Multi-weightclass titles don't mean anything to me. For sure, in this era, if anyone unified all the belts in two or three divisions it would be an amazing achievement, one that would be true Mount Rushmore stuff, however, it's virtually impossible and will never be done. The most important factor on any record is simply who you beat/fought.

Armstrong weighed 134lb for the Welterweight/Lightweight defence. IF we had one champion today can you seriously envisage a lightweight beating a top welterweight? Look at the recent mismatch between Spence-Mikey? And it also puts into perspective the amount of weight given away on fight night these days.

Broner being a 4-time champion means what? Sounds impressive but he didn't beat a single fighter HOF-worthy or even considered standout for the weightclass. His best win is arguably Paulie (and even that was contentious). And i'm not picking on Broner, hardly any multi-weight champs have more than one or two actual HOF title wins.

Pacquiao's career is just as impressive as any old-timer (imo). He's had arguably three different HOF-worthy careers. From the "mexicutioner" era to the incredible 2008 welterweight run combined with his 20+ year "world" championship reign from flyweight to current status.