As a general rule, what do you value most - a fighter who holds a title in a single weight class for a long time and defends it regularly against the best available opposition or a fighter who moves up through the weight classes to collect world titles at shorter intervals? I realise that these choices are not mutually exclusive and there are fighters who have done both but does one signify greatness to you more than the other?
For me, it's overcoming weight disparities, then dominance at a weight class. I've never been one to take credit from a fighter for losing to others, so dominance is less important to me on face value, but I do have an appreciation for guys who racked up loads of title defences like Hopkins or Louis. Ultimately though, for me, it's quite simply Résumé > Everything Else. If you don't win the title, but beat 6 HOFers, I don't mind. If you never defend one, but have the depth of a Jimmy McLarnin, I don't mind. It's best if you have both though(or all 3!), as you say. Guys who climbed weight then had a dominant run at a weight too big for them are highly impressive imo, Henry Armstrong for instance. Oh and c'mon Jel, PUBLIC POLLS!
Usually, it is overcoming weight disparity. The division would have to be very strong, or the dominance be absolutely insane, to be ranked above, in my estimation. It is especially important today (weight jumping) as 'true' dominance over a division can only be achieved by unifying and then fighting the best contenders or rivals, which is extremely hard to arrange, given Boxing's current climate. Though, when thought of in this way, and with the proliferation of titles, extra weight classes and day before weigh ins, weight jumping has lost prestige in comparison to old school weight jumpers such as Armstrong, Canzoneri, Walker, Greb etc.
Dominance of a weight class over a notable period of time takes much greater focus and discipline, in my opinion. Today's weight-hopping tends to come hand-in-hand with risk/reward-based opponent selection; particularly, since we have the other nine divisions to help bridge the gap between the original eight.
Per what I always understood as the proper definition of P4P - weight jumping isn't a prerequisite. Although, in practical terms, it seems many observers seem to favor multi-weight champions.
I'm only joking, but you can make it where you can see who voted what. It's the "view votes publicly" option. You can't change it after its done tho
Each case is unique, but generally speaking, if forced to choose one, I think a dominant reign & truly clearing out a division is harder to achieve. There's no way around fighting the best in your class. Weight jumping can be done much more opportunistically. That's why cherry picking the best stylistic matchup to get a title and become a "multi weight champ" is much easier than it used to be. There are guys who will be multi division titlists and don't wind up in the HOF. Note, however, that everyone whose completely unified over the past couple of decades gets in. The best, of course, are the guys who've done both. Pac would be a HOF welterweight even if you ignored all the other weight accomplishments, for example.
Excellent post and I fully agree. It's interesting to think that boxing's first 4-division world champion took until 1988 to emerge - once there were 4 belts per division. And the idea of Adrien Broner technically being a 4-weight world champion and Alexis Arguello not being one makes me feel nauseous.
Why? He beat Marquez in a fight many thought he lost. He was then put out to pasture by the same fighter. He did come back from it with some good wins. He beat Bradley? Thurman? Those are hardly HOF wins tho. Rios was done when he got to him. Cotto had been murdered by Margarito. Margarito was done. Matthyse was done and not a 147 fighter. Mosley was done. I dont see it. Good wins but not HOF worthy. Algieri? Broner? Lost to Horn. I dont see it.
The main point was about weight jumping v division dominance. Let's not turn this into a 'how great or not is Manny Pacquiao thread'. There's plenty of other threads to contribute to on that subject.
All things being equal, weight jumping is the only acceptable answer for me. All things being equal. This is because the champ at 154lbs should be better than the #1 contender at 147lbs. Similarly the 154lb #1 contender should be better than the 147lb #1 contender. All things being equal. If guy 1 has 14 fights, wins them all at one weight division, this doesn't require more concentration or discipline than winning 14 fights at three different weights, unless you mean the discipline of making a tight weight for example. You have to make certain assumptions on behalf of the one-weight fighter to come off "better" IMO.
Yep and with modern vitamins and minerals it's hard to tell whether said fights are on a level playing field these days.
