Ranking apples and oranges

I've gotta ask this. I love this site. I love the rankings. I sometimes agree, I sometimes disagree. What really baffles me though is the concept of "pound for pound.”

I don't doubt Fedor Emelianenko’s skill or Quinton "Rampage" Jackson’s. I think they're seeded correctly in their weight classes. What I don't understand is putting them in a pound for pound ranking.

Fedor is a heavyweight. A legendary heavyweight. But by fighting at heavyweight he should be twice the fighter that Urijah Faber is. To put it another way, Georges St. Pierre won a razor thin decision over B.J. Penn. But because GSP is a welterweight and Penn a lightweight, doesn't that mean POUND for POUND, B.J. is the better fighter? Penn, who took Lyoto Machida (a top light heavy contender) to a decision and lost, should be ranked higher.

Rampage is a vicious fighter. He'll do great things and probably will regain his belt. But when you consider him pound for pound as a light heavy, is he really doing more than Thiago Alves as a welterweight?
-- John in Cleveland

Jordan Breen, columnist, radio host: Let me preface this by saying that the term "pound-for-pound" is needlesome and nebulous in combat sports. The primary reason why is because there are two distinct uses which have been bandied about for decades in the world of prizefighting.

The first is rooted in a very literal, mathematic hypothetical: if we could make all fighters in the world the same weight, with their skillsets and physical attributes relative to their actual weight (i.e. a heavyweight may hit hard, but does he hit hard by heavyweight standards? A bantamweight may be fast, but is he only of average speed and agility for a 135-pounder?), what fighters would be the most outstanding. This is the idea in play when people say "Fighter X is pound-for-pound the hardest puncher" or "Fighter Y has the best submissions pound-for pound."

The second variant is the one that is utilized in MMA, boxing and other combat sports when we talk about rankings and the "pound-for-pound best." It is, at its simplest, an ordering of the sport's most outstanding fighters in the same spirit as divisional rankings, in which fighters are acknowledged for strong wins in their weight classes, with extra consideration to those who may have success in multiple weight classes (although this is certainly rarer than in the boxing world).

So, whether Fedor or Rampage are "twice the fighter" that Urijah Faber is, is not particularly relevant. What is important is how strong and fortified are their particular resumes, who they've beaten and how they've done it. The next level of analysis for pound-for-pound purposes is to consider the relative strength of wins, based on their divisions.

For instance, I think you're astute in asking whether Rampage is really "doing more" than Thiago Alves as a welterweight, as Alves has recently ran over three top-10 fighters in a very deep welterweight division, which means that the top-10 fighters he's knocked off all have deeper, more outstanding resumes than those top-10 entrants in a division such as the more barren flyweight or heavyweight divisions. With that in mind, I think there is a legitimate case for Alves as a serious pound-for-pound fighter.

The argument against Fedor or Rampage (as examples) is not that they're heavier fighters in a pound-for-pound ranking, but rather whether or not you believe in the strength of their particular accomplishments in light of the divisions they come in. While I would advise doing away with ideas like "Penn fought hard with Lyoto and so should be richly rewarded," as I think it verges on sophistry and devalues the actual paramount importance in winning, I think you certainly touch on the most important idea in discussing pound-for-pound rankings by mentioning Alves, who is a great representation of how a fighter who is an unquestioned second fiddle in his division can still be an elite and outstanding fighter of the pound-for-pound order.