Just a general thread to gather some thoughts about this comparison, and which might hold more weight. All things are relative of course. Which is a more impressive feat to you, winning titles in multiple weights or retaining a title in a given weight class many times? It's my own pet theory that with "world titles" being so easily obtained now in comparison to previous eras, the real way to make your mark and elevate your career as a fighter now is to weight jump and collect more baubles, the quantity over quality approach as it were...… To wit, whose accomplishments carry more weight; a Monzon or Hopkins, or a Ross or Arguello?
Ross and Arguello both won titles in 3 weight classes. Ross’s accomplishments were far greater, though. He defeated the superior opposition, won his belts in the era of one champion per division, and held all 3 simultaneously.
You're right what you say about weight jumping and titles. I'd argue now that if you never hold a world title this indisputably renders you non-elite. That's how bad it's gotten. As always, the answer is who did he beat? If you're leaping about the weights taking on the weakest titlist then leaving that'd different to what, say, someone like Naoya Inoue has done, destroying repeat divisional number ones; on the other hand, standing over fallen contenders in a stacked division is obviously different to staying in a weak division for 9 years. So the answer is who did he beat? All things being equal, weight-jumping is obviously to be preferred.
As @McGrain and @Bujia note, it's all relative I suppose. And I use the Ross and Arguello examples purely as that, examples. There are of course many others to consider.
100% agree. As long as they beat quality competition (as you said) it doesn't really matter. Most people don't give credit to one division fighters even though it shows incredible discipline. If a boxer is still growing into his frame and beats the big names in his division, it only makes sense to move up.
Personally, I think weigh jumping is definitely more impressive. But only if it's done properly. If you're the number one in three divisions (including the ******* divisions, but the oldest ones like 130 & 140 carry much more weight IMO, than the newest ones), then I'd find that more impressive staying atop one division for three/four years. When you get to high numbers, like comparing Pacquiao to Louis, it's much harder. I agree with McGrain that it really comes down to who you beat. Everything equal, it's close, but weight jumping. Anywho, I think the greatest guys somehow end up doing the best of both.
Depends on beating opposition. Whom, when and how convicingly fighter defeated. For me longevity and multi-divisional reign are not as important like quality opposition. Fighter, who beat prime/fresh/bigger/undefeated opponents > fighter, who beat smaller/older etc. Simple as that
Hopkins is awful and takes his glory from beating welterweight Trinidad but in general I like the guy who jumps up divisions with success over the longer reigning one weight champion.
