what is more impressive

[rightsideup]

winning a title and defending over a long period of time or winning multiple titles/

[Panamaniac]

winning a title and defending over a long period of time or winning multiple titles/

The former, but not by much...

[Rossman]

These days multiple titles are easy to get. A quick payment to an abc group and boom, you get an easy fight for a vacant title. Beating everybody at a weight, including the other champions at that weight is much harder and more important than winning six titles. No duh!

[Boxing Bob]

to me its a "who" issue, as in who you defend the title against or who you beat for the multiple titles

[Anthony342]

Yeah it also depends on what titles, not just competition. Whether someone is a disputed alphabet champion or undisputed, Ring or lineal champion. If the latter, with many title defenses, then I say that's better, as long as they defend the title against all the top competition. Sometimes these guys get stuck with mandatories from these corrupt governing bodies though, like when Hopkins had to defend the middleweight title against Howard Eastman. So I'll say long title reign is slightly more important.