What's more impressive? Dominating one division for a decade or multi division champ

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Skittlez, Sep 27, 2012.


  1. Skittlez

    Skittlez Guest

    A lot of ATGS stayed in one division. Jumping divisions is a bit over rated. Especially as the higher weight classes are much harder to become 'multi division' champs.
    What's more impressive. Dominating 1 division for a decade or multi division champ. Let's assume the single division fighter is in a strong era. So no joke defenses.
    Same with the division hopper, strong era. No weak meaningless title wins. Actaully go to different weight classes and beat a legit champ there.
     
  2. tottenham19

    tottenham19 ESB Masterbro Full Member

    1,809
    0
    Jul 28, 2010
    I think it'd depend on how strong the division was that said fighter dominated.
     
  3. Smazz20

    Smazz20 Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,856
    1
    Dec 19, 2006
    Ultimately, it'll come down to level of opposition. Dominating a division for a decade will not mean a great deal if it's a fairly weak era overall. Same as if you were a multi division champ, but decided to hop jump and skip your way past the tougher title holders around and took on the weaker ones.

    But all things being equal, I would side with dominating for a decade over moving up a couple of weightclasses.
     
  4. zoo

    zoo Active Member Full Member

    1,424
    2
    Sep 14, 2006
    Depends, because it's not the same as when Armstrong held the featherweight, lightweight and welterweight titles all at the same time. Today somebody could hold 122, 126 and 130lbs titles.....it's three titles in three weight classes however that still doesn't come close to what Armstrong had to do.
     
  5. The Mangler

    The Mangler Active Member Full Member

    788
    0
    Aug 16, 2012
    Since you clarified we're talkin about strong eras and legit world champs, I'd say the multi division champ. If you can beat the true world champ in a couple different divisions, it's better than just beatin 1 world champ and several strong contenders.
     
  6. Elite

    Elite Guest

    I got multi. Being in one division is limited after you beat the top fighters, I mean look at the Klits ****ers own that division. While jumping divisions you can beat the champions and make your mark there and so on...:bbb
     
  7. JAB5239

    JAB5239 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,470
    58
    Feb 23, 2008
    I think a fighter should have at least 5 or 6 fights as champion before moving on to conquer a new division. Just beating the champion is not enough for me, its about styles and durability. On most cases I'd say its harder to stay at the top than it is to get there.
     
  8. elchivito

    elchivito master betty Full Member

    27,489
    437
    Sep 27, 2008
    Neither for me. It depends how good how great your opposition is. Too many people get caught up on longetivity in one division or division hopping thats good I guess, but not if your doing it against B levels or former greats.
     
  9. skellington

    skellington Bogbrush Full Member

    1,601
    0
    Aug 3, 2007
    Sadly nowadays jumping divisions is often just an excuse for avoiding the better fighters in your own division.

    In this case, being the champ in one division and defending against all on comers is the more impressive path to take IMO.
     
  10. tliang1000

    tliang1000 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,112
    7
    Aug 18, 2007
    Multi if they keep challenging themselves and fight the division best.
     
  11. JAB5239

    JAB5239 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,470
    58
    Feb 23, 2008
    Yeah, but that could just be a matter of styles. Defend 5 or 6 times and you've left no stone unturned. The problem is fighters today refuse to fight often enough and are spoiled once they hit elite status.
     
  12. jeffjoiner

    jeffjoiner Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,183
    5
    Jun 22, 2008
    Agreed on all counts.