What is better multi weight or undisputed champ?

[Boxingking1511]

Multiple weight world champions are common enough, undisputed champions less so, especially in the 4-belt era. Which is more impressive? Bigger achievement?

[mick1303]

I think undisputed leaves no question marks. It means that at this weight the fighter did not avoid any possible challenges. There is always an issue of specific circumstances. Like one thing if the fighter beaten champion after champion and took their belts one by one. Or next best thing - winning a tournament like WBSS. Another thing - one lucky fight, where a challenger beat undisputed champion, but then failed to hold on to all the belts (like Jermain Taylor after winning belts from Hopkins).

[tophat1]

Undisputed for sure

[deathofaclown]

Undisputed is better

Ricky Burns is a three word world champion. Broner is a 4.

Good matchmaking can make you a multi weight world champ, But 99% of the time to be undisputed, you’re going to have to beat some top fighter.

[boliodogs]

Multiple weight world champions are common enough, undisputed champions less so, especially in the 4-belt era. Which is more impressive? Bigger achievement?

in my opinion undisputed is more impressive by about 10 miles. Look at the lousy fighters Jermall and Andrade beat to become middleweight champions and the unknown guy Saunders beat to win a title at 168. Look at the easy fights broner got to win titles at all those weights. There are lots of boxers who won titles in more than one weight but undisputed world champs are extremely rare. There are probably at least 100 boxers fighting now who have won world titles in more than one weight class but I can only think of two boxers who have become undisputed champions and they are no longer undisputed because they moved to a heavier weight class.

[techliam]

Depends on who they beat

Could win zero titles but have a better resumes, in theory

Being Undisputed is certainly more difficult, but only in the business/promotional sense. It doesn’t necessarily require more skill from a fighter

[techliam]

in my opinion undisputed is more impressive by about 10 miles. Look at the lousy fighters Jermall and Andrade beat to become middleweight champions and the unknown guy Saunders beat to win a title at 168. Look at the easy fights broner got to win titles at all those weights. There are lots of boxers who won titles in more than one weight but undisputed world champs are extremely rare. There are probably at least 100 boxers fighting now who have won world titles in more than one weight class but I can only think of two boxers who have become undisputed champions and they are no longer undisputed because they moved to a heavier weight class.

Sure, but you only need to beat 1 fighter to become Undisputed champion, and it’s not uncommon (probably far more cases of winning the Undisputed championship rather than unifying it). It’s extremely rare to become a multi-weight champion from 1 fight. The only two cases I can think of is if Maidana beat Floyd in the second fight, and SRL-Lalonde

What you are actually comparing is a fighter who won all of the titles in more than 1 fight, and a multi divisional champion. Different question entirely

[techliam]

I think undisputed leaves no question marks. It means that at this weight the fighter did not avoid any possible challenges. There is always an issue of specific circumstances. Like one thing if the fighter beaten champion after champion and took their belts one by one. Or next best thing - winning a tournament like WBSS. Another thing - one lucky fight, where a challenger beat undisputed champion, but then failed to hold on to all the belts (like Jermain Taylor after winning belts from Hopkins).

Exactly
At the same time though, Canelo’s run from 154-175 is more impressive than Crawfords 140 run

Depends on the wins

[The Big Dunn]

Multiple weight world champions are common enough, undisputed champions less so, especially in the 4-belt era. Which is more impressive? Bigger achievement?

I don't think either is inherently better. I think whichever is earned over the harder road is better.

If you are undisputed champ and you beat say Frazier, Foreman and Norton I think that is better than winning titles in multiple divisions if those titles are earned over lesser competition.

Note that sometimes moving up in weight is because you are like Duran or Broner and party and get fat in between fights and can't stay at a weight. Being undisputed could be because like Hagler, Bhop or GGG you're a dedicated professional and train and diet daily and maintain your weight over your career and don't move up. I don't think discipline should be penalized.

If you earn titles in Multiple weight classes like Floyd or Manny , and beat a number of quality fighters to achieve these titles, I think that is better than being the undisputed champ in a weak division, like say 168 right now if you beat David Benavidez, Callum Smith,
Caleb Plant and Billy Joe Saunders.

[MulaKO]

Undisputed without doubt
Most likely to be undisputed , a fighter will have to beat fighters he doesn’t wanna fight
Especially in today’s fughin boxing
Very few boxers have a run which fans would consider better than clearing out their division
Sorry but I can’t give Canelo credit for beating Kovalev , same thing with RJJ beating Ruiz etc etc