Multi-weight champs vs. Undisputed champs?

[therealpugilist]

Obviously depends on who either fighter is beating.

And we need to stop giving fighters credit for moving up when they only do so because they have grown too big for smaller divisions. Moving up divisions is not praiseworthy automatically.

^^^^agreed, absolutely

[Larry the boss]

well if he gets that last belt there is no other champion to dispute his case as champion. Thats what undisputed means. Its not his fault he got there the way he did.

After he gets that last belt you cant dispute his case for being undisputed no matter how much you hate him.

i think you are missing my point.. Thread is asking which is more impressive....and that is far from impressive

[techliam]

Well the last recognised Undisputed champion was O'neil Bell in 2006

I think more fighters should be looking to unify their divisions. Cherry picking one title just to move up isn't acceptable, unless the one title is the one that matters at the weight. Fighters seem too happy with 1 title

[therealpugilist]

Not true GGG have the WBC,WBA,IBF and only has beaten one current champion in his entire career

OOOOOOOOOOOooooo....SHOTS FIRED.....you have a good point....you have to actually fight for the belts to be considered..."undisputed"......he is being handed titles.....fighters make the belts not the other way around

being undisputed doesnt mean much if you dont fight for them, whereas Hopkins fought for all his belts

[boxinghead530]

i think you are missing my point.. Thread is asking which is more impressive....and that is far from impressive

Well I'll agree with you on the point that GGG's path to being undisputed isn't as impressive as it may seem. But you have to realize other champs gave up there title than to fight him. So it's not his fault.

But IMO being undisputed is more impressive than being a multi weight.

[ИATAS]

Why is everything a competition on here lol

You judge a fighter by his specific accomplishments and who he beat. There isn't any clear black & white answer as to which is better since it totally depends on who and when he fought. You'll find plenty of examples of fighters who ruled one division who were better than guys who won titles in multiple divisions and vice versa. For example, no one would say Broner is more accomplished than Hagler. And no one would say Golovkin is more accompished than Pacquiao and so on.

[Chrismart]

As others have said, it depends on the opposition.
To pick one though, i'd go with undisputed as it's the route i'm always hoping a champion will chase and one i hope they pull off. I don't know..i'm just a sucker for it.

[Larry the boss]

Well I'll agree with you on the point that GGG's path to being undisputed isn't as impressive as it may seem. But you have to realize other champs gave up there title than to fight him. So it's not his fault.

But IMO being undisputed is more impressive than being a multi weight.

I agree.....but you cant say undisputed is more impressive...it is simply about WHO YOU FOUGHT TO GET WHAT YOU GOT

[Boxfan83]

Well the last recognised Undisputed champion was O'neil Bell in 2006

I think more fighters should be looking to unify their divisions. Cherry picking one title just to move up isn't acceptable, unless the one title is the one that matters at the weight. Fighters seem too happy with 1 title

Good catch bro I forgot about ONeil Bell Greek K sent. How quick (most) forget the CW's... & yeah I agree the 1 title thing is BS, at least unify. Its like I understand its a risk moving up and an accomplishment beating a bigger guy for their title but how much of that was that bigger guy just being beatable or how much of it was the smaller guy just being that good?

You take Broner for instance, good accomplishment beating Malanaggi but what if his first title @WW were against Maidana? He wouldve never been a 4 division champ...

[therealpugilist]

Well I'll agree with you on the point that GGG's path to being undisputed isn't as impressive as it may seem. But you have to realize other champs gave up there title than to fight him. So it's not his fault.

But IMO being undisputed is more impressive than being a multi weight.

I cant consider a fighter who didnt fight for his belts as being "undisputed" when he didnt even fight for it. He would be considered a unified titleholder. Cant be undisputed if you didnt take care of the other top 3 guys.

It takes a lot of the gloss and meaning away.....Hopkins fought DLH, Trinidad, Holmes for the belts he didnt have and thats why it reflects on his legacy....he fought for his titles against good opposition

fighters dont get credit for fights that never happened.

Back in the day and even recently, you at least have to fight for the vacant titles. this guy has more board room titles than ones he won in the ring.


Maybe one day he'll fight the other top guys at 160, but it doesnt feel right patting him on the back for doing something Hopkins and others had to actually fight for.