There is a train of thought in college football that in the 2011 season, there is Alabama and LSU and then everybody else. That these two storied SEC programs are head and shoulders better than anyone else out there (with apologies to the likes of Boise State, Oklahoma State and Stanford) and that they should actually play each other twice (first on November 5th and then a rematch for the BCS title game in January) to decide the national championship. I think the same thing exists in the sport of boxing. Folks, if you care about the mythical pound-for-pound ratings (or, as others have derisively labeled it, ?Fantasy Boxing?), then it’s clear as day. It?s Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather (in any order you prefer) and then everybody else- by a wide margin.
Now, just to be clear, I long ago disavowed the pound-for-pound ratings. Honestly, to me, stuff like this is really just mental masturbation and it fosters the belief that being undefeated in boxing is more important than actually being an attraction or someone that will take risks inside that ring and put on a good show. I think this stuff is quite harmful to boxing. Yeah, other sports have all kinds of lists (which I happen to enjoy, by the way) but in no other sport is the pound-for-pound debate taken so seriously, where it actually effects the decision making abilities of those in charge.
Too many times, those in charge cling to these rankings as a validation to showcase vapid match-ups on premium cable networks (this weekend being another example but more on that later). But it says here that in an era when our marquee boxers only perform twice a year, it’s impossible to gauge just how good anyone really is because under these circumstances, much of the accolades have to do with marketing and adroit matchmaking more than the consistent showcasing of ability over the course of time.
