What's better.... a multiple weight champion or a long reigning undisputed champion?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by 'Ben', Aug 30, 2009.


Page 1 of 3
  1. 'Ben'

    'Ben' Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,307
    1
    Mar 8, 2009
    Like comparing Floyd Mayweather to Bernard Hopkins, Marvin Hagler or Joe Calzaghe?
     
    'Ben', Aug 30, 2009
    'Ben', Aug 30, 2009
    #1
  2. essexboy

    essexboy The Cat Full Member

    4,063
    4
    Jul 12, 2009
    It depends on circumstance really, whether the division an undisputed boxer was dominating was packed with talent or just beating bums and taking no risk. I would probably say in general, a multi-weight world champ is the better.
     
    essexboy, Aug 30, 2009
    essexboy, Aug 30, 2009
    #2
  3. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,553
    Nov 24, 2005
    Dominating one division as undisputed champion for a long time, through many defenses, is more impressive, providing there's no ducking of deserving challengers going on.

    Hopping around divisions picking up one belt here and one belt there and not doing much to defend or unify is not necessarily impressive at all.
     
    Unforgiven, Aug 30, 2009
    Unforgiven, Aug 30, 2009
    #3
  4. 'Ben'

    'Ben' Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,307
    1
    Mar 8, 2009
    Not so sure, I mean I rate Hopkins and Calzaghe over De la Hoya and Lennox Lewis. It does depend I guess, I just want to hear people over all opinions.
     
    'Ben', Aug 30, 2009
    'Ben', Aug 30, 2009
    #4
  5. rm36

    rm36 Active Member Full Member

    1,311
    8
    Jun 26, 2009
    I think it depends. There are divisions that are filled with talent, so that beating everyone there becomes an impressive feat. Moving up past one's natural weight is impressive, but it could also be used to duck the best fighters.
     
    rm36, Aug 30, 2009
    rm36, Aug 30, 2009
    #5
  6. GPater11093

    GPater11093 Barry Full Member

    38,034
    87
    Nov 10, 2008
    depends who ever chose the harder opponents, obviously if you move uop and fight weak guys it aint impressive but if you move up and figth the 'men' at the weight it is
     
    GPater11093, Aug 30, 2009
    GPater11093, Aug 30, 2009
    #6
  7. Bad_Intentions

    Bad_Intentions Boxing Addict Full Member

    7,367
    30
    May 15, 2007
    Dominating 1 division.
     
    Bad_Intentions, Aug 30, 2009
    Bad_Intentions, Aug 30, 2009
    #7
  8. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,553
    Nov 24, 2005
    Calzaghe wasn't a long reigning undisputed champion. I dont think he had a single defence.

    Hopkins had 6 defenses.
    Hagler had about 12.
     
    Unforgiven, Aug 30, 2009
    Unforgiven, Aug 30, 2009
    #8
    Smokin Bert likes this.
  9. 'Ben'

    'Ben' Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,307
    1
    Mar 8, 2009

    That's true but lets face it he was without doubt the best around even when he wasn't..... I couldn't see Ottke beating Kessler like Joe did.
     
    'Ben', Aug 30, 2009
    'Ben', Aug 30, 2009
    #9
  10. 'Ben'

    'Ben' Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,307
    1
    Mar 8, 2009
    Look at Larry Holmes.... everybody says he defended against mostly bums during his long reign but compare his resume to Roy Jones who beat some top fighters really dominantly, yet on a P4P scale who would most people choose out of Jones or Holmes?
     
    'Ben', Aug 30, 2009
    'Ben', Aug 30, 2009
    #10
  11. El Cepillo

    El Cepillo Baddest Man on the Planet Full Member

    17,221
    4
    Aug 29, 2008
    I prefer guys who stay in and around one division, establish themselves as lineal/undisputed champ and make numerous defences of that title against plenty of good opponents and hopefully a few great ones.

    If you establish yourself in one division, then other fighters will move up/down to fight you, rather than you moving up/down to fight them.
     
    El Cepillo, Aug 30, 2009
    El Cepillo, Aug 30, 2009
    #11
    Mastrangelo likes this.
  12. PbP Bacon

    PbP Bacon ALL TIME FAT Full Member

    718
    3
    Jun 9, 2009
    I agree that circunstances are key.

    To dominate a division for a long time, just beating bums doesn't cut the mustard.

    But again, jumping up and down between divisions, choosing underdogs contenders that are in a clear physical or technical disadvantage is nothing to be proud about.

    All depends.

    For example, had Dela Hoya defeated Pacquiao, what would have been the impact on DelaHoya's overall legacy?. I suspect that for me and others that would have mean little. Of course, for De La Hoya's fan boys that would have been a confirmacion that marketing boy was the greatest fighter of his generation :D
     
    PbP Bacon, Aug 30, 2009
    PbP Bacon, Aug 30, 2009
    #12
  13. 'Ben'

    'Ben' Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,307
    1
    Mar 8, 2009

    True, plus it can also give you a distinct advatage weight wise too over them.

    I think Hopkins needs to be cut alot of slck (not that I'm a B-Hop lover or anything) but he beat blown up versions of Trinidad and oscar at middle but who was Haglers best wins against Hearns and Leanard also blown up fighters aswell.
     
    'Ben', Aug 30, 2009
    'Ben', Aug 30, 2009
    #13
  14. amhlilhaus

    amhlilhaus Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,840
    11
    Mar 24, 2005
    multi weight champions just means for the most part that they could lose a ton of weight, rehydrate then beat up guys smaller than them.
     
    amhlilhaus, Aug 30, 2009
    amhlilhaus, Aug 30, 2009
    #14
  15. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    260
    Jul 22, 2004
    It depends largely on opposition although if you step up and beat a much bigger man who has a big weight advantage that is also meaningful.
     
    PowerPuncher, Aug 30, 2009
    PowerPuncher, Aug 30, 2009
    #15
Page 1 of 3