Jacqui Snow's "K.O.'s"

Tuesday Report By "K.O." Jacqui Snow


To paraphrase 19th-century British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and pound-for-pound ratings. I should know: I write and maintain the last of these for this site.

People trust me because I know an awful lot about boxing, so my opinion counts. But that's all pound-for-pound ratings are—a matter of opinion—and since mine were published last month, I've received a lot of emails, the majority of which appear to have been written by knowledgeable boxing fans. Some of these writers feel that their favorite fighter should be ranked higher, others wonder why their man didn't make my list, others believe that some names on my list don't deserve to be there at all.

I've enjoyed reading these messages and for the most part, I've seen some point in them, even when they've conflicted with my own assessment. The fact that opinions can simultaneously contradict each other, while still remaining valid in themselves, is an indication of how gloriously complex the sport of boxing is. This complexity makes it no easy job to select the sport's ten best athletes (in order!), and it's a lot harder choosing 20, which is why most writers don't attempt it.

The fundamental problem with pound-for-pound ratings is that there's really only one reliable way to compare two boxers: Put them in the ring and let them fight it out. Whoever wins, well, he's the better boxer. And since it goes without saying that a guy who weighs 170 pounds would have no trouble beating up on a 130 pounder, it's simply inaccurate to say (like I do) that Manny Pacquiao is a better fighter than Joe Calzaghe.

And even when you've got two combatants close to, or exactly, the same size, there are so many variables that it's impossible to know for sure who'd win. The quickest way to lose face in boxing circles is to say, "A beat B and B beat C, so A would beat C" because you can't even make a reliable comparison between, say, two welterweights who've fought exactly the same fighters, if they've never fought each other. That's because styles make fights and one man's easy knockout is another's 12-round battle.

To further complicate the matter, think how often the wrong guy gets the loss. Referees make bad calls all the time: fights are waved off too early, knockdowns gets ruled as slips, accidental fouls are ruled intentional and many fighters get unjustly disqualified.  Then there's the issue of bad judging, which, deliberate or not, results in unearned wins on many a man's record.

But we boxing fans are a pompous, opinionated lot and nothing makes us happier than proving how much we know about the sweet science. This is especially true for that increasingly rare breed, the hardcore fan, and we'd all go quite crazy if we didn't have a way to prove--in theory at least--that our favorite fighter is better than the other guy's favorite fighter. We need some way to compare boxers who've never met in the ring; men in disparate weight classes, from different eras, from far-flung countries. So we rate them, pound for pound.

Incidentally, to all of you who've asked me about Miguel Cotto, I'm still hesitating. With due respect to the self-proclaimed Bible of Boxing, expected wins over a contender and a guy who can't bang don't prove to me that he's enough of a force at 140 to belong in my top ten, or even 20. Let's see how he does against Zab Judah, if that fight comes off.


http://www.myspace.com/jacquis