Boxrec RULES!!!!

You sell many used cars with that weak stuff Saddo Boxer....:biteit: Do you have a stance/opinion and or point.....or should we rely on your crutch in Boxrec etc....:kar:I'm waiting for the gong to sound overhere

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

My guess (it's only a guess or else ask BoxRec yourselves) is BoxRec's computerized ranking system is programmed to give more points to the boxer's ranking in P4P category and also more points for fights in higher weight division. Also more points if the boxer fought highly ranked boxers which is very obvious... I guess, currently PAC can be ranked at 135 or 140 or 147 just like what BoxRec, Fightnews and Ring Mag did...

That's my guess... ;)

---

This is why I didn't want to get into this, you're just talking and not making a point.

I have evidence that back my claim. We can both agree that PAC has not fought at 140.

You have no evidence to prove that PAC should be ranked at 140, it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence to justify your case. Until you have a valid reason to put PAC ahead of Hatton at 140 go to your room and let the grown-ups talk.

---

Yes it's a fact that PAC has not fought at 140 but it's also a fact that he already fought at 147.

For example, if PAC fought and annihilated the man at 147 then it's also a given that PAC is expected to annihilate the man at 140. Just think it that way...

---

um what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Here is Boxrec's official reason for having PAC at # 1 at 140

r_a_new = r_a + 0.345*v*cd*r_b*had_b + (0.345/(1+2*cd))*v*(r_b*had_b - r_a*had_a)
r_b_new = r_b - 0.345*v*cd*r_b*had_b - (0.345/(1+2*cd))*v*(r_b*had_b - r_a*had_a)

1. The ratings are decreased for moving up to higher weight divisions by the square of the reciprocal ratio of the weights limits of the divisions--and they are increased by the same factor for moving down the divisions.
2. The ratings are equalized between divisions in relation to average points of the boxers ranked #8, #9, #10, #11 and #12 in a division.

There you go, straight from boxrec. Still don't get how that put's him ahead of anyone that's fought at 140.

---

That formula is too complicated for us humans... ;)

That's why I told you to email and ask BoxRec... I'm sure they have a valid explanation why PAC is #1 at 140... That's the most sensible action to do... Just do it Mr. killer...

.

---

It's your point to prove.

---

My point is, these rankings orgs (BoxRec, Fightnews, Ring Mag, etc.) composed of several boxing experts and using powerful computers publicly published their rankings - rankings that they believed is true and correct according to their set of criteria... They have some basis on their rankings...

There could be flaws in their system so why not try asking them, email them... You might be right... PAC can't be #1 at 140... :lolhaha:
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

That formula is too complicated for us humans... ;)

That's why I told you to email and ask BoxRec... I'm sure they have a valid explanation why PAC is #1 at 140... That's the most sensible action to do... Just do it Mr. killer...

.

---

It's your point to prove.

---

My point is, these rankings orgs (BoxRec, Fightnews, Ring Mag, etc.) composed of several boxing experts and using powerful computers publicly published their rankings - rankings that they believed is true and correct according to their set of criteria... They have some basis on their rankings...

There could be flaws in their system so why not try asking them, email them... You might be right... PAC can't be #1 at 140... :lolhaha:
.

---

Again it's your point to make. I don't know anyone that takes Fightnews or Boxrec's ranks seriously other than you and Fightnews and Boxrec. And since that is 100% the basis of your "point" PROVE IT.

I think what happened here Killer ...is he saw you noticing a boxrec flaw, and somehow took it as a slight against God Almighty, and felt the need to argue his religion with an endless barrage of :lolhaha:'s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

It's your point to prove.

---

My point is, these rankings orgs (BoxRec, Fightnews, Ring Mag, etc.) composed of several boxing experts and using powerful computers publicly published their rankings - rankings that they believed is true and correct according to their set of criteria... They have some basis on their rankings...

There could be flaws in their system so why not try asking them, email them... You might be right... PAC can't be #1 at 140... :lolhaha:
.

---

Again it's your point to make. I don't know anyone that takes Fightnews or Boxrec's ranks seriously other than you and Fightnews and Boxrec. And since that is 100% the basis of your "point" PROVE IT.

---

I don't want to belittle your humble opinion, you're entitled to it even how "tiny" it is...

