"My" Problem with P4P lists.

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=6487&more=1

My Trouble With The Pound-For-Pound Rankings

31.03.06 - By Justin Hackman: Pound-for-pound status is granted to a fighter when he has proven himself to be one of the best in the fight game. This label of being pound-for-pound worthy is generally decided upon by fight fans and analysts alike. Pound-for-pound fighters are arranged on a list with their rankings supported by that author, magazine, fan, etc. through a case made for each fighter and his position on the list. While these lists are fun to create, thought provoking, and make for good discussion, their legitimacy as a list from 1-10 or 1-20 etc. should not be taken seriously by avid boxing fans.

The idea of the pound-for-pound list is great in theory, as it recognizes a fighter as one of the best in the sport, and gives him his just due. But to try to tell boxing fans, “This is why Joe Calzaghe is #8 instead of #7 which is Ricky Hatton’s spot” is quite silly and truthfully a bit pretentious if the list maker actually believes his is “the truth.”

To illustrate my claim I would like to point to a couple of boxers whose weights and styles could not be more different. First, Manny Pacquiao: his overwhelming offensive whirlwind style frustrates his opponents to the point of submission.
Pacquiao’s chin is also a testament to his skill as he will gladly and continually take his opponent’s best shots, just to land some of his own. It would be safe to say these are the broad, general reasons why Pacquiao is considered a pound-for-pounder.

Secondly, Bernard Hopkins: if one is to attempt to gauge Hopkins’ skill level by the same criteria which has landed Pacquiao a “high ranking” then Hopkins would be the last fighter ever granted pound-for-pound status. Hopkins does not attack with an overwhelming whirlwind offense, and he is certainly not willing to take his opponent’s best shots in order to land a few of his own. Hopkins is obviously a fighter who stalks his prey. He is arguably still THE most difficult fighter in the sport to hit cleanly. And because of this skill, Hopkins is able to tire his opponents while unleashing his pin-point counter
punches. Hopkins was at one time considered the man atop the coveted list, therefore setting the standard for all fighters “below” him.

So again, by those criteria, Pacquiao would not find his way to that list. Hopkins’ and Pacquiao’s respective brilliances can simply not be compared. In this fashion, Antonio Tarver cannot be compared to Marco Antonio Barrera, nor can Ricky Hatton be compared to Jose Luis Castillo. For fighters to all share a list with rankings, there must be consistent criteria for all fighters to be judged. And because of the sport’s intangibles, that one set of criteria is just not possible. So without those criteria, why was Hopkins #1? Boxing analysts would say it was because of his longevity and simply because he knew how to win. Well I certainly agree, however, if that was the case, since Hopkins set the bar at #1, all fighters would then have to be ranked by their own longevity and career records which is of course ridiculous.

The top ten pound-for-pound list should not be taken seriously enough to honestly believe, for example that Hatton should be ranked fifth while Castillo should be ranked sixth, for my reasons given before. However, I do believe there should be fighters with pound-for-pound recognition, yet not as restricted as a 1-10 list.

It is simply universally understood (with always the typical nay-saying skeptics) that Floyd Mayweather Jr. is the best fighter in the sport. And it would be generally agreed upon that Winky Wright is more of a solid fighter than Antonio Tarver. This is why my pound-for-pound recognition would look something like this: [Mayweather] [Pacquiao Wright Castillo] [Calzaghe Barrera Hatton] [Tarver etc.]. Within each bracket, the fighters would be interchangeable. In this fashion, it would be more difficult to give, with any credibility, reasoning why Wright should be ahead of Pacquiao, or why Hatton
should be ahead of Barrera. Because the truth is, there could be completely convincing arguments made for either fighter to be ranked higher than the
other.

So when is pound-for-pound recognition a detriment to a fighter’s status? When his name has a #6 next to it, while the fighter “above” him at #5 could just as easily be at #6 himself. Pound-for-pound discussions are great for the sport, and a whole lot of fun, however, pound-for-pound status does not have substantial validity enough when it takes the form of a definitive 1-10 list.

:goodpost: