Re: The Meaning of Pound for Pound
I don't think that is how you measure pound for pound at all.
The way you measure it is, which fighter is the most dominant in their weight class. Which fighter is the best fighter, considering both the current crop and the best of all time, in the weight that they are fighting. In this regard there are a few things to consider.
1) While a fighter may be the undisputed champ and clearly the best of his weightclass, the lack of great competition at the weight class will bring down his pound for pound ranking. Joe Calzaghe is a good example. If Calzaghe was fighting very quality fighters all the time, his pound for pound stature would improve.
2) The overall domination of the fighter against other's. Part of the reason that Floyd is the p4p #1, while there are fighters with better records on paper, is the fact that his fights are not even close. When we compared fighters from different weight classes, since it isn't feasible to have them fight each other, we much examine their history with a finer tooth comb than we would if they were in the same weight class. Floyd is #1 because most of his fights aren't even CLOSE. RJJ was p4p #1 because he rarely lost a single round.
3) There talents relative to THEIR FIGHTING WEIGHT. For instance, both Wladimir and Floyd have p4p speed. While Floyd's speed isn't necessarily MUCH MUCH better than other fighters at welter (as Klitschko's speed is much much better than other fighters at Heavyweight), we have to take into account the fact that, as stated earlier, you can only be so fast at the lower weights. For instance, Cotto's power in a pound for pound sense is more impressive than Sam Peter's, because Heavyweights are EXPECTED to KO their competition moreso than WWs are.
That was sort of just rambling, my main point is, if you think of it in terms of a super blown up Manny Pacqiuo or a tiny shrimp version of Wladimir Klitschko, you are misguided.