your "Logic" is TERRIBLY FLAWED Here...

HOW Do U Figure Tyson only Made 2 Defenses of the Title???:dunno:

From the Time he Beat Berbick, Tyson made 9 Defenses...w/in 3 Fights AFTER Berbick, he was ALREADY UNDISPUTED, so that's @ LEAST 5, Maybe 6 Defenses of the UNDISPUTED Heavyweight Title (which SHITS on Schmeling's # of Defenses)...

Knowing U, U're CLINGING to that Linear,Schminear BULLSHIT, Giving Spinks PROPS for Being the "Linear Heavyweight Champ", but in the NEXT Breath,U're Asking REED if Spinks was a "Great" Fighter ...

Considering how BADLY Tyson WHIPPED Spinks, How DARE YOU Diminish his Reign in that Fashion...

Mike Tyson was What,19 or 20 when he Won the Title???...Needless to Say, he was NOWHERE NEAR his Prime when he Bit Holyfield @ the Age of 30...

U GIVE Schmeling the BENEFIT of Being "Injured w/ Infections & Fevers" when he QUIT , yet U Offer Tyson NO Leeway on why he Bit Holyfield...As if REPEATED Headbutts Over a Span of 2 Fights COULDN'T Unhinge a Mentally UNSTABLE Motherfucker like Tyson...

Tyson was NEVER EVER Destroyed in the 1st Round of a Fight...

The Most COMICAL Part of All this is How U Conveniently NEGLECT Any HEAD-to-HEAD Talk, Cause we BOTH Know Tyson would have Had his Fucking WAY w/Max Schmeling...It woulda Been Louis-Schmeling II All Over Again...

The TIRED,REDUNDANT Lists Weren't Necessary...REED's POINT is, Tyson was BETTER...& YOUR Lists Illustrated as Much...


REED

 

He won the title from Spinks, defended it twice, and got knocked out by a morbidly obese journeyman.

Beating Trevor Berbick doesn't make you the undisputed champion. Not by a longshot. Numerous publications still recognized Spinks as the champion. When Tyson beat Berbick, people weren't saying that he was the champion. They said that he won the "triple crown," but that he still had to beat Spinks.

Spinks wasn't a great champion, and he arguably didn't deserve one or two of his wins over Holmes, but he was the champion, end of story. When you get stripped of your belt for not signing with Don King, it doesn't mean that you are no longer a champion.

No, he was 21. And if Tyson really was shot by the time he was 24 (not in the way Stanley Ketchel was, of course), doesn't that speak poorly of him in an all-time sense? Joe Frazier is criticized for having a short prime, but his prime was from 1966 to 1970, and he kept the belt until 1973.

Schmeling was living in inter-War Germany, and he didn't always have access to proper health care. He had an infection from a bee sting, and a fever. He needed the money, so he took the fight; he happened to get in the ring with Larry Gains, Jack Dempsey's old sparring partner, who won the Colored World Heavyweight Championship three years later. Then the Canadian Heavyweight Championship. Then the Commonwealth Heavyweight Championship.

Holyfield was just trading fouls with a dirty boxer.

He was against Lennox Lewis. Two minutes into the Lewis fight, he was hit with a big straight right, and he simply stopped trying to win the fight.

Isn't it better to rank fighters based on what happened in reality than what happens in fantasy? If Schmeling survived the first five rounds (a big if), he'd have a good chance at outpointing Tyson over 15 rounds. Then again, Mike Tyson might get disqualified.

My point is that you said that I'm the only one who doesn't rank Tyson much higher than Schmeling. You were wrong. Deal with it.

 

Damn, I bet that blew your Wiki Load ::

 

Um, I didn't consult Wikipedia for that topic. Anyway, I doubt that the Wikipedia article goes into much detail about Schmeling's career in Germany, and the two TKOs he suffered there. I read about the first one in an interview with Schmeling, and read about the second one (with a great deal of help) from a passage of a German biography of him.

 

You HAVE to use the lineal title when you're comparing a modern fighter to one who only had the option to win one championship per weight. Who knows, Max could have way more defenses if there was an IBF paper belt he could have won and defended.

