What is better multi weight or undisputed champ?

[Marchegiano]

Undisputed, it's more rare.

[tophat1]

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).

Yes good point, you have got to be the guy that unified the titles.

[Eff Pandas]

Undisputed sounds better but in reality it's multiple weight champs more often than not.

All the guys who got to undisputed have more bs mando fights than is their fair share so they tend to have weaker resumes to those who fought top guys in multiple divisions. And the reality is strength of schedule means the most towards anyone's legacy & is the biggest criticism against ones all time greatness.

That's not to say there aren't some bs artist multiple weight title holders cuz that's much easier to accomplish at multiple weights with 4 belts to choose from, but on the positive side the real killas among the multiple weight champs are usually the best of the best in recent eras.

[Eff Pandas]

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

Great point. Lots more 1 fight undisputed champs than guys who had to beat multiple guys to get to undisputed. And I think most fans would logically agree with the premise that it's always more impressive to be a fighter with multiple reigning champs beaten than just one which is far more often the case for multiple weight title holders.

[Ca$ual Fan]

Depends on circumstances. What matters more is who you beat.

On paper though, being undisputted champ sounds better than being champ at multiple weight classes but if the fighter has jumped thought 5 or more weight classes, it becomes a different story.

[GhostofDempsey]

It all depends on who you fight. Quality of opposition to get there. We have multi-weight champs who won their titles against opponents who most fans couldn't recall without Google. We also had undisputed champs in very weak divisions.

[Citizen Koba]

Depends on circumstances. What matters more is who you beat.

On paper though, being undisputted champ sounds better than being champ at multiple weight classes but if the fighter has jumped thought 5 or more weight classes, it becomes a different story.

Way I look at it I ain't gonna give a fighter special credit just for growing into their natural weight.. Naturally dudes are gonna grow maybe 2 classes in between the age of 18 and 30 or so.. or even more in the lower divisions where the gaps are smaller, but I will give a dude extra credit for fighting above his natural weight.

[Happy Lora]

I think what everyone's trying to say is this: It depends.

[Luilun]

Undisputed could be more difficult since there are 4 Champs in a division so boxers cherry-pick who’s the weakest Champ prime example Broner fighting Paulie for Welterweight crown which in my eyes shouldn’t count. Roy Jones fighting Ruiz and not Lennox Lewis . How in the hell can you call yourself Heavyweight Champ by avoiding Lewis

[champion4ever]

In my opinion, I would have to say that being a multi-divisional titleholder is better than being undisputed.