Pound-for-pound lists of the top boxers in the world are great, and everyone seems to do one. That's also the problem: pound-for-pound lists are literally everywhere.
At BoxingWatchers.com, the site I started with two of my brothers a little over two years ago, we wanted to do something different.
So we came up with our own power rankings, a pseudo-scientific way of determining which boxers have been turning in the most impressive performances.
While the exact formula is known only to a select few, the basics aren't too complicated.
A boxer earns points by taking and winning fights, with more decisive wins earning more points (a KO is worth more than a unanimous decision, which is worth more than a split decision).
Each win is modified by the recent winning percentage of the opponent, so fighters aren't rewarded for beating up on stiffs. A loss deducts points from a boxer's score in similar fashion.
The scores only consider the most recent three years of a boxer's career (on a rolling basis). Why three years? It just seemed right.
Altogether, the scores reward activity, fighting foes with good records and winning emphatically. And in my opinion, those are things most fans like to see from their favorite boxers.
Is it perfect? Of course not. The formula probably punishes inactivity a little too much, and as a result, some fantastic fighters (Floyd Mayweather and Bernard Hopkins, to name two) won't be found in the top 10.
Still, it's a fun and harmless way to look at some of the sport's best from a slightly different angle. If you think of it as a measure of who's "hottest" instead of who's "best," you're on the right track.
On with this month's rankings: