Multi Weight champions

On the flip side of an article I wrote last week about single weight champions, I would like to hear some opinions on boxers who could have achieved more if the situation was different. Not necessarily based on the respective talent around at their time but on the lack of belts and divisions leaving them unable to capture as many titles as their modern day counterparts.

For this i'll use the example of the epitomy of a pound for pound fighter in Bob Fitzsimmons

Fitzsimmons was a big hitting middleweight who captured titles at Middleweight, Heavyweight, and lastly Light Heavyweight. The whole time he never weighed much more than 160lbs and when he won his tilt at the biggest prize in sport he weighed merely 157lbs, now consider a few things:

1. Weigh ins on the morning of the fights, meaning a middleweight was really a middleweight and not a boiled down light heavyweight like Kelly Pavlik
2. Paul Williams in his first fight against Quintana reportedly weighed over the 168lb at the time of the fight
3. Lack of divisions and belts
4. The fact that he carried enough power to knock out genuine heavyweight contenders

So is it not feasible to imagine that were he around in a time of so many divisions, belts and weigh ins the day before the fight and you have a guy capable of winning titles from Welterweight all the way up to Heavyweight, spanning an incredible 7 divisions.

What other examples are there of boxers who could have won titles at more weights than they actually did

A few examples of my own

Bob Fitzsimmons
Sugar Ray Robinson
Georges Carpentier

This isn't to say that Fitzsimmons would win titles in all those division today rather the situation was different during his era, so he is effectively fighting the same people as he did back then.

Also who would have won less titles with only 8 divisions and 1 recognized belt

Duke Mckenzie
Roy Jones Jr
Roberto Duran
Sugar Ray Leonard

I wouldn't call Duke a multi weight world champ imo. He held belts in 3 weights. DOubtful he was ever the best in each of the weights he won.

I'd say RJJ was a 3 weight world champ fiven that he was the best middle, super middle and light heavy when he held those straps. No way was he the best heavyweight.
Duran was the best LW and by beating SRL he became the WW champ.

SRL was a two division champ also. Beatng Hagler (very disputed) made him the legit MW champ.

Would say that during Jones reign at 175lbs, Michalewski would have been the champion had been one belt having beaten Hill.

I suspect you're gonna regret starting this thread. Soon as...you know...is mentioned.

Believe it or not you know who benefits out of this more than other boxer of the 4 belt era

Exactly. Some people become...fantastically over-zealous when he's mentioned though...

Don't worry mate, I wont let any nonsense happen on one of my threads

Good luck..!! I posted a thread a few weeks back about the proliferation of belts, and I was amazed at just how many there are. Puts me off boxing a little bit. Sorta devalues the sport.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Would say that during Jones reign at 175lbs, Michalewski would have been the champion had been one belt having beaten Hill.

True. But at that time RJJ was recognised by most as the best LHW. He wouldn't go to Germany and DM wouldn't leave Germany.

That's the point though Az-being recognized as the best wouldn't mean much if he'd not held the only belt.

Holding the only belt wouldn't mean much if the #1 pound for pound was in your division and you didn't fight him. Especially if a mandatory got ordered.

Scottrf wrote:Holding the only belt wouldn't mean much if the #1 pound for pound was in your division and you didn't fight him. Especially if a mandatory got ordered.

But then you wouldn't hold the belt...

In a single belt time, being the number P4P doesn't give you special privileges, he would still have had to beat DM to be the belt holder. Anyway to stop us getting hung up on one example, any other people who be better off or worse off?

Surely the majority of today's titlists would be worse off?

60/68 titlists at any time would be worse off, not including interim, silver, emeritus etc or vacant belts.

BALTIMORA wrote:That's the point though Az-being recognized as the best wouldn't mean much if he'd not held the only belt.

Actually I'd rather he relinquish the belts in order to devalue them even more. Did MAB do that?

Sounds familiar.

Because of the multitude of belts and often 5 champs per divisions and god knows how many divisions, its easier than ever to be classified as a world champ. So it begs the question, do the belts make the fighter or the fighter make the belts.