Mike Tyson wouldn't have been heavyweight champion in Schmeling's era until he beat Spinks. I think that's the best way to put it.

 

So THE FACT that Spinks BLATANTLY AVOIDED EVERY Top Heavyweight Challenger DOESN'T Diminish his "Linear" Status???:dunno: ...

After Beating Holmes, Spinks GAVE the IBF Strap Away Cause he DIDN'T Want to Partake in Don King's Heavyweight Tourney...Tony Tucker was his Mandatory...

Spinks INSTEAD Fought Gerry Cooney & Steffen Tangstad, while the REST of the Division was Facing EACH OTHER...

Sorry, but WHO U're Fighting ALSO Means Something...What Spinks Did was ACQUIRE the "Linear" Title then Put it on ICE til he KNEW Mike Tyson was Gonna Whip his Ass...

Even N Schmeling's Era, REED Thinks Fans/Writers,etc. Would have had a BIG Problem w/Referring to Michael Spinks as "The Champion" when he WASN'T Facing Championship Caliber Fighters...

MORESO,U're Completely IGNORING THE FACT that Tyson BEAT Berbick for the WBC, Bonecrusher for the WBA & Tucker for the IBF, THEN he Made like 5-6 MORE Defenses...w/or w/Out Spinks, Mike Tyson WAS UNDISPUTED...

Bottom Line, Spinks' Claim was VERY FLIMSY (@ BEST) & It's SILLY to Use his "Linear" Status to DIMINISH Mike Tyson's Claim...ESPECIALLY Considering how their Fight Played Out...

If they Fought 10 Times, Spinks would Get KO'ed in the 1st Round 10 Times...


REED

 

Someone 1nce Referred to him as the "Wiki Warrior"...

Can't Remember Who...


REED::

 

None of this changes what I was saying. Name me one other heavyweight champion in history that was stripped of his status because of his opposition? It doesn't happen.

It doesn't matter how anyone wants to spin it... in Schmeling's era, Tyson would not have been champion until he beat Spinks. Like the Liston/Patterson situation, he would be considered the best out there... but not the champ.

If you're going to compare the # of title defenses that Tyson and Schmeling had there's only one fair way. Or should we go back in history and start tacking title defences on to Sonny Liston's resume during the time he was considered the best while Patterson was still champ?

 

Good posting Pandy and REED. I don't agree with REED at all here, but he's not without some merit.

 

Both Schmeling and Tyson were great fighters.

 

True... I think he'll have a stronger argument over time as Tyson gets compared to the next generation of fighters. That's when you can start comparing paper title defenses.

 

Actually, that's not true.

The HBO unification tournament began with the Witherspoon-Tubbs fight in January 1986.

Spinks "defended" his title twice in the tournament in 1986. He made his first defense against Larry Holmes and the second against Tangstad. Tyson fought on the undercard of Spinks-Tangstad, and wasn't even in the tournment when Spinks defended two times in it.

Also, Spinks signed to fight Cooney instead of Tucker because he was offered $7 million for the fight. Tyson and Tucker combined didn't make that much for the tournament final.

And HBO agreed to let Spinks defend against Cooney as part of the tournament, but "Cooney" ... not Spinks ... said he didn't want to be in the tournament if he won.

Since a Cooney win over Spinks would've undermined the tournament, when Spinks decided to fight Cooney instead, he was stripped.

After Spinks won, he fought Tyson and Spinks made like $13 million.

Spinks wasn't ducking anyone, he's just not RETARDED. He was looking to get paid. And fighting OUTSIDE the HBO tournament against Cooney and then Tyson made him $20 million. He'd have made $2 or $3 million for the final if he'd remained in it.

In 1986, 1987 and 1988, people considered Holmes, Cooney and Tyson three of the most dangerous heavyweights in the world. And Spinks fought all three of them. Nobody at the time felt he was ducking anyone. Actually, fighting Cooney was considered career suicide because everyone assumed Spinks would lose. Nobody was scared of Tony Tucker at the time.

