boxing question

[KotysDad]

This may be a rhetorical question, but I am going to ask it anyway. Someone tell me exactly what it means when someone calls a boxer "pound for pound" the best fighter in the world.

If I tell you that the ant is "pound for pound" the strongest creature to inhabit this earth, then I could back it up with a few facts to support my claim...for instance the ant can carry "x" times its weight, etc.... maybe its not the ant, but you get my point. lol

But what the heck does it mean for a fighter? I have heard this label given to Sugar Ray Robinson before. Does this mean that if you could take Mike Tyson, for example, and scrunch him down into the body of a middleweight, that he couldnt beat Robinson (or whatever his weight class was)....or if you took a lightweight and could expand him into the body of a middleweight, etc..

I just want to know what facts are behind claims like this. I can maybe understand comparing the Celtics of the 60s to the Lakers of the 80s....or comparing Ali to Tyson, but the pound for pound thing, I just dont get. I guess what I am asking in short is this: What makes Robinson pound for pound the greatest fighter of all time?? assuming you believe that he is.

I thought maybe someone might have some insight into this.

 

[badjab]

Pound for pound is simply a term used to label the "best" fighter in the world. Basically, you're right when you say "if you could take Mike Tyson, for example, and scrunch him down into the body of a middleweight, that he couldnt beat Robinson"
Essentially, it judges a fighter on ring skills -- the best combination of offensive and defensive ringwork, plus all intagibles (heart, ability to take a punch, knockout power, etc.). Of course, this tends to favor the lighter fighters because they have more speed and are more "flashy" than the heavyweights -- with the one exception being Muhammad Ali.
The reason Felix Trinidad kept getting tagged as the best "pound for pound" was that he kept his dominance through several weight classes (and seemed to be getting better). More often than not, a fighter will not be given consideration as "pound for pound" the best if he has weak competition. Roy Jones is undoubtedly one of the most (if not the most) skilled boxers out there but still has to "prove" himself against quality opponents.
Of course, it's impossible to compare fighters from different eras, much less different weight classes. It would be akin to trying to compare Michael Jordan to Wilt Chamberlin -- you could make a case for either one being the most dominant individual player.

 

[Junior44]

Unlike other sports (ahem: college football), in boxing it's impossible to decide who the best OVERALL fighter is in the ring due to the huge weight classification differences. Obviously, a Mike Tyson in his prime would crush a Pernell Whitaker. badjab basically summed it up, it's a mythical way for folks to judge who the best overall fighter is since it's not possible in the ring. It's based totally on perception and, of course, is a source for arguement.