There is always this contradiction about the pound-for-pound best boxers in the planet.  In some lists, the no. 1 p4p right now is Floyd Mayweather, Jr.  In other lists, it’s Manny Pacquiao.  There seems to be not much contestations in the rest of the top 10 in most lists.  But the question is: Why can’t everyone agree on the top 2 spots?

I don’t own any credibility in sport of boxing except that I can distinguish between a great fight and a dull fight.  I am no expert on boxing technicalities but I am no ignoramus about the sport.  I just want to share an idea to somehow put a sort of reconciling factor between the believers of the two mentioned fighters relative to their being the best pound-for-pound boxers.

My suggestion is this:  Why not classify the best of boxers in terms of more definitive variables such as the “most scientific”, the “speediest puncher”, the “hardest puncher”, the “best counter-puncher”, the “best slugger”, and so on.  I believe that with this groupings, there would be less debate as to who is the best.

Let me explain that there is a possibility that one particular boxer could be no. 1 in more than one category.  For instance, one boxer could be the most scientific and also the hardest puncher, although there can be no one who is both the best counter-puncher and best slugger at the same time because a slugger is normally not a counter-puncher.  There could be someone who is no. 1 in many of the categories but that would be very rare.

And what is interesting in this categorization is that when different boxers occupy the no.1 spot in the categories, we could safely say who is the better of two no. 1 fighters or who is the best among the best.  This is especially true when occupants of the no. 1 spots in the categories can meet in the same ring.  For example, if we say that Floyd Mayweather, Jr. is the best scientific boxer and he comes to meet the best slugger like Manny Pacquiao, we can have a clear case of technical boxing vs. fired up boxing.  Whoever the winner is, there is a clearcut distinction between two boxing styles.  Could we say that scientific boxing is superior to fired up boxing, or that a scientific boxer does not have enough to dethrone a slugger?  The answer is right where your eyes can clearly see.

Another level of interest in this categorization is when results would vary from boxer to boxer.  Take this example.  If at one point the speediest boxer wins against the best counter-puncher but loses against the best slugger, that will make the categorization even more interesting.  Also when results are different in rematches, then that’s another case to make categorization interesting.

With this categorization of the best boxers in the world, there can less debate as to who is the best fighter had they all been in the same weight class.  Discussions on who is the best would be more in the fine-tuned manner instead of the simple stats-based evaluation.

What can you say?