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

as long as his legacy grows in every fight, i have no problem with way a fighter took...

 

i would judge it on who they fought and how good they looked on film

 

if a fighter dominates his chosen division for nearly 10 years and beats some of the best in the world P4P (they also happen to be in that division), i would probably rate that higher then moving up in weight and never really truly conquering and keeping a division!

Although i might rate the division jumping fighter higher if he beats the very best in those divisions at that time then moves up again to the new 'best in the world' ie Duran up to SRL

basically i have not even answered the question because it is probably an equal achievement.....

 

It depends on many factors:

1. Is the fighter moving up weight classes because they are too big for the weight class or are they smaller and seek out challenges/money at a higher weight class. Langford starting at LW means little when he was solid at 185, Delahoya starting at 135 means nothing when he was a massive Welterweight, Pacquaio starting at flyweight means little when he was a massive Super-Featherweight

2. Obviously how good is their competition, how they handled different styles

3. Were they the smaller man at higher weight classes? (Same as point 1 really). Few fighters manage to compete in divisions they have no right being in because they are so much naturally smaller. Jones Jr, Mayweather Jr, Charles Burley, Duran, Armstrong, Fitzsimmons, Toney are a few that have managed this off the top of my head

 

I know it's a theory question, but I will use concrete cases to illustrate my argument that a fighter who dominates at or around any of the original eight divisions should generally be admired more than a fighter who division jumps.

It just so happens, though, that the three fighters I think are the best ever, namely Robinson, Armstrong, and Duran, were also keen division jumpers. But this is first because they dominated divisions. Robinson was the greatest welterweight ever and a damn fine middleweight (I rank him third). Duran was the best lightweight ever (and would have, had he stayed focused, dominated the welterweight division for years). Armstrong is the closest to a pure division jumper that I rank so highly, but his dominance at featherweight and welterweight are well documented.

But on the whole, Hagler's record at middleweight, for example, is much more impressive than either Leonard's or Hearn's division jumping, especially given that they claim among their accomplishments junior titles. Division jumping across junior divisions doesn't impress me at all. I value Chavez's career, but it isn't because he was junior lightweight and junior welterweight champion, but because he defeated so many outstanding boxers at or around lightweight. I have always wished Chavez had remained a fighting lightweight champion longer and then challenged for the welterweight title a bit sooner. That would have better for his legacy.

And fighters who jump weights to pick off easy targets irk the **** out of me! In this way, junior titles, which are often fragmented, are gimmicks fighters use to pad their accomplishments. When Pernell Whitaker beat Julio Cesar Vasquez for the junior middleweight title, it wasn't the title that impressed me but that he so clearly outclassed a fighter who, at the time, appeared to be a solid middleweight. I really could care less a fighter picks up a junior welterweight or junior lightweight title.

So for me, it's impressive enough that Leonard was two-time welterweight and one-time middleweight champion. The problem with Leonard's legacy is that he wasn't dominant in any of those weight class. At welterweight, beyond the Benitez victory, he was less than impressive in his fights with top-flight competition. And he had no interest in defending his middleweight title, which disrespects the tradition of one of the oldest weight divisions. He wasn't interested in being a fighting champion, but in collecting belts.

When a fighter is dominant at one weight division it is almost always the definitive sign that he is interested in being a fighting champion, and fighting champions deserve a special place in our sport. So Ali, Hagler, Spinks - fighters like this should always be prized more than weight jumpers.

Please don't take offense at my examples. These are just the ones that come to mind. I would expand this essay for several pages and bring in many more examples, but my comments are too long as it is!

 

you only go up in weight if your struggling with weight or fighting better comp.

i give oscar a lot of credit for beating vargas but not because he won a 154 title.
and i give him no credit what so ever for losing to sturm, even tho he is was a 160 pound titlist.

yah semme?

 

:goodbang

 

I think boxers sometimes go up in weight because the competition is not as tough. They want to be a big fish in a small pond.

 

You can make a ready argument for both fighters.

The sport needs a mixture of both IMO. Champions who can be easily identified with one division provide a stability for the sport, give the challengers something to aspire to and fans a reference point for what makes a true champion

If every fighter constantly shifted weight division some of the acheivement out of a fighter going up to take on a challenge is diminshed. It is what made fights line Tito/Hopkins so interesting, Trinidad seeking the challenge of overcoming a long term champ above his comfort zone.

At the lower weights it can seem that there is constant state of flux, if in moving up you are beating guys who have also recently moved up is it as impressive as beating a proven dominant champ?

Most average fight fans would struggle to name what division the likes of Pacman/JMM/Mosley etc are fighting at.

At the same time the sport would stagnate if all fighters stuck to the same division.

We need a happy medium, let fighters build a legacy before moving up, win a title, make a series of defences against legitimate opposition, creates respect for the belt, makes it something worth gaining. Too much hoovering up of meaningless belts under the pretence of moving up for a challenge for me at the moment.

My rambling thoughts at least.

 

I can't really say, it's too subjective. Nowadays with so many titles you get fights like the upcoming Hatton v Pacquiao fight which shouldn't really be happening (yet/now) because they both have good fighters to fight in their respective divisions and are only getting together for money. On the other hand, hopkins would perhaps have gotten more respect sooner if he'd moved up earlier than he did because there was really nobody to fight at middleweight.

 

Show me a fighter in history who has the same muscularity and strength of Pacquaio at 130lbs, yes he isn't the tallest rangyest of 130lbers but he weighed 144lbs on fight night with an incredibly low bodyfat, he even weighed more than Morales for 1 of those fights, who in turn was a big 130lber

Pacman was also the bigger stronger fighter than Barrera in all their fights despite being the fighter moving up in weight

Interestingly Pacquaio has pretty much the same reach/height of his next opponent Hatton all the way up at 140

 

pacquiao 144 vs barrera 138
http://www.gmanews.tv/pacquiao-delahoya/aboutwilltowin

pacquiao 144 vs marquez
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/boxing/Pacquiao-Marquez-2.php