 

Fair Enough on the EARLY Portion of your Post, but the CRUX of REED's Point was, Tucker was Spinks' Mandatory (which he FAILED to Fulfill) & Spinks' BIGGEST "Role" in the Heavyweight Tourney was NOT Participating in It FULLY...Spinks MUDDIED the Heavyweight Picture MORE than he HELPED it...

Your Last Paragraph ISN'T True...

NOBODY was Scared of Gerry Cooney in the Late 80's:nono: ...& Holmes was Coming Off a True LOSS to Spinks, a Controversial Loss to Spinks & Disputed "Wins" Over Carl Williams, David Bey & Arguably, Tim Witherspoon...Larry was CLEARLY on his Way OUT of the Heavyweight Picture...

Cooney was Wallowing in INACTIVITY & ADDICTION by that Point...& Spinks was ALWAYS Leery of Campaigning Full Time as a Heavy, Especially after ESCAPING by the Skin of his Teeth in the RE w/Holmes...

Spinks' SOLE Motivation for Fighting Heavyweight was the Money...

& If Spinks WASN'T "Ducking" Heavyweights, WHERE Did they Dig Up Steffan Tangstad From???:dunno: ...There was a SHITLOAD of MORE Qualified Heavyweights Out there for Spinks to Fight...REED Recalls Spinks Receiving PLENTY of Criticism for that Choice of Opponent...



REED

 

In Spinks's first title defense, he fought the greatest heavyweight of the 1980s, Larry Holmes. A year later, he fought the guy who could make him the most money. How can you fault a guy for making $7 million instead of $2 or $3 million?:dunno:

Riiiiiight. He made $7 million fighting Cooney instead of making probably less than $2 million facing Tucker, after King had taken his share of the money. Then he made $13 million fighting Tyson. That's $20 million instead of $2 million. What was your point again?

He got $7 million to fight Gerry Cooney. Why should he fight someone for $2 million instead? Financially, only three fights made sense during Spinks's reign: Holmes, Cooney and Tyson.

Okay, you're seriously saying that in September of 1985, Spinks decided to sit on his title because this 8-0 kid has knocked out a few nobodies? ::

Really? Then why didn't everyone in the press say that Jack Dempsey wasn't "The Champion" when he didn't defend his championship for over three years, from 1923 to 1926? From July of 1921 to September of 1926, Dempsey only defended his title TWICE; against light heavyweight Tommy Gibbons, in the greatest fiscal failure in the history of boxing (before Vitali-Williams, that is); and against Luis Firpo, who wasn't half the fighter Gerry Cooney was, even in 1987.

If he was undisputed, then why didn't Ring magazine think so? Here are Ring magazine's year-end rankings at heavyweight.

<TABLE cellPadding=2 border=1><TBODY><TR><TH style="BACKGROUND: #efefef"><CENTER>1986</CENTER></TH><TH style="BACKGROUND: #efefef"><CENTER>1987</CENTER></TH></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD>Michael Spinks, Champion

1. Mike Tyson
2. James (Bonecrusher) Smith
3. Pinklon Thomas
4. Tim Witherspoon
5. Tony Tubbs
6. Trevor Berbick
7. James (Buster) Douglas
8. Tony Tucker
9. Frank Bruno
10. Tyrell Biggs

</TD><TD>Michael Spinks, Champion

1. Mike Tyson
2. Evander Holyfield
3. Tony Tucker
4. Tim Witherspoon
5. Pinklon Thomas
6. Carl Williams
7. Trevor Berbick
8. Adilson Rodrigues
9. Tyrell Biggs
10. Mike Weaver

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE cellPadding=2 border=1><TBODY><TR><TH style="BACKGROUND: #efefef"><CENTER>1988</CENTER></TH><TH style="BACKGROUND: #efefef"><CENTER>1989</CENTER></TH></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD>Mike Tyson, Champion

1. Evander Holyfield
2. Carl Williams
3. Adilson Rodrigues
4. Tim Witherspoon
5. Michael Dokes
6. Razor Ruddock
7. Tony Tucker
8. Orlin Norris
9. James (Buster) Douglas
10. Francesco Damiani