BoxRec and Fightnews has millions of readers that probably agrees and believes in their rankings... It's openly and publicly published for everyone to see...

And you? You just wanting me to prove my point... ha ha :lolhaha:

There's my point, published by BoxRec and Fightnews to millions of readers... These orgs can back up what's listed in their rankings unless it's a total mistake... Who knows, PAC was erroneously mistakenly placed at #1 at 140... :lolhaha:
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

My point is, these rankings orgs (BoxRec, Fightnews, Ring Mag, etc.) composed of several boxing experts and using powerful computers publicly published their rankings - rankings that they believed is true and correct according to their set of criteria... They have some basis on their rankings...

There could be flaws in their system so why not try asking them, email them... You might be right... PAC can't be #1 at 140... :lolhaha:
.

---

Again it's your point to make. I don't know anyone that takes Fightnews or Boxrec's ranks seriously other than you and Fightnews and Boxrec. And since that is 100% the basis of your "point" PROVE IT.

---

I don't want to belittle your humble opinion, you're entitled to it even how "tiny" it is...

BoxRec and Fightnews has millions of readers that probably agrees and believes in their rankings... It's openly and publicly published for everyone to see...

And you? You just wanting to prove my point to you... ha ha :lolhaha:

There's my point, published by BoxRec and Fightnews to millions of readers... These orgs can back up what's listed in their rankings unless it's a total mistake... Who knows, PAC was erroneously mistakenly placed at #1 at 140... :lolhaha:
.

---

Yes that's what I want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youngblood

I think what happened here Killer ...is he saw you noticing a boxrec flaw, and somehow took it as a slight against God Almighty, and felt the need to argue his religion with an endless barrage of :lolhaha:'s.

---

That's why I suggested to Mr. killer to email and contact BoxRec... He don't want to do it... He's one hard headed mofo... ;D

It's possible... It could be a big mistake... PAC #1 at 140, it's unbelievable... I can't believed it.... :lolhaha:
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Again it's your point to make. I don't know anyone that takes Fightnews or Boxrec's ranks seriously other than you and Fightnews and Boxrec. And since that is 100% the basis of your "point" PROVE IT.

---

I don't want to belittle your humble opinion, you're entitled to it even how "tiny" it is...

BoxRec and Fightnews has millions of readers that probably agrees and believes in their rankings... It's openly and publicly published for everyone to see...

And you? You just wanting to prove my point to you... ha ha :lolhaha:

There's my point, published by BoxRec and Fightnews to millions of readers... These orgs can back up what's listed in their rankings unless it's a total mistake... Who knows, PAC was erroneously mistakenly placed at #1 at 140... :lolhaha:
.

---

Yes that's what I want.

---

Are you sure? Is that all you want from me? LOL ha ha ;D
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

I don't want to belittle your humble opinion, you're entitled to it even how "tiny" it is...

BoxRec and Fightnews has millions of readers that probably agrees and believes in their rankings... It's openly and publicly published for everyone to see...

And you? You just wanting to prove my point to you... ha ha :lolhaha:

There's my point, published by BoxRec and Fightnews to millions of readers... These orgs can back up what's listed in their rankings unless it's a total mistake... Who knows, PAC was erroneously mistakenly placed at #1 at 140... :lolhaha:
.

---

Yes that's what I want.

---

Are you sure? Is that all you want from me? LOL ha ha ;D
.

---

Well since you aren't confident enough in your argument to bring in your own evidence for your case, we can safely say you had no point to begin with and you're just talking. Therefore the thread stands as valid. It's ridiculous to have PAC ranked at #1 at 140.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Yes that's what I want.

---

Are you sure? Is that all you want from me? LOL ha ha ;D
.

---

Well since you aren't confident enough in your argument to bring in your own evidence for your case, we can safely say you had no point to begin with and you're just talking. Therefore the thread stands as valid. It's ridiculous to have PAC ranked at #1 at 140.

---

Of course you have all the right to grumble here but as what I suggested, please contact BoxRec for it might be a big mistake putting PAC at #1 at 140... It's really unbelievable... Please do contact BoxRec... ;)

Don't forget to post BoxRec's reply here, OK? ;D
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Are you sure? Is that all you want from me? LOL ha ha ;D
.

