Good fighters win titles @ least @ 3 different divisions

of course they are good, but not as good as Mayweather, de la Hoya, Hearns, Barrera, Leonard, Pacquiao, Mosley, etc

see the difference?

 

How about you explain the difference. WHY are they so much better, and please, don't just mention THREE TITLES. WHat made them better. Who did they beat to achieve greatness? Can you do that?

Or don't. I don't think you are serious anyway. YOU start the DUMBEST threads OBVIOUSLY to get some sort of reaction from fans.

 

most times you see better boxing at the lower divisions than at heavyweight

 

I don't have the time or initiative to show why Hagler and Hopkins are demonstrably better than some of those fighters. Most smart boxing fans already know I'm right so I don't care what you think.

Yes, those fighters are great and yes, having belts in multiple weight classes contributes to their greatness. But having straps in more than one weight class isn't WHY they are great, it is a consequence of their greatness.

Most of those fighters would be just as great if they had fought at only one weight.

 

this just cant be!

 

It's not true for all of them, but for some of them they could even be GREATER if they hadn't moved up.

Hearns and Trinidad are prime examples. Imagine how spectacular the later parts of their careers could have been at 147.

 

Quite a few people are very big on Ivan Calderon at the moment. I've even heard before, that he's a better boxer than Mayweather.

But he's 105 pounds. So no one cares

 

Saw Hatton fight Collazo at 147? You see Hatton after that fighting at 154?

See things better now?

 

How can anyone be as stupid as you..

 

A "good" fighter could very well be Duke McKenzie.

 

Personally I think it's better for a guy to stay at one weight, clear it out, defend his UNDISPUTED titles a few times, and prove he really is the man at a weight, than to hippety hop around weight classes, and hand pick the worst ABC beltholder to win a title at that weight.

AFTER that if he moves around, cool. But to do it before can be meaningless.

When guys like Hearns did it, there were only 2 belts going around. Now there are 4. Makes it a bit easier, no?

Especially with the bull**** politics involved.

Look at Floyds WBC belts at 140 for example. (I'm not hassling Floyd, just using him as an example as a recent belt holder)

WBC. Stripped from Kostya Tszyu. (he kept the IBF only). Virtually gift wrapped on a plate for Gatti - who then lost it to Floyd.

What does that prove? It proves you can beat a guy, who beat a scrub for a belt that was stripped from the real champ.

 

SO all single titlist fall into his category?

I asked you to explain. Seeing as you can't, I've deduced you're just a troll...

 

what I meant was that he won titles at 3 divisions.

 

Sure, but fighting against who?