Does Pacquiao or any Champ rate ATG status if they never held 2 belts at same time?

[SlimTrae]

The fiasco with Canelo and losing a belt does highlight the problem that appears deeper than ducking, rather promoters haggling.

However, there appears to be certain fighters that are able to secure belts beyond their own camp.

Let's say Usyk retired tomorrow. As hard as it is to get one belt, he snatched everyone up. 5 years, 16 fights 4 belts same time. Would we say he didn't fight long enough to earn a place at the HOF? When in his short tenure he has done something we claim is very difficult to do; get more than one belt.

For me the point isn't about equating multiple belts to ATG status, rather that old term: cleaning out the division equates ATG status!

@Fenster. The Lineal statement was just a part of what JMM did. I wanted to focus how that came about. IMO he was chasing for the rematch, but he didn't have any easy road to get that rematch & rubber. So he beat the best in the division compared to Pac's David Diaz.

Pac beating a lineal champ, alone isn't the same, rather with such a strong promoter, how did his illustrious career go on for 20 years without winning 2 belts, let alone 3 at the same time, when he in fact has had several fights which I put up to show. For whatever reasons he came up short.

Doesn't denigrate how he won his fights, just perculiar that a fighter with 20 years didn't carry but one belt at a time.

Hopkins, Golovkin, MW's who snatched a bunch & defended them. IMO that is the workings of ATG. Not just winning a title, but solidifying one's status in their respective division.

Roy Jones another one, WBF, IBO,IBF,WBA,WBC LHW ....how does a fighter who never gained more than one title compared to someone who captured 5?
Or flip the script: Is it a way to say ,how is it possible that someone who held a single title , is as great as someone like RJJ who took all the major, minor and needless belts like the IBA which RJJ had...I don't even know who they are!