Pound for Pound Listings

There has been recent discussion about the proper #3 man on the pound for pound list.

Since it's so hard anyway and since there's a lot of subjectivity in
any pick, I'm going to start by saying it's not Juan Manuel Marquez. I
think his rematch with Juan Diaz is potentially a lot harder than a lot
of people think. I do think Diaz may be on his way down with the losses
to Campbell and Marquez and the tough time with Michael Katsidis between
the two losses. I just JMM is older, smaller, and even more shopworn. I
don't think going up in weight to fight Floyd served him well and I
don't think he's going to be a top tier guy for more than a few more fights.

Take JMM off the list and you've really got a lot of parity. Either
Chad Dawson or Paul Williams (or both of them) may be the future of the
sport but Dawson has never impressed me as much as he impresses everyone
else and Williams came very close to losing his two biggest wins. His
'win' against Cintron wasn't the kind of fight to sway votes his way.

So one could argue that Shane Mosley is still #3 on the list and
demoting him was a mistake...

...but I won't and I don't think that argument is valid. I think
Mosley got old all at once in round 3 against Mayweather and that he's
got more losses in front of him if he keeps fighting.

I think Pongsaklek has the best claim to the #3 spot. He won a big
fight that pretty much punches his HoF ticket, against a younger man who
was seen as a star on the way up coming into the fight. Koki Kameda was
coming off his biggest win and I think that has to be taken into
account. Pongsaklek has had longevity that, for the lower weight
classes, is almost Hopkins-esque. I'd argue he's underranked and has a
good case for #3.

At least as good as anyone else on the list.

'What Boxing Needs'

How many times have we, as fans, been promised 'the fight to save boxing?' How many times have self-appointed regulators whose real business is collecting protection money tinkered with new ideas that have only served to further marginalize the sport?

Dan Wetzel, of Yahoo! Sports, writes that Mayweather-Pacquiao as 'the blockbuster fight (or fights) boxing needs.'

Kevin Iole, also of Yahoo! Sports, is equally sure of that same fact.

Boxing doesn't 'need' Mayweather-Pacquiao anymore than it 'needs' a super-heavyweight division or 'needs' the Klitschko brothers to retire.*

What boxing needs is presence in the mainstream American sports media, including the sports pages and the evening news. This includes more and better fights on ESPN and Fox Sports. It includes a serious return to network television. It means that some of these guys headlining PPV cards no one is buying might be better served by exposure through the media I just mentioned. It needs fighters to be promoted in their hometowns to gather the kind of solid fanbase sought in other sports. It needs the strong presence of an organization of boxers with a strong say in (or outright control of) the future of their sport on the model of the AVP, ATP, or PGA. It needs a regulatory stucture and organizing body capable of serious professional standards and sanctions that cross international boundaries and making matches based on serious rankings rather than not-so-funny listings of bad jokes.

Boxing needs a licensing system for promoters and for real penalties to be handed down to the Don Kings of the business. Ideally, promoters and managers should have no part of the matchmaking process. That should be determined by as objective a ranking system as possible. Licensed promoters should bid to sell the fights made according to the rankings. Promoters should never be allowed to sign exclusive contracts with fighters or managers.

I can go on a lot longer and throw a bunch of other things boxing needs into the pot. If boxing could meet the proper combination of enough of these needs, then a fight like Mayweather-Pacquiao would be very nearly guaranteed of happening.

Without any of these needs being met there is no single fight or gimmick that will 'save boxing.' It will be a choice between a profitable-but-precarious existence as a niche sport and further marginalization.

There is no fight that boxing needs, except perhaps the fight to meet its needs.

'The Edge'

I've been intending for some time to write about the inherent problems with pound-for-pound comparisons among fighters. This was the topic I had planned after the resolution of Mayweather-Mosley. I'm going to be writing about pound-for-pound rankings after a fashion, but not about the system itself.

Instead I'm going to write about something everyone is writing about because the wall of noise on the subject makes it impossible for me to keep my own opinions to myself.

For the third outing in a row I'm going to be writing about Floyd Mayweather Jr. Specifically, I am suggesting a new nickname. 'Money' is really too silly and 'Pretty Boy' is just too derivative. A fighter's nickname should be descriptive of that fighter and speak viscerally to those who hear it.

Floyd Mayweather Jr's opponents have been older, smaller, a blatant cut below the cream of their divisions, or just plain ordinary for a long time now. Despite his popularity and accomplishments, Shane Mosley fits this pattern far better than we would all like to admit.

Mayweather doesn't fight without an edge. Even the match-up that no one could criticize, Mayweather's rout of Diego Corrales, was surrounded by maneuvering and harassment designed to give Mayweather that edge. The maneuvering around the Pacuqiao fight was designed to gain Floyd that same edge, not only against Pacquiao but against any future or substitute opponents and it's hard to say that it failed. I can't entirely join the chorus of praise for Mayweather's performance (it was brilliant, let's not deny that) because I don't see the differences between his comeback and his previous 'disappointing' fights that others do.

Kevin Iole (of Yahoo! sports) is, as usual, the biggest voice the Mayweather chorus:

I have great respect for what Pacquiao has accomplished in the last three years and there is a very legitimate argument that he has accomplished more in the ring than Mayweather,” Iole said. “That said, the fight with Mosley proved conclusively to me why Mayweather is the best. He fought offensively and stalked a man many thought he would run from. Yet, even though Floyd fought offensively, Mosley could still barely touch him. Mosley only landed 42 power shots in the entire fight, but what is incredible to me is that 13 of those were in the second round. Other than the second, Mosley landed fewer than three power shots a round. That's a testament to Floyd's skill as a fighter.

I don't disagree substantively with Iole's description of the fight itself at all. I do disagree with the idea that victory in a fight everyone (with the exception of RingTV's Doug Fischer) called for Floyd somehow changes how Floyd stacks up in terms of either his legacy or his position vis a vis other fighters. It is worth noting that Floyd has still not fought a single truly world-class welterweight in their prime. Ever. He avoided the very best fighters at 140 lbs as well, failed to defend his lightweight title against a single genuine top contender, and skipped to lightweight without fighting the best fighters at 130.

The fact that Floyd fought Mosley is impressive in much the same way as his fight with Oscar De La Hoya:

We should all be very impressed by the fact that Floyd fought a man well past his prime when much more serious fights were available. The fact that his fight with Shane Mosley was his most serious fight at welterweight only serves to underscore how disappointing his career since fighting Diego Corrales has been.

What does beating Mosley mean for Mayweather?

I think that the biggest thing we should all take away from Floyd Mayweather's win over Shane Mosley is this: Shane had a good game plan, early success with a big shot, and then rapidly got old over the course of the fight. I realize that Mayweather's fans are already singing his praises with more vehemence than ever. I realize that many writers who have been critical of Mayweather are giving him his props. I would certainly never argue that he did not deserve to win the huge decision he won.

I just think it's a mistake to see this as fundamentally different from Mayweather's previous fights. I don't believe that a 38 year old Mosley was necessarily enough more of a threat than a prime Corrales or a prime Jose Luis Castillo to really make us all change our minds about Floyd. I said some of this before the fight, and The Ring's Jim Bagge dedicated a whole column to Floyd's matchmaking skills.

Ultimately, Mosley failed to pull the trigger over the course of the fight. He threw fewer punches than Mayweather, something I'd have thought unthinkable before the fight: and I picked Mayweather to win. This is the statistic that means the most. Shane Mosley was not busy and active enough to make the fight close.

In my opinion, Floyd Mayweather is the same fighter he was before fighting Mosley and his decision to fight Mosley has to be seen in the same light as his decision to fight Juan Manuel Marquez.

Both men were substitutes for the big, meaningful fight with Manny Pacquiao. Both men appeared tremendous challenges on paper. Juan Manuel Marquez was the guy who arguably beat Pacquiao twice. Mosley was the first real welterweight Mayweather had taken on since Carlos Baldomir. Ultimately, these facts were distractions from the facts: Marquez was too small and slow and Mosley too far from his prime to pose serious danger to Floyd Mayweather Jr. The real analogy to Floyd's fights with both men might be Oscar De La Hoya's too fights with a slower, older, smaller Julio Cesar Chavez.

I do not believe that fact will be kept in the proper perspective. I think Floyd's critics will continue to backtrack, because of the boxing media's tremendous good feeling for Shane Mosley. No one could possibly have picked him as the easy opponent.

Unfortunately, side by side with Manny Pacquiao, that's precisely what he was.