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

I get what you're saying, and in the real world I'd agree with you, but in this hypothetical what you're talking about doesn't apply. It'd be like if someone at Jr. Feather beat Vazquez, Marquez, Caballero, Lopez, and Molitor, then moved up and beat John, Solis, Leuvanao, and Enoki, then moved up and beat, Pacquiao, JMM, Huzman, Valero, and Sotto compared to someone that just cleaned out Jr. Feather. It's why this theoretical doesn't make any sense to me. In this situation I don't see any reason at all to give it to the guy that stayed in one weight class.

Everything that you would normally hold against a guy jumping up through different weight classes (competition, not making defenses) has been removed from the equation. In the theory we're talking about a guy that fought all of the best over 4 weight classes unifying twice and making several defenses (fighting champion) at every weight.

 

The logic is flawed that would think it fair for Jones to compete for a title, which he doesn't have the ability to hold. It is unfair to any serious HW, to the fans, and to the sport as a whole.

It is unfair for Jones to turn the HW division into his personal temproary spotlight. I'm not going to give Jones the credit of being a HW Champion when he wouldn't do what HW Champs do...defend the title.

It is not impressive that Jones knew he could defeat Ruiz, because of the way they matched up...and knew just as well, that he doesn't match up with anybody else in the division like that.

Toney beat Ruiz. I give Toney full respect becaue he will fight any HW. It wasn't a trick. Unlike Jones, Toney knows he has the heart of a champion

 

I hear you. That's kind of why I'm not addressing the hypothetical directly. This guy who beats everybody in every division has never existed.

 

NAH YOUR WRONG...IN BOXING IF YOU CAN WIN BELTS IN DIFFERENT DIVISIONS ID SAY ITS HARDER THAN DOMINATING 1 DIVISION..

 

I'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.

No other Middleweight in history was ever able to win a HW title, in any form. Defending it becomes a moot point when you make history and do something that no other fighter in the history of the sport has been able to do.

 

well put it this way roy jones was a helluva middleweight who moved up the divisions,but i don't rate his achievments any higher than marvin hagler who never fought out of the middleweight division.

 

I believe James Toney did it.

 

this is why sugar ray leonard is considered greater than hagler

 

Suge provides a real logical rebuttal to the case for fighter B, but I think he discredits the difficulty of being merely, as he calls it, a "title holder".

One who wins a title has proven to the world that he has what it takes to bang with the best of them. Regardless of if you take their belt on the decline of their rein, or in the upstart, if you beat that fighter you are beating the best there is in the division. To speculate the said fighter is no longer a worthy champion, is just that; Speculation. Even more specific, it is speculation against viability of fighter B"s championship victory, which is one fight.

However - Every time fighter A steps into the ring to defend his title, we must speculate that his opponent is actually a worthy adversary to begin with. Often times a fighter can be given a mandatory shot for being nothing more than entertaining, or a draw. So if fighter A is to hover around at 130 beating 10-15 "could-bes", is that really any better than beating one "definitely was"?

I guess what my point is, the way I see it - Is one who makes dozens of defenses of his title against sub-par opponents is no less a bottom feeder than one who go's for the gold against a champion who is possibly on the decline. Either way, you putting stock into the fact that you are better than your opponent, and you could very well be wrong.

 

I don't think it matters. It annoys me that some people measure a fighters greatness by how many divisions they've scaled. In the end it's about who you've fought, not at what weights you fought at.

 

This bothers me a little bit. Wouldn't you agree that we have these "titles" for a reason, and granted there are to many to even name - If a fighter holds a couple, or liniar championship, isn't he considered "the best" in his respective division?

It appears to me that you base who "the best" is on your on personal belifs and opinions. That being the case, how can fighter A or B ever win in your eyes?

 

Even if you moved up into other weight classes and took on dangerous, tough opponents you'd still not get the credit you'd get for dominating an entire division. With both options considered tough of course.

The problem is that you lend credence to speculation. And speculation in this business is the killer. For example there isn't a whole lot of speculation if the lightweight champ doesn't ever fight the welterweight champ. That's the purpose of weight classes to begin with.

The other side is that P4P title. It isn't intended to be taken seriously as though P4P entrants should fight, unless they exist in the same weight division(s).

 

Nope.

The reason why Leonard ranks higher is because not only did he step up and fight Hagler well ahead of his best weight class, but he also cleaned out his best weight class. He did both, which makes him very special.

 

well i don't think you could say he cleaned out his division he only defended a few times.