BoxRec

I was trying to think of how to phrase this thread title because it's a mouthful, but I think you'll get the idea. I was having a discussion with a guy on The Twitter Machine about guys that are Multi Weight Titlists in this era, and how good they are historically, and how much more significant of an achievement it was when being a Champion was so rare. 8 weight classes, 1 Champion in each vs Today's era with 17 Weight classes, 4 Champions in each. Plus the "Regular", "Interim" and whatever the f*ck else belts going around that people for whatever reason give a sh*t about.

I was thinking there'd be guys easily who are multiple weight World Champions in the modern era, who i can't see being a Champion at all in the by gone era of just 1 Champion.

This guy's argument was that Boxing is tougher today because it's more international, and more countries are involved.

My argument was that, while I'd grant him that Boxing has become more international there were probably at least twice as many active fighters per weight class in many of these eras. If not more.

You have guys like say an Adrien Broner, who won titles at 130, 135, 140, 147 right? Can you see him beating any Lightweight Champion of that era? Or even putting together a good enough streak to get a shot?

Discuss

This topic can go all sorts of ways, but it should be interesting I think.

All this belt stuff gets more and more worthless. You can even collect 3 belts in one division, but remain more of a contender. Joshua got almost all belts, but he has never been the man.

Champions and belts have become so hyper inflated they're practically worthless. There are certainly very good fighters today but you can't go by belts, they're like phony diplomas.

Pacquaio has won belts in something like 8 divisions. There were once only 8 divisions. Therein endeth the discussion

undisputed champ is much more impressive than multiweight champ

All depends on how it happens

If you start in the right division, beat the top dog, move up beat the top dog, move up beat the top dog.... Then it's incredible.

If you start a weight bully, beat a weak champ, move up beat a weak champ, move up beat a weak champ then it's eh...

Then there is growing through the weights, in which case it's really the same as being a long reigning world champ if you don't really gain size.

For me a guy like Loma moving past his ideal division is impressive, it's handicapping yourself. Where as Crawford has never had a size disadvantage in his career. I mean that's not all that defines those guys. Careers, that's just how I view there "multiweight champ" status.

There are too many divisions, and too many champions per division. Today a guy can win titles in multiple weight classes without ever being the best in any of them.

I see no value in a multi-weight champion nowadays. Armstrong's feat spans 105 of today's classes.

and you get plenty of dudes who move up and are still bigger than guys who've been fighting their whole careers at that weight. like mentioned, if a guy is genuinely giving away size, then it does add value to a win, but often times these multi weight title careers are often very manufactured and superficial

Adrien Broner puts this well into perspective.

But what champions do we have out there who never moved up a weightclass or won't do so in the future?

This also sort of puts the modern titlesoup into perspective.

Fighter A. Wins the world championship at weightclass X, defends the belt 20 times retires.

Fighter B. Wins 4 championship belts in 4 fights at weightclass X. Drops 3, wins them back in two fights. Goes into retirement for a year and drops the belts comes back and wins them again in 2 fights. A glorious 11 world titles won in 8 fights.

Hard to say that B somehow outperformed A.

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑23 Apr 2022, 21:06 undisputed champ is much more impressive than multiweight champ

"If it's undisputed, then what's all the fighting about?" George Carlin.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

H8Usernames wrote: ↑24 Apr 2022, 09:40 Adrien Broner puts this well into perspective.

But what champions do we have out there who never moved up a weightclass or won't do so in the future?

This also sort of puts the modern titlesoup into perspective.

Fighter A. Wins the world championship at weightclass X, defends the belt 20 times retires.

Fighter B. Wins 4 championship belts in 4 fights at weightclass X. Drops 3, wins them back in two fights. Goes into retirement for a year and drops the belts comes back and wins them again in 2 fights. A glorious 11 world titles won in 8 fights.

Hard to say that B somehow outperformed A.

Broner and Ricky Burns were the two that came to my mind first. Burns earned his first belt against a title holder, then won vacant belts in two weight classes, the last time against a 34-year-old Italian pastry chief.
With four ( or more) belts available there is always a title vacant somewhere and it’s not usual for promoters to bring in weak opposition for the A-side belt-shopper

Does Canelo's case show the negative part of this achievement? His LHW championship was worthless. He defeated the aged Kovalev and now lost to the true top fighter of the division Bivol.

DrDuke wrote: ↑08 May 2022, 12:33 Does Canelo's case show the negative part of this achievement? His LHW championship was worthless. He defeated the aged Kovalev and now lost to the true top fighter of the division Bivol.

Canelo losing to Bivol isn't really a negative is it? At least from my perspective, it doesn't really diminish any of Canelos achievements. Kovalev was still a solid scalp at the time Canelo beat him. Yes Kovalev was ripe for the taking, but he was still a formidable opponent, I don't think anyone claimed that Kovalev was in his prime and most all took it for what it was. Kovalev was a big name at the time.

