What would you rather be?

Ok this was a disscusion I've been having with some friends and it was about 50/50. The question was if you were a Boxer and you had the choice of being able to dominate like a Pacquiao or De La Hoya or Mayweather, etc. and be remember as a fighter that went up and down in weight and won belts or would you rather be a fighter that dominates one division and when people talk about you they remember how you dominated that one division for 10, 15 years etc. like a Joe Calzaghe, Marvin Hagler, Bernard Hopkins, etc.

Personal preference would be for a Hagler,Monzon type deal.Legend at a single weight for a decade.

Too much room for argument for fighters that float between weights, it always comes down to you having moved for easier fights for an extra belt or to avoid an upcoming fighter, there is the odd one like Pac who looks capable of moving back down again.

defo owning a division

Owning a divison for a decade or so; like was mentioned too much room for questioning of legacy sometimes abot why a fighter kept moving. Of curse it would be crap to own a division for many years and be said to have had no competition; similar to what Pavlik may have to face in the years to come.:confused:

Can't lie I would definitely like to do a multiple division thing, I think that after time that gets remembered better. It's why your average joe is more likely to know about sugar ray leonard & roberto duran than marvin hagler even if that isn't fair or even reflective of the greatest fighter.

i'd say it depends on the division and the quality of opponents available at the time

but most likely dominate a division

I'd rather be a Joe Louis or Larry Holmes and rule a division for 7-11 years.
Niether ducked anyone (and if you say Holmes ducked Greg Page, well we saw what that Goodyear blimp accomplished, may he rest in peace).

I'd rather defeat every lineal champs in multiple divisions.

I would have to say moving up and down in weight though not so quickly as to wieght-drain like RJJ