Would Donnaire not be The World CHamp if he gave up all the belts?

On a technicality, no. See, if all belt holders, and especially the guys the hardcore fans recognise as 'legit' champions, ALL surrendered their belts, then we'd have a situation that'd be interesting.

BALTIMORA wrote:On a technicality, no. See, if all belt holders, and especially the guys the hardcore fans recognise as 'legit' champions, ALL surrendered their belts, then we'd have a situation that'd be interesting.

It was MAB. I believe he held the more than obscure IBO belt when Pac beat him (uh oh). I could be wrong though.

Barrera was the lineal champion at Featherweight when Pacquiao beat him, so was beyond much doubt the best in the division.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Barrera was the lineal champion at Featherweight when Pacquiao beat him, so was beyond much doubt the best in the division.

Good point. So him not holding a belt meant little.

God damn it!!! Look what you've done now..! Oh dear...what bout JMM? Cleared up at LW, how was he held below there?

But... Spinks was the lineal champ when Tyson was terrorising the heavies. No-one considered Spinks as the world champ.

He held the ring magazine belt which is the belt that THE world champion had always fought for since around the 1920's. Which is my exact point if that was THE belt how would it change things.

Spinks had beaten Holmes for the lineal title so until Tyson beat him which he did, Spinks was in my opinion still THE world champion

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Barrera was the lineal champion at Featherweight when Pacquiao beat him, so was beyond much doubt the best in the division.

Good point. So him not holding a belt meant little.

True, it meant little unless we're talking solely about the numbers of it all. Which, at the end of the day is sadly all the multi weight fad has become. Doesn't matter who is beaten, or under what circumstances, as long as a belt has been put on the line. Alvarez-Hatton being a case in point.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Spinks had beaten Holmes for the lineal title so until Tyson beat him which he did, Spinks was in my opinion still THE world champion

I agree. But hardly anyone recognised him as the best and most when asked would say that Tyson was the champ. The multitude of belts has damaged boxing. Its made boxers richer though.

Excllent point Balti.

You have to consider why Tyson was considered the best because he held all the belts, were he beating the same people but for no 'world title' then the significance of it drops.

Basically, until the four main bodies work together instead of against one another, the situation will show no improvement. No-one should be the real champ until he's cleared out the weight. Belt holders should be one-another's mandatories. But then, that'd lead directly to belts being transferred en masse.

Fitzsimmons was a big hitting middleweight who captured titles at Middleweight, Heavyweight, and lastly Light Heavyweight. The whole time he never weighed much more than 160lbs and when he won his tilt at the biggest prize in sport he weighed merely 157lbs, now consider a few things:
........................................................................................................................

would be intresting to see if someone like fitzsimmons would have gone all the way up to heavy in todays era (not getting into todays bigger heavies arguement). with the extra weights like super mid and crusier he may well have settled lower having already won enough belts at enough weights. back when he fought he had little option of where to go if he wanted to step up.

I think Henry Armstrong could win belts from Featherweight to Light Middle making him a 6 weight world champion and as long as he avoided Barrera/Morales he could've got a Super Bantamweight strap making him a 7 weight world champ

The Mighty Atom wrote:You have to consider why Tyson was considered the best because he held all the belts, were he beating the same people but for no 'world title' then the significance of it drops.

True. But Spinks was the true champ at the time. Ah well, its never as easy as I first thought.

Compelling would be inrteresting to see if Fitz could pull the trick in an era of massive heavies. He always maintained he was a middleweight by nature, but he always had the equaliser in his locker, read a quote recently from Jeffries saying Fitz was the hardest puncher he faced, and he shared the ring with plenty of decent heavyweights so it is not beyond the realms of possibility

I believe that Sam Langford would be a revelation today.

Sam started out at lightweight, and never weighed much above lightheavy during his entire career, yet he knocked out more decent heavies than most fighters face in their careers.

