Originally posted by Pigeons
View Post
As if "LINEAL" champ has any significance in the 21st century!
Arguing with lineal titles has to be now one of the most childish arguments one could make..
Like saying.. "My featherfist bummy boxer is better than your elite fighter because he's the lineal champ." even though the other guy is also a champ and clearly recognised as the better fighter.
Even when the lineal champ had more meaning, it was STILL questionable as the it's credibility on occasion..
Like when green cruiser featherfist career bum Leon Spinks held it in the presence of Larry Holmes, and like when Michael Spinks held it in the presence of Mike Tyson.
I think that by the time George Foreman got hold of the lineal championship and squandered it away by dropping the titles, in reality losing it to Axel Schultz and then officially losing it in a fight he should have been awarded to Briggs, the lineal championship idea is dead.
The lineal champion should only be regarded as the best when they ARE the best! Simple as that.
Everbody knows that Golovkin or Kovalev for example could lay waste to all comers.
Comment