what is better dominating one division or winning belts in many??

[oldgringo]

Moving up in weight and beating bigger guys is a much tougher challenge than staying in one division fighting mandatory after mandatory. All of the truly great fighters in history were dominant in multiple divisions. The guys who were successful sitting in one division generally fought nothing but weak fighters and made names for themselves racking up wins against bums. Please see Calzaghe and Hopkins for good examples...

Incorrect. Look at Carlos Monzon. He's a perfect example of a fighter who always stayed at one weight but fought in a stacked division.

Rodrigo Valdez
Bennie Briscoe
Emile Griffith
Jose Napoles
Nino Benvenuti

That's 3 Hall of Fame fighters and two other tough bastards. Monzon completely goes against everything you're saying here. Hagler also fought in a pretty strong Middleweight division.

[konaman]

winning belts in many....

going up weight gives you challenges...like Floyd did..like Oscar did...like Hopkins did...like Pacman is doing....


Why sit in a weight class your whole life and beat people you can easliy beat.

Like Calzaghe did???

Cleaning out the division would be beating all of the top contenders, Calzaghe didn't really do that it was more that he was so obviously the best that he went up imo.

[Silencers]

How many fighters had great resumes while sitting in one division their entire career?

Marvin Hagler and Carlos Monzon.

[oldgringo]

Marvin Hagler and Carlos Monzon.

Right...among others. There were plenty of fighters who are considered great fighters who sat in one division their whole career and fought pretty good comp. Ken Buchanan, Vicente Saldivar...lifetime Lightweight and Featherweight respectively.

I know there are more.

[Silencers]

Right...among others. There were plenty of fighters who are considered great fighters who sat in one division their whole career and fought pretty good comp. Ken Buchanan, Vicente Saldivar...lifetime Lightweight and Featherweight respectively.

I know there are more.

Jose Napoles.

[DIOS DOMINICANO]

Incorrect. Look at Carlos Monzon. He's a perfect example of a fighter who always stayed at one weight but fought in a stacked division.

Rodrigo Valdez
Bennie Briscoe
Emile Griffith
Jose Napoles
Nino Benvenuti

That's 3 Hall of Fame fighters and two other tough bastards. Monzon completely goes against everything you're saying here. Hagler also fought in a pretty strong Middleweight division.

OK. Now compare that to if he had only beat a couple of those guys, and then went up and beat the LHW champ.

Beating LHW champ > beating MW contender

[oldgringo]

OK. Now compare that to if he had only beat a couple of those guys, and then went up and beat the LHW champ.

Beating LHW champ > beating MW contender

Beat a couple of what guys?

Monzon's victory over two-time middleweight champion Rodrigo Valdez (actually his pair of victories over Valdez) is just as impressive to me as Hopkins' lone victory over Tarver.

Monzon actually fought and beat most of those guys twice.

[mcentepede]

Old Gringo is absolutely correct. The question here is vague, perfect example is 3 division champ Jeff Fenech. Who moved up like Pac-Man did in same divisions mind you. Never did manage to unify anything...all alfabet belts. He will say he had nobody great around...whatever. If you're division is stacked with great fighters or great fighters invade your division to challenge you, then it's o.k. (Monzon, Hagler, Pryor) Notice how Mayweather hasn't really beaten a legit welter-weight except Baldomir and Judah (wasn't he jr. welter?). We already established that Hoya fight was trash incarnate. Hagler could have moved up, but he had great fighters in and around his division at the time. Any there was no Super-middle-weight back then, and light Heavy was the worse division at the time. At least Calzage unified his crappy division to get most/all belts. He gets props for that. Mayweather is a big disappointment for me. With all his skills, he should at least pretend he wants to fight everybody.

[DIOS DOMINICANO]

Beat a couple of what guys?

Monzon's victory over two-time middleweight champion Rodrigo Valdez (actually his pair of victories over Valdez) is just as impressive to me as Hopkins' lone victory over Tarver.

Monzon actually fought and beat most of those guys twice.

Soooo, now you are telling me that the #3 ranked MW is a more challenging fight than the LHW champion?

Sorry, 9 out of ten times, that is NOT the case.

[oldgringo]

Soooo, now you are telling me that the #3 ranked MW is a more challenging fight than the LHW champion?

Sorry, 9 out of ten times, that is NOT the case.

I'm telling you that it depends on the fighter. In Monzon's case, he fills that 1 out of 10 you are talking about. Beating Rodrigo Valdez, the two-time Middleweight champion twice is just as impressive to me as Bernard Hopkins beating Antonio Tarver once. Valdez was one of the better fighters of his day and might have been a Hall of Famer himself had he not run into Monzon.

If Kelly Pavlik went up to 175 and beat Zsolt Erdei to win the WBO Light Heavyweight championship I would be mildly impressed. I would be more impressed if he was able to beat Arthur Abraham and Felix Sturm in consecutive fights though, and even more impressed if he beat both of them twice.

The recurring idea in this thread is that it all depends on the level of competition. Monzon took on 3 legitimate Hall of Fame opponents, two of whom are top 10 all-time Welterweights and the other was a great Middleweight champ. His Middleweight reign was very impressive and that's why he is widely regarded as one of the 25-30 greatest to ever do it.