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

as long as the single weight long reigning undisputed champ has fought the best contenders around personally that i would take over a weight jumper

 

It depends. If you are a multiple weight champion & you have fought the best in each division then I would say that's more of an achievement than just staying at one weight & defeating the best!

However, if you move up through the weights & win various world titles by being very selective about who you face, then I do not think its as strong as staying at one weight & beating the best!

For example, Marvin Hagler stayed at MW & beat the best, he was recognised as the best at MW!

From a personal point of view, if I had to choose given that in both scenario's A & B fought the best, I would choose staying at one weight & dominating for a lengthy period. Reason being is from a nostalgia point of view - not many people do this in Boxing today, where-as there was more of it back in the day!

 

There are tons of variables involved with this question. I'll give a few examples.

Arguello never unified any of the divisions he ruled, but there was never any doubt about who the boss was. I do not recall the numbers right now, but I once counted up how many title fights Arguello had, along with how many good to great fighters he fought, and it was indeed impressive.

Hopkins and Haglar DID NOT rule over a strong middleweight division. That's why their best wins were over smaller guys who moved up. However, because of their longevity and dominance no one hesitates to call them all time great middleweights.

Tommy Hearns failed to dominate some of the divisions he fought in, but the man won more titles than God, and he is universally considered an ATG.

Like I said, lots of variables.

 

+1
plus i consider bhop a long reigning champion of 160 and not a multi-weight champion. he avoided any legit in-shape 175 in his so called 'reign' at 175 , which is more of a 'reign' at 170.
i also consider calzaghe a long reigning 168 and not a multi-weight.

 

Pacquiao is a text box example of what you are saying. DelaHoya on the other side....

 

1 division, where they fight the best contenders.

 

Same. If I were a boxer I'd like to be associated with a particular weight class, and if I were champion, it'd be the king of a single division; holds more prestige in some ways. A true champion. I wouldn't want people in a few years to be debating at what weight my peak came.

But you can't knock successful weight jumpers. Especially if they were already long reigning champions, like Roberto Duran.

 

Clearly, the knowledge and understanding of science of training and nutrition, as well as avaibility of different training tools and supplements (Even just the regular, legal ones) - made putting on weight much easier these days.
I often look at fighters who jump through weights these days and in recent times - Oscar De La Hoya from 130 to 154, Shane Mosley from 135 to 147, Terence Crawford from 135 to 147, Naoya Inoue from 108 to 118... those guys were not small at all in comparision to their opponents after moving up. They put on muscle mass and adapted to new weight well, still looking big and strong.
Guys who can't move up effectively usually have some limitation that go down to their body frame. Lomachenko for example, He's short and stocky as it is. He still moved up 2 divisions, but clearly reached his limit at 135 and even there - wasn't able to fill out the same way that other fighters, with more lanky frame, could.

I think it was different in the old times, when someone like Langford would fight 200 pounds men while coming into the ring at 160, or Armstrong fighting bigger guys and then coming back down. You don't see much of it these days, fighters can't make the weight They used to make after moving up and filling out.
I only give fighters extra credit for wins at higher weight that They started at - if it's clear that They are at big weight disadvantage. For someone like Canelo, it will only be at 175 when I think He's out of his comfort zone. Otherwise, if you beat good fighters at one weight or multiple weights - doesn't make much difference to me.

I really dislike today's weight-hoppers by the way. It's clearly often done not to seek challanges, but to avoid them. It got a bit better in recent years, but before You could always get a vacant belt at higher weight against guys far out of top 10, like Leo Santa Cruz fighting Flores for a belt at 130 or Gervonta fighting Gamboa for a belt at 135.

 

It completely and utterly depends on context. There's far too many variables to answer empirically. Arguello pumped up the divisions beating the best available to win the titles and also made multiple defenses in every division. He only missed lineal at 130 because a match couldn't be made against Serrano. Duran was long standing before doing some big things up higher. Hopkins was lineal for years and champ forever before going lineal at 175.

So there's a lot to consider and nothing's carved in stone.

 

Circumstances. It all depends. Hopping up and cherry picking a guy totally suited to your style (RJJ vs Ruiz) is ok but nothing too spectacular. Jumping up and becoming (for instance) a light heavyweight champion by weight-restricting and short camping a faded champion like Kovalev? Not as impressive as metronomically beating every challenger available. You know who I'm talking about. Guys with massive home turf advantage and favourable refereeing like Ward, Canelo and Ottke don't impress me as much as dudes who do it on the road in the other guy's backyard like Brian Mitchell and Usyk.

 

It depends on the opposition like for example you mentioned Calzaghe, but his opposition was pretty weak to be fair.

But then you have someone like Broner who is a 4 weight division champion, but he won his belts off weak belt holders and no one believes Broner is truly on that level of being 4 weight division champion if that makes sense.

But then size difference can make a difference in how you rate wins, for example Duran beat Barkley who was dangerous but in reality not the best Middleweight. But the size difference between the two and the fact Duran was in his late 30s makes it a very good win.

It's all about context really.

 

Can't really decide because the lower weight classes have a laughable difference, so if you are a bit short, like 160-165 cm, you have many options, which also gives more opposition. If you are 190 or above, you've two options at best. So if you lack the multitude of options for opposition, you can at least go with as many opponents as possible. In that sense, I won't judge one big heavyweight for facing fewer top fighters than some who bounces between Bantamweight to Welterweight, for example.

I'd say neither of the two options if the fighter doesn't face top contenders. If he does, both are equally respectable to me.

 

Being a long reigning champion IMO.

It's not really a milestone to have a "title" and then go up and get another "title". It's a rarity when you start stacking on defense after defense after defense. Conquering a kingdom and holding onto that kingdom is far better IMO. That's why so few people accomplish.