Multi-weight champs vs. Undisputed champs? What is more impressive?

One factor to consider is gift decisions. Should be considered in all accomplishments, doesn't change the comparison here.

Undisputed should be the priority for a champ but I voted multi just cause these days if there is a weak class and the champ just beats on competition way bellow him rather than fight more equal competition in other weight classes

Multi weight champs just cherry pick weak links then move back down in weight. It's basically something for casual fans to nut over

One factor to consider is gift decisions. which floyd have plenty..

i think it really depends on the quality opponents. but i guess multi-weight champions are far harder to achieve than being undisputed since you just circling around your own weight division. compared that to different weights which has every quality of opponents especially the champion itself (which i think wont become a champion for no reason.). here's my sample logic. undisputed - you need to beat atleast a single man who already has the completing belts. multi-weight - you need to beat every single champs in every division.. we have mutiple undisputed boxers in history but there's only one 8 division world champion. i also think it could be 10 divisions if pacman didn't skip 2 weights early in his career.

Ultimately, I guess it's about who you beat and how relevant they are when you beat them.

Ultimately it all depends on who you beat to do it. That said, it's probably easier to win multiple belts without fighting great opposition that it is to do the same while becoming undisputed.

Generally I agree with you. But beating 4 belt holders doesn't necessarily mean you beat the 4 best in the division. Also vacant title fights are very common these days. There will be exceptions, but for the most part it will be accurate. Additionally, if the undisputed champion defends all his belts, eventually there will be no question he has defeated the best fighters in the division. It is also a testament of the fighter's willingness to face the best in the division. Winning titles in different weight class makes it much easier to have favorable selection.

Lets say multi-division= 2-4 weight classes. Undisputed meaning every major belt - WBA, WBC, IBF og WBO. So with that said, in your honest opinion, in present day boxing, which should be respected more? & why?? - -If you gotta ask, you don't deserve to know.

One legit win against a 5 foot 7 Brawler who has no head movement and he’s better than Canelo yea ok Ok two things: 1. No one asked me if I think he is better than Canelo, but if you’re asking, no, I don’t think Jermall Charlo is better than Canelo. I think it would be a good matchup though 2. Nobody was calling Derevyanchenko a “5 foot 7 brawler with no head movement “ going into the fight. He was seen as a legit test and Charlo passed it.

Matters on the comp. Just because a person has a belt doesn't mean they are true champs. Andy wore belts. How is he ranked among HW champs :lol1: ? Moving up div's only to find the worst guy at that weight is also laughable. If the competition is legit, moving up > undisputed

Multi weight champs in a 4 belt 17 weight class era just isn’t impressive to me. You can go to each weight class near your own and just fight the weakest champ each time.

It depends who a fighters beats, but in the majority of cases, undisputed is more impressive and not as common.

As others have said, it depends on what you did and who you beat. Belts can be hard earned,gifted or somewhere in between. So you have to look past them. Tyson won the WBA belt by beating Seldon. Holyfield won it by beating Tyson. Lewis won it by beating Holyfield. Those wins aren't all equal.

Jermall's win over Derevyanchenko is a legit win, as is Jermell's wins over Tony Harrison and Jeison Rosario. Andrade definitely needs a signature win and hopefully he will get an opportunity against top competition. One legit win against a 5 foot 7 Brawler who has no head movement and he’s better than Canelo yea ok

Opponent levels matter. I would agree with this. Cleaning out a division isn't as impressive if all of the other title holders are weak (Crawford). Jumping through weight classes and getting titles from weak opposition (Broner) isn't as impressive either.

Charlie Bros and Andre have mediocre wins Jermall's win over Derevyanchenko is a legit win, as is Jermell's wins over Tony Harrison and Jeison Rosario. Andrade definitely needs a signature win and hopefully he will get an opportunity against top competition.

Lets say multi-division= 2-4 weight classes. Undisputed meaning every major belt - WBA, WBC, IBF og WBO. So with that said, in your honest opinion, in present day boxing, which should be respected more? & why?? It really depends on who you beat. For example, Adrien Broner is a four-division champion but the guys he beat were: 1. Paulie Malignaggi at 147 (an overachiever who was good but not great) 2. Khabib Allakverdiev at 140 (decent but not great) 3. Antonio DeMarco at 135 (a legit win against a top lightweight at the time, not the best but very good at the time) 4. Vicente Martin Rodriguez at 130 (I won't call him a bum but he wasn't anything special) As for the unification scenario, that depends too but as I type this, I think unification is more impressive because those are the best guys in the division whether you think the division is weak or not. If you look at Josh Taylor, he beat Ivan Baranchyk and Regis Prograis win win the WBA and IBF titles. If he beats Jose Ramirez to win the WBC and WBO then I would consider that more impressive because you can cherry-pick your way to multiple titles through careful matchmaking.

I disagree. He has fought neither Charlo bro, or Andrade...at 168, I'd love to see him against Plant or Benavidez. It's not enough to say he beats all these guys, but doesn't have to fight them. Charlie Bros and Andre have mediocre wins

Opponent levels matter. This, this is the only real answer lol