General opinion on what you think is most important for any fighter to achieve?

martinez may be the most accomplished....but i don't know that he beats chavez, pirog or golovkin.

 

Many of my favorite fighters to watch are/were not considered the cream of the crop, but they fought their hearts out. Guys like Gatti, Augustus Burton, etc... The anti-Wlads.

 

Well, the ultimate goal for any boxer should be to dominate their division in such a fashion there is no credible opponent left for him (obviously if the others avoid him he can't do anything).

Pretty easy to understand: being undisputed > being ''the best'' (which is highly subjective).

 

Undisputed Champion.

 

#1 i think at this point, championship belts are rarely legitimate... fine example is WBC's.

#2 Does it take a fighter to win a championship belt to acknowledge/confirm him to be a top fighter of the division? No. Note Middleweight champion Sergio Martinez, who does NOT have a champion belt, yet is The Ring's Middleweight champion. And most people tend to side with The Ring, who is more resistant to outside influences of money, politics, and favors.

#3 Do you think Martinez is diminished or lessened because the lack of an alphabet belt? If not, then there's the legacy answer. A fighter DOES NOT need a championship belt to be acknowledged as the undisputed fighter of the division, according to a fan.

 

Making as much money as possible

 

legacywise, to be able to have a career that's worthy for the HOF.

 

For me personally i think world title's in multiple weight classes is the ultimate goal for any fighter

But there is not many fighters who have the genuine talent and the body frame to achieve this , which for me makes it a special achievement

If were talking goals as a world champion in one weight class , then unification has to be the eventual goal

 

This.

 

I don't understand why people are voting "undisputed champion." Undisputed champion typically implies "best in the division," but it doesn't necessitate it. It's simply not logical for a boxing fan to vote for it over being regarded as the consensus best. Staying the best is another matter, but likewise it's possible for one to only be undisputed champion for a single defense after a not so illustrious climb if he unifies after one big win.

 

"Best" means that the general consensus is that you are better than the other fighters in your division. Undisputed means that you've beaten the other fighters in your division.

If Froch had beaten Ward and Kessler, then beats Bute, he's the undisputed champion. He beat all other fighters in his division (pretty much). That would be better than if we have things as they are now and Froch beats Bute. Then, Ward is considered the consensus "best" in the division, but still never beat all of the best fighters.

I go with Undisputed, because that means you've beaten the best to become the best. Just saying the "best" doesn't completely cover it, in my book.

 

Lineal championship > unified titles

 

you may wind up being the best and not ever get to fight the number "rated" number 1. I think if you continually prove that you're the top guy the belts will find a way to you. The end goal should be proven as being number 1 in that division, not picking up belts to say you are.