</TD><TD><CENTER>Title Vacant</CENTER>

1. Mike Tyson
2. Evander Holyfield
3. Michael Dokes
4. Francesco Damiani
5. Tim Witherspoon
6. Orlin Norris
7. James (Buster) Douglas
8. Carl Williams
9. Razor Ruddock
10. Gary Mason

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Ah, so because Sonny Liston knocked out Floyd Patterson in the first round, Floyd Patterson wasn't the World Heavyweight Champion? Muhammad Ali knocked Sonny Liston out in one round. Does that mean that Sonny Liston was never champion either? Marciano knocked Jersey Joe Walcott out in one round. Hmm... I guess I must have imagined seeing Walcott knock out Ezzard Charles to win the championship, because according to you, he was never champion.

If Sonny Liston and Floyd Patterson fought 10 times, Liston would win 10 times. Does that mean that Floyd Patterson was never the champion? Jack Dempsey would beat Jess Willard 10 times out of 10; Jack Johson, Tommy Burns; Max Baer, Primo Carnera; Rocky Marciano, Joe Walcott; Joe Louis, Jim Braddock.

Are you trying to argue that Tommy Burns, Jess Willard, Primo Carnera, Jim Braddock, Joe Walcott and Floyd Patterson were never World Heavyweight Champion?



None of these men were champions, according to Reed's logic. I guess he thinks that Floyd Patterson got Alzheimer's from spray on deoderant.

 

John Ruiz was Lennox Lewis's mandatory. Are you trying to argue that John Ruiz is the real champion?!?!?!?!

 

I don't agree. There's no precedent for that.

 

linear title is ridiculous, nobody should base their argument on it.

 

Why?

 

But really, the death of the Lineal title didn't really take place until Foreman became inactive in the late 1990s. Even then, people still stuck to it. Jeff Ryan went against Ring magazine's Championship Policy by stating that their chumpion, Vitali Quitschko, wasn't the true Lineal champion.

 

Exactly...

The "ARGUMENT" Is, there's a Direct "Line" from 1 Champ to the Next, but that "Line" has Been Broken COUNTLESS Times Throughout the Course of Boxing History...

Based on the TRUE Meaning of "Linear Champion", that Heavyweight "Championship" DIED when Rocky Marciano's Plane CRASHED, Cause NOBODY Ever TOOK the Title from Marciano...

Or Look @ the Lightheavy Division...

Most EUROlovers Said Roy Jones was Never "Linear" Cause he NEVER Beat MichalSHITski...

Sure, MichalSHITski Beat Virgil Hill PRIOR to Roy Doing it, but WHO EXACTLY Beat Micheal Spinks for HIS "Linear" Lightheavy Title??...Shit, WHO EXACTLY Beat Archie Moore for HIS "Linear" Lightheavy Title???...

The Whole "Linear" Debate is Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar from Being an EXACT Science, yet Cats CLING to it like it's the GOSPEL....


REED

 

At heavyweight it's pretty simple. I won't get in to it again.

 

What's "Simple" about It???:dunno: ...

2 Guys who were ARBITRARILY Annointed as "# 1" & "# 2" Contenders Duke it Out & that's Supposed to RECONNECT the "Line"???...

CLEARLY, the ENTIRE PREMISE is Faulty, Andrew...


REED

 

I'd still like to hear your response to my post above bro.

Here it is, interested what your thoughts are.


None of this changes what I was saying. Name me one other heavyweight champion in history that was stripped of his status because of his opposition? It doesn't happen.

It doesn't matter how anyone wants to spin it... in Schmeling's era, Tyson would not have been champion until he beat Spinks. Like the Liston/Patterson situation, he would be considered the best out there... but not the champ.

If you're going to compare the # of title defenses that Tyson and Schmeling had there's only one fair way. Or should we go back in history and start tacking title defences on to Sonny Liston's resume during the time he was considered the best while Patterson was still champ?

 

I'd also like to say that I wouldn't have a problem bringing up Tyson's Berbick-Spinks run if you were comparing him to someone like Holyfield or Lennox Lewis. All those guys also have similar runs with title belts.

I just don't think it's fair to say Tyson defended way more than Max did if the title Tyson was defending for most of the reign didn't exist when Schmeling was champion.