By Adam Godfrey: In the entire lexicon of Boxing, there are few terms that generate as much controversy, debate or downright confusion as ‘pound for pound’. Every writer, analyst and fan has their own opinion, not just as to who is pound for pound best current or historical fighter, but what the correct definition even is.
According to Wikipedia, ‘Pound for pound is a term used in combat sports such as boxing or mixed martial arts to reflect an assessment as to who the better fighters are, regardless of size (i.e., regardless of weight class).
As these fighters do not compete directly, judging the best fighter pound for pound is subjective, and ratings vary’. Does this definition suffice to explain to the layman what pound for pound means? I would say it does not, for the reason that, while there is a subjective element to making a judgement call on who best fits the bill of pound for pound best, there are objective criteria that must, read must, also be taken into account, lest the debate collapses in on itself and becomes merely an argument as to who a given person’s favorite pugilist happens to be. It is these objective elements that I will try to analyze and pull together into a more complete, formal definition of what a pound for pound fighter should be.
The one aspect of the above quoted definition that is most pertinently correct is the assertion that weight class is irrelevant. The entire point of the pound for pound concept is to assume that everyone is equal in terms of weight. Anthony Joshua v Terence Crawford is not a fair fight in terms of weight. But if the weight of the fighters was comparable and relative skill remained, few would argue against Crawford beating the British heavyweight, all other things being equal.
A problem with this definition is that it is easy to disregard a fighter’s technical skill in light of their superior size. To make this point clear, I will refer to Tyson Fury. Unusually for a heavyweight, Fury does not rely on punching power to emerge, thus far exclusively, as victorious in his fights. He throws punches from unexpected angles, moves in and out of range and provides a difficult target to hit. He puts an emphasis on his defence that sets him apart from his heavyweight peers. This is what makes him a pound for pound fighter. If he was smaller his skill would remain pronounced and obvious, and he would likely continue to be, or would at least have a good chance of continuing to be, undefeated. This is of the reasons that judging a fighter’s p4p is status is so meddlesome. Fury would likely get more credit for his boxing ability if he was smaller, but there is a natural assumption that the bigger fighters are good at their weight because of their power, which is understandable, but clearly not the case when considering a fighter like Fury.
Another fighter who exemplifies the difficulty in judging a fighter’s p4p status is Gennady Golovkin, although his status as a p4p fighter is even more complicated. Golovkin is known for his phenomenal punching power, to the extent that he is rumored to regularly knock down Light-Heavyweights, and even Cruiser-Weights, in sparring. It is his punching power that, I believe, results in him appearing in many p4p lists. This is a fallacy. A boxer cannot be p4p if all they have is punching power, is straight up and down, with no variation or defensive skill, as they will routinely be beaten by savvier fighters with inferior power. The reality, in my opinion, is that Golovkin IS a p4p Boxer, but one who is unfairly judged to be merely a puncher, when the reality is that the Khazak is actually an extremely adept defensive fighter whose power is simply more obvious to the untrained eye and disguises his counter punching tendencies to the layman. In fact, he judges each opponents according to their merits and tailors his game plan accordingly. Some would argue that he lacks head movement and that this is a clear deficiency in his skill set. However, his perceived lack of head movement (not even true per se, in my opinion) is not actually to his detriment, as his iron chin nullifies what would, for other fighters with a softer chin, put them at a disadvantage. Against Brook he didn’t require head movement as he knew the Brit couldn’t hurt him. Against David Lemieux he didn’t require head movement as he was able to jab him into submission, a tactic that surprised some observers. A quick search of YouTube will reveal analysis that shows, when required, Golovkin will move his head, roll his shoulder and weave his head and body.
He is also said to be heavy footed, but this is not a weakness either, as his slightly plodding style only improves his main strength, which is his power. It helps him maintain superior and almost perfect balance which creates a solid foundation to throw his huge shots. A fleet of foot Golovkin would arguably punch less hard and this would reduce the potency of his main weapon. Something that you lack which doesn’t hinder your strengths and is not regularly exploited cannot be said to be a weakness. In an equal and opposite way, Floyd Mayweather’s perceived lack of power did not hinder his incredible defensive skill set which arguably won him a majority of his fights, especially late in his career. Floyd’s relative lack of power was hardly a weakness as he didn’t need power in the first place to defeat his foes, and he remains undefeated to the tune of 49 victories.
I believe that the objective criteria for judging whether a boxer is a p4p fighter are thus:
1. The weapons for which they are known do not hinder the other aspects of their game for which they are less well known.
2. They do not rely on being entertaining to win. They simply make sure they win the majority of the time.
3. They fulfill the old adage ‘every defense has built in offense; every offense has built in defense’.
I do not claim these points to be perfect, and one man whose purported p4p status seems to contradict my argument is one Manny Pacquiao, whose record is blighted by six defeats and two draws, a statistic which does not allow the Filipino to fulfill criteria 2. as outlined above. Yet few would feel comfortable leaving Pacquiao out of any p4p list over the last ten/fifteen years, and I wouldn’t either. This shows that, no matter how hard I or others try to make p4p a purely objective exercise, there exists an x-factor that some boxers possess which makes a comprehensive definition impossible.
I do not apologize for any contradictions or fallacies that my attempt to analyze the p4p issue has raised, such is the nature of the beast. I welcome any counter arguments; feel free to correct me where you think I am wrong,