Stan Ketchel would be another. Ketchel's timeless, whirlwind style and his phenomenal punching statistics were topped off by genuine heavyweight punching power. Imagine, if you will, a bigger Henry Armstrong with the wallop of Julian Jackson - in BOTH hands. Ketchel started out at welter, became one of the greatest middles of all time, and beat lightheavies and heavies along the way. All before being shot dead at twenty four years old.

Harry Greb would also be in the mix. No need to outline his phenomenal credentials here, since everybody is aware of his record.

On a level playing field, these guys would re write history if they were operating today, in my opinion.

Great article, Ghosty.

Fitz weighed in at 151 when winning the title from Dempsey at middle and that was weighing in five minutes before the fight, with day before weigh ins have to think he does welter fairly comfortably. Even if we think heavy would be a bridge too far have to think he can compete and win at cruiser given his genuine havyweight power.

Not sure how many divisions sit in between but being able to win titles everywhere between welter and cruiser is decent going, particularly in all those divisions I would back Fitz not just to pick up belts but have a real crack at beating the man or dominating the division

rowley wrote:Fitz weighed in at 151 when winning the title from Dempsey at middle and that was weighing in five minutes before the fight, with day before weigh ins have to think he does welter fairly comfortably. Even if we think heavy would be a bridge too far have to think he can compete and win at cruiser given his genuine havyweight power.

Not sure how many divisions sit in between but being able to win titles everywhere between welter and cruiser is decent going, particularly in all those divisions I would back Fitz not just to pick up belts but have a real crack at beating the man or dominating the division

Totally agree, jeff.

Corbett was effectively a cruiser, and if even half of what we read about him is true he was a damned good one. Fleischer had him one notch above Louis at heavy, and while that seems ridiculous now, it does yet serve as an indication of Gentleman Jim's quality.

Fitz would acquit himself just fine at cruiser, in my opinion.

Read a Tunney biography Windy and he sparred with an ageing Corbett, given Jim's advancing years it was only a fairly palyful spar but even at that age and given the Tunney was not short of ability himself he was still blown away by how good Corbett was, said his ability to draw leads, feint and some of his defensive skills were absolutely sublime.

If he can awe a guy like Tunney in middle age one can only think how good he would be in his pomp

rowley wrote:Read a Tunney biography Windy and he sparred with an ageing Corbett, given Jim's advancing years it was only a fairly palyful spar but even at that age and given the Tunney was not short of ability himself he was still blown away by how good Corbett was, said his ability to draw leads, feint and some of his defensive skills were absolutely sublime.

If he can awe a guy like Tunney in middle age one can only think how good he would be in his pomp

I read about that, too, jeff.

Astounding, isn't it ? And especially so, since Tunney was very self assured and pretty arrogant in his dismissal of his predecessors. A compliment from Tunney was worth its weight in championship belts.

Great article IG.

You have to consider though, if this era was 1 champ per division, would the likes of Fitz, Langford be able to beat the best that this era had to offer? For example, in 2002 would they be able to walk through Hopkins, Calzaghe & Jones Jr at 160, 168 and 175 respectively?

Looking at multiweight champs who beat "the man" at each weight for this era, it does filter out a lot of the dross. The best will still shine through though, for example Floyd beat the best at 130lb, 135lb, 147lb & 154lb which would still make him a 4 weight champ

wow_junky wrote:Great article IG.

You have to consider though, if this era was 1 champ per division, would the likes of Fitz, Langford be able to beat the best that this era had to offer? For example, in 2002 would they be able to walk through Hopkins, Calzaghe & Jones Jr at 160, 168 and 175 respectively?

Looking at multiweight champs who beat "the man" at each weight for this era, it does filter out a lot of the dross. The best will still shine through though, for example Floyd beat the best at 130lb, 135lb, 147lb & 154lb which would still make him a 4 weight champ

I believe that Langford, Ketchel and Greb would hold their own against those whom you mention, wow_junky.

The key, for me, would be their workrate. All three would be throwing leather pretty much non - stop, ( and in the cases of Ketchel and Langford, very heavy leather, ) and each had an iron jaw.

