Boxing

How Do You Define “Pound-For-Pound” in Boxing?

In boxing, there is no more prestigious title than “pound-for-pound” best in the world. This means, in essence, you are the best fighter in the world under any conditions. Sugar Ray Robinson, Sugar Ray Leonard, Roy Jones Jr., and now Floyd Mayweather, Jr. have all been at one point considered the pound-for-pound best fighter in the world. Now, it’s become common for pound-for-pound rankings to be listed among divisional rankings. Starting next month, lukekohler.com will be publishing boxing ranking for each division along with a pound-for-pound list. Compiling the first list, I began to wonder- how do you defing “pound-for-pound”.

There are two schools of thought, as far as I can figure. There is the theoretical school, which means simply “who is better”, not necessarily factoring in head-to-head matchups or recent performances. This is the type of list that could have three fighters in the top ten who lost their most recent fight. The theory is that losing to other top fighters doesn’t hurt your ranking, as long as you performed well.

The other school is the practical school, which is more like NCAA football or basketball rankings. It has a foundation in theory, but also factors in head-to-head matchups and penalizes heavier for recent losses. This is a ranking that favors win-loss record and head-to-head matchups over hypothetical matchmaking.

To provide an example of the two trains of thought, take the situation involving Jermain Taylor and Bernard Hopkins. Hopkins has won two straight fights at light-heavyweight over quality competition. Taylor is 2-0-1 in his last three fights at middleweight, but has been criticized for his performances against Cory Spinks and Kassim Ouma, and some thought he lost his draw with Winky Wright. However, prior to those five fights, Taylor beat Hopkins twice in a row. They were undoubtedly close fights, but Taylor got the nod in both matches. That begs the question, where do you rank Taylor and Hopkins in relation to each other.

In the theoretical school, Hopkins seems to get the nod because his most recent victories were considered to be better wins by some. In the practical school, Taylor is still undefeated and has two wins over Hopkins. How can you justify saying that Hopkins is better than Taylor when he is 0-2 against him as recently as in the last two years?

I think there has to be a combination of the two theories of pound-for-pound rankings. I lean towards the practical school, with a common sense amount of theoretical thrown in. This means that right now, I’d still put Jermain Taylor ahead of Bernard Hopkins, but could see Wright being ranked ahead of both with another quality win in his proper weight class. As long as Taylor is still undefeated and fighting quality opposition, I can’t justify putting someone he’s beaten twice ahead of him. Although Wright drew with Taylor and lost to Hopkins, he lost to Bernard two to three weight classes above where he normally fights, so I would de-value the head-to-head a little. But for this to happen, Wright would need at least one, probably two good wins to move ahead of either on my rankings.

To me, pound-for-pound would be defined as follows:

The measurement of fighters against each other with no regards to actual size. To measure fighters in a pound-for-pound situation would be to compare fighters as if they were all the exact same weight. All advantages that they have in their current weight class would remain (i.e. Paul Williams is taller than most welterweights, therefore he’d have a height advantage in a PFP world). The pound-for-pound rankings indicate how fighters would fare against each other if they were all the same size.

It is for the last reason that I couldn’t put Hopkins ahead of Taylor. Since I see pound-for-pound as a way to compare fighters of different weights, fighters of the same weight who’ve fought, should be judged first and foremost on their head-to-head.

I rank fighters on a pound-for-pound scale that weighs heavily towards recent win-loss record, quality of opposition, and overall performance. No matter who they’ve fought, I have a hard time keeping anyone who just lost near the top of the list. I believe if you’ve been beaten by someone who is not already at the top of the list, you lose your case (temporarily) to be among the top ten pound-for-pound in the world.

The beauty of the pound-for-pound list is that the entire thing is fantasy. Everyone can have their own interpretation of what it means. No one is right, no one is wrong. While divisional rankings play themselves out in the ring over and over again, most fighters on the pound-for-pound list will never get in the ring together at their optimal weight class. Debating a pound-for-pound list is like debating fighters from different eras. Everyone is going to have an opinion, and everyone will have their reasons. But more often than not, we’ll never definitively know who is right and who is wrong.

lukekohler.com pound-for-pound and division rankings will be appearing monthly, starting in September 2007.

If you know what these buttons do, feel free to click on one.