IN THEORY, is it better to dominate 1 division, or win titles at multiple divisions?

Under those circunstances it is difficult to say which one is better. Eventhough boxer's B resume might look (on paper) that he is better in reallity it might not be the case.

We have cases in which some boxers go up in weight, but they end up fighting boxers (the ones that are considered the best at that moment) who moved up as well, so eventhough boxer B moved up to another division, he is facing the same boxers he fought before in a lower division.

You talked about the featherweight division, well this is actually a good example. Let's go back in time for a moment, a few years ago the best at 126 were MAB, Pac, EM, JMM and Guzman, then they moved up to 130 and they were the best as well, now some of them are retired but we still have now at 135 PAC, JMM and Guzman.

What I am trying to tell you is that moving up to a higher division might be deceiving some times.

 

A champion doesn't just win titles...he defends a belt.

...it's one thing to be a fighter, waiting for a shot at a champ you can beat...ditching the strap, and doing it in another division.

...it's entirely different to win the title, and defend it against all comers as they aim to take you out. That's called being a fighting champion, and we have a lot less of them now days.

If you are going to go from MW to HW that's a different story...that's extremely difficult and rare. Even that has been cheapened by RJJ's refusing to defend the belt when he won it.

...but these weight classes that are a few pounds apart...??? Defend your own belt and be a fighting champion.

You can not say you ruled every division just because you won a belt and moved on. You have to keep sending contenders to the back of the line...

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

That's the problem with this thread and makes it so that it's no longer even really asking a question in my opinion. Historically the argument between fighters who clear out their divisions and fighters who move up through the weights has been level of competition. If you eliminate the competition factor then OF COURSE the fighter moving up through the weights is going to have the better accomplishment. It's a non-question as far as I'm concerned.

 

To each his own, but the guy who is going your route is just a title winner, and not a true champion.

Sugar Nose Leonard is a great illustration, because he has allowed us to look into his psyche. He said that when he retired he though that Marvelous had lost something in his last fight...which told him that he can get up off the couch now and beat Marv.

Marv was the champ... having to fight everybody, including that guy that he lost a step to. That's being a champion.

It is not being a champion, being "retired" only to come back when you can steal a belt. In cases like this being "retired" is simply appointing yourself "champion emeritus."

...let's look at what Leonard did after winnning...he kept retiring and changing weight classes. He knew he wasn't a true champ, even if he was a great fighter. Reminds me of some other stars...

The fact that you defend your belt successfully does not prove you didn't belong in that division...it proves you can dominate a division.

I thank Leonard for his honesty.

 

I did read it, it reads like a competition issue, like the majority of posts in this thread that either ignored what you said about competition, or like me thought it made it a non-question and so they mentioned it any way.

He specifically uses the words "steal" and the phrase "lost a step" in regards to the belt and the man that he beat for it while at the same time bringing up having to fight the man who made him lose a step in the first place.

That sounds like a cherry picking and competition issue to me, which is what I was getting at in my post. If you remove the competition factor I don't see how it's even debatable. You've got two people accomplishing the same thing except that one is giving up size and strength more and more as his career progresses.

 

...one defends a title and is a fighting champion. The other is a title winner.

 

Mayweather and DLH's careers don't do it for me like Haglers..

Non unified divisions are bad for boxing and too much credit given to those type of fighters.

 

Well he did specifically mention two unifications and several defenses at each weight, none of the win a title and move on stuff.

 

All things being equal, the guy who was able to win in more weight divisions has the advantage.

Fighter B shows the ability to adjust to fighters who may be bigger and stronger than he is.

To give an example: Mayweather Jr. would have never achieved #1 p4p status if he had been dominating super-featherweight his entire career.

 

We can draw out a million secenarios...but a champion is a fighter who holds his belt and defends it.

Even a fighter who unifies a division...it's a cop out to say I've unified the division there is nothing here for me, I'm moving up. You proved you can win a title, now prove you can be a champion.

Marvin Hagler, and Hopkins have legendary careers.

James Toney is to be massively respected to...a lot of these other guys are full of ****, grabbing straps...look at RJJ he had to bring a dozen guys with him to the ring just to cary all of his belts. He got the hell out of HW after he picked up that strap though.

 

Because he wasn't a HW. It is unfair to expect Jones to defend his HW title to begin with.

It was amazing that he could win ANY belt in the HW division at all.

Name me another fighter that started at middleweight and was able to capture ANY piece of the HW title? That achievement alone is worth some serious recognition.

 

I would say in theory it is better to win titles in multiple divisions, especially if they are linear/undisputed titles.

Going up in weight is pretty much increasing your difficulty and I think that should be rewarded more than staying in one place and dominating.