Fitz was a cunning and crafty boxer with a tremendous wallop, but I do wonder if the quicker fighters like Jones and Calzaghe might just outscore him over the stretch. Not easy to say, since I'm basing this on about three or four Fitz fights which I have, but my gut feeling is that Jones and Calzaghe might ' do a Corbett ' on him while keeping their chins tucked away.

This is where i've tried to ignore the new vs old, Fitzsimmons is fighting in the 1890's against the likes of Corbett, Jeffries, Choynski etc. but with 17 divisions and 5 recognised titles, in those conditions how does he do?

Windy for me Jones has a better chance of getting the win over Fitz than Calazghe, whilst I think Calzaghe has the better whiskers he took a lot more than Jones in his prime and for me not taking too much against Fitz is the key to victory, because he carried genuine heavyweight power and a 168 fighter simply cannot afford to take too many and IMO Joe ships a few too many to avoid getting knocked onto dream street over the course of 12 rounds.

Whilst I think if he lands Jones is in a world of trouble, landing on Jones at his best was no easy feat. Funnily enough am reading In the Ring with Marvin hart at the minute and have just read the round by round for Fitz against Gardiner, remarkable he could od 20 rounds against a top drawer light heavy at 40 year old, weighed in at super middle for that one as well, if he could do that at 40 have to think a bit younger he gives any supermiddle ever absolute fits.

Just realized that my comments about Fitz and Calzaghe / Jones appear contradictory in comparison to my earlier post.

To clarify, I'd still lean toward Fitz, but I believe he'd have more difficulty with them than would Langford, Ketchel and Greb, owing to styles.

rowley wrote:Windy for me Jones has a better chance of getting the win over Fitz than Calazghe, whilst I think Calzaghe has the better whiskers he took a lot more than Jones in his prime and for me not taking too much against Fitz is the key to victory, because he carried genuine heavyweight power and a 168 fighter simply cannot afford to take too many and IMO Joe ships a few too many to avoid getting knocked onto dream street over the course of 12 rounds.

Whilst I think if he lands Jones is in a world of trouble, landing on Jones at his best was no easy feat. Funnily enough am reading In the Ring with Marvin hart at the minute and have just read the round by round for Fitz against Gardiner, remarkable he could od 20 rounds against a top drawer light heavy at 40 year old, weighed in at super middle for that one as well, if he could do that at 40 have to think a bit younger he gives any supermiddle ever absolute fits.

Not for the first time, jeff, you've summed it up better than I did.

Agree with every word.

Ah I see what you mean IG

Well with Fitz being the best heavy on the planet at one point, and being able to potentially get down to welter with day before weigh-ins, he could have won titles at 147, 154, 160, 168, 175, 200 and 200+, so a 7 weight champ at the top end of the scale, which is pretty incredible before you even consider that he would likely be "the man" at each weight as well

Don't want to upset anyone; but Ketchel was phenomenally crude. He would have had fits against many a top counter puncher of later years.

samevans1 wrote:Don't want to upset anyone; but Ketchel was phenomenally crude. He would have had fits against many a top counter puncher of later years.

With his strength and durability he could afford to be, sam, and with his incredible workrate he would have caused many a problem for even the most accomplished counter puncher, in my opinion. I'm reminded of Tunney's comments, recalling his loss to Greb. Tunney was a very fine boxer and counter puncher but he likened fighting Greb to fighting an octopus. Ketchel would have presented similar problems with the added benefit of crushing power in either hand.

Ketchel wasn't the last of the great fighters who relied on conditioning, strength, power and aggression, and Rocky Marciano's championship reign is living proof that even the finest counterpunchers could be tagged and overwhelmed by a force of nature.

True, Windy. But I think he was very easy to hit and he didn't have particularly good technique. A good boxer could avoid his wide shots and hit him with hard, straight punches. He was as tough as old boots, but so were most old school fighters. I do believe however, that they are often overrated at the expense of modern fighters. Don't want to go too far down that road though...