NateJR wrote: ↑08 May 2022, 12:49

DrDuke wrote: ↑08 May 2022, 12:33 Does Canelo's case show the negative part of this achievement? His LHW championship was worthless. He defeated the aged Kovalev and now lost to the true top fighter of the division Bivol.

Canelo losing to Bivol isn't really a negative is it? At least from my perspective, it doesn't really diminish any of Canelos achievements. Kovalev was still a solid scalp at the time Canelo beat him. Yes Kovalev was ripe for the taking, but he was still a formidable opponent, I don't think anyone claimed that Kovalev was in his prime and most all took it for what it was. Kovalev was a big name at the time.

No, losing to Bivol isn't anything negative. Just the 4-division champion status of Canelo is somehow not that impressive as it sounds, since the LHW can't be considered as a conquered one.

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑23 Apr 2022, 21:06 undisputed champ is much more impressive than multiweight champ

Depends on the division. Crawford being undisputed by fighting Indongo and Postol is worse than Canelo moving up to fight an aged Kovalev.

Same if Stevenson cleans out 130. Everyone prefers that he doesn't even bother and move up to 135. Context matters a lot.

DrDuke wrote: ↑08 May 2022, 12:59

NateJR wrote: ↑08 May 2022, 12:49

DrDuke wrote: ↑08 May 2022, 12:33 Does Canelo's case show the negative part of this achievement? His LHW championship was worthless. He defeated the aged Kovalev and now lost to the true top fighter of the division Bivol.

Canelo losing to Bivol isn't really a negative is it? At least from my perspective, it doesn't really diminish any of Canelos achievements. Kovalev was still a solid scalp at the time Canelo beat him. Yes Kovalev was ripe for the taking, but he was still a formidable opponent, I don't think anyone claimed that Kovalev was in his prime and most all took it for what it was. Kovalev was a big name at the time.

No, losing to Bivol isn't anything negative. Just the 4-division champion status of Canelo is somehow not that impressive as it sounds, since the LHW can't be considered as a conquered one.

Say whatever, but Kovalev was a top 3 fighter at the time, probably even rated #1, IIRC. He was ripe for the picking, but it's still a huge win. The names on Canelo's resume from 154 to 175 is insane. Pretty much the who's who's of each division.

punchoutsb wrote: ↑23 Apr 2022, 23:04 There are too many divisions, and too many champions per division. Today a guy can win titles in multiple weight classes without ever being the best in any of them.

Broner for instance

oogiebe wrote: ↑23 Apr 2022, 23:19 I see no value in a multi-weight champion nowadays. Armstrong's feat spans 105 of today's classes.

Can you clarify what you meant by that last sentence?

gilgamesh wrote: ↑08 May 2022, 14:51

punchoutsb wrote: ↑23 Apr 2022, 23:04 There are too many divisions, and too many champions per division. Today a guy can win titles in multiple weight classes without ever being the best in any of them.

Broner for instance

Davis even. Heck, most of this are ‘regular/interim’ belts

gilgamesh wrote: ↑08 May 2022, 14:53

oogiebe wrote: ↑23 Apr 2022, 23:19 I see no value in a multi-weight champion nowadays. Armstrong's feat spans 105 of today's classes.

Can you clarify what you meant by that last sentence?

An exaggerated statement mean to:
1 - Identify the span of weight that Armstrong had to fight at.
2 - The ridiculous amount of weight classes there exist today.

Mexi-Box wrote: ↑08 May 2022, 13:21

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑23 Apr 2022, 21:06 undisputed champ is much more impressive than multiweight champ

Depends on the division. Crawford being undisputed by fighting Indongo and Postol is worse than Canelo moving up to fight an aged Kovalev.

Same if Stevenson cleans out 130. Everyone prefers that he doesn't even bother and move up to 135. Context matters a lot.

Classic example of "The Champion makes the title, The title doesn't make the Champion"

Being undisputed is all well and good, but as Crawford showed at 140 if you clean out a weak division, it's not exactly the achievement of the century.

oogiebe wrote: ↑08 May 2022, 14:55

gilgamesh wrote: ↑08 May 2022, 14:53

oogiebe wrote: ↑23 Apr 2022, 23:19 I see no value in a multi-weight champion nowadays. Armstrong's feat spans 105 of today's classes.

Can you clarify what you meant by that last sentence?

An exaggerated statement mean to:
1 - Identify the span of weight that Armstrong had to fight at.
2 - The ridiculous amount of weight classes there exist today.

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑08 May 2022, 14:54

gilgamesh wrote: ↑08 May 2022, 14:51

punchoutsb wrote: ↑23 Apr 2022, 23:04 There are too many divisions, and too many champions per division. Today a guy can win titles in multiple weight classes without ever being the best in any of them.

Broner for instance

Davis even. Heck, most of this are ‘regular/interim’ belts

Yep Davis is Broner all over again, and will ultimately have about the same career I suspect.