has a higher risk of losing

Sure, but I'm a fan, I want the best matchup possible so why would I be bothered about that.

Belts only mean as much as the person who carries them. And today we live in a world where a lot of the best fighters in the world don't care about belts. Not to mention, the blatant corruptions Hence, they've lost a significant portion of their value.

It sounds on cool on paper to say undisputed champion, but in reality beating Canelo decisively would be a lot more impressive than beating Saunders (hence why the odds would be way closer between the two and why Canelo would be a huge favorite over BJS). Joshua didn't improve his legacy at all for beating Martin and becoming champion. Idk I'm just not really bothered by paper achievements I guess. If Pacquiao for example never held a belt and beat the exact same opposition he did, would he physically be any worse of a fighter? Would Thurman unifying with Horn be more exciting than Thurman fighting with Crawford? Would it have been better if Joshua unified with Parker than if he beat Wlad? I don't think so personally.