Should GGG's WBA "regular" title defenses count towards the middleweight record?

[ShoulderRoll]

Should "regular" champs hold the same status as champs of the past did when they set their records? What's your take on that?

[asgarth]

The answer is no.

[b00g13man]

Hell no. The integrity lacking media have helped to push this narrative though. Scumbags.

[Vegemil]

I don't think they should. But I also think it's funny how obsessed people are with Golovkin.

[Robbie Barrett]

No. Only nuthuggers would say they should. You can't have two world champs per org when it suits you. Sturm and then Geale were the real WBA champs at the time.

[BrometheusBob.]

Well the defenses of that title that took place while there was a super WBA champion should definitely not be included.

I think there were a few that took place while the super WBA was vacant, and before GGG himself became the super WBA champion, which I guess you could count.

[Jewish-Reptile]

Real boxing fans know they bare no significance.

[Rip Chudd]

Nope. The same way Daniel Jacobs wasn't really a champion having won the "regular" title

[Tom Cruise]

No. Even just holding one of the proper titles i would say is contentious.

Arguably his title reign started with beating Jacobs this year

[Pigeons]

I hope Golovkin breaks the record. It would be funny since a whiteboy already retired Hopkins by knocking him clean out the ring. So for another whiteboy to break the record that is synonymous with his legacy would be poetic justice.