---

Well since you aren't confident enough in your argument to bring in your own evidence for your case, we can safely say you had no point to begin with and you're just talking. Therefore the thread stands as valid. It's ridiculous to have PAC ranked at #1 at 140.

---

Of course you have all the right to grumble here but as what I suggested, please contact BoxRec for it might be a big mistake putting PAC at #1 at 140... It's really unbelievable... Please do contact BoxRec... ;)

Don't forget to post BoxRec's reply here, OK? ;D
.

---

It's your responsibility don't pawn your work off on me.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y18...saddoboxer.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Well since you aren't confident enough in your argument to bring in your own evidence for your case, we can safely say you had no point to begin with and you're just talking. Therefore the thread stands as valid. It's ridiculous to have PAC ranked at #1 at 140.

---

Of course you have all the right to grumble here but as what I suggested, please contact BoxRec for it might be a big mistake putting PAC at #1 at 140... It's really unbelievable... Please do contact BoxRec... ;)

Don't forget to post BoxRec's reply here, OK? ;D
.

---

It's your responsibility don't pawn your work off on me.

---

You're the one who protested about it, questioning about it... For me, I just accepted it as it is... ;D but could be a big fatal mistake ;D
.

.....:beatup2:.....guess the crutches are needed after all.No independent thought from fanboy numba 1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins

.....:beatup2:.....guess the crutches are needed after all.No independent thought from fanboy numba 1.

---

Actually he's convinced me...........I now believe only in boxrec rankings!!

PAC # 5 p4p right behind JMM!!!!!!!!1111

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/9678/killagp2.jpg

---

Nice artwork there killa... I love it... I didn't know you're a great artist and debater (?) ... ;D
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Nice artwork there killa... I love it... I didn't know you're a great artist and debater (?) ... ;D
.

---

You get a response from BoxRec yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins

.....:beatup2:.....guess the crutches are needed after all.No independent thought from fanboy numba 1.

---

It's very difficult to justify for BoxRec's behalf so why not ask BoxRec for such very unbelievable ranking of PAC?

I just take it as it is since for me, there's possibility that PAC can be considered as no. 1 at 140 as what I pointed out in my previous posts here... It's also possible, that this is a big error... Hope killa can contact/email BoxRec... ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Nice artwork there killa... I love it... I didn't know you're a great artist and debater (?) ... ;D
.

---

You get a response from BoxRec yet?

---

I have no problem with them placing PAC as #1 at 140... Why hassle myself about this... ;D

To those who vehemently protested about this ranking, why not throw tomatoes, rotten eggs, etc. on BoxRec ... ;D
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Nice artwork there killa... I love it... I didn't know you're a great artist and debater (?) ... ;D
.

---

You get a response from BoxRec yet?

---

I have no problem with them placing PAC as #1 at 140... Why hassle myself about this... ;D

To those who vehemently protested about this ranking, why not throw tomatoes, rotten eggs, etc. on BoxRec ... ;D
.

---

So you also agree that PAC is #5 p4p behind JMM?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins

.....:beatup2:.....guess the crutches are needed after all.No independent thought from fanboy numba 1.

---

It's very difficult to justify for BoxRec's behalf so why not ask BoxRec for such very unbelievable ranking of PAC?

I just take it as it is since for me, there's possibility that PAC can be considered as no. 1 at 140 as what I pointed out in my previous posts here... It's also possible, that this is a big error... Hope killa can contact/email BoxRec... ;D

---

You wanna jump through rhetorical hoops or do you actually have a debatable stance on your #1 favorite fighter.Why should he be ranked on par with Hatton at 140 as best when he has never competed there?Yaaawn....checking watch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

You get a response from BoxRec yet?

---

I have no problem with them placing PAC as #1 at 140... Why hassle myself about this... ;D

To those who vehemently protested about this ranking, why not throw tomatoes, rotten eggs, etc. on BoxRec ... ;D
.

---

So you also agree that PAC is #5 p4p behind JMM?

---

I have no crazy problem with that... they have their own basis and computations for that... heck, Vazquez is no. 3 P4P, JMM 4 and PAC 5... There's no point of arguing with that... ;D

But having no problem with BoxRec rankings doesn't mean I totally agree with them completely... lol ;D
.

Saddoboxer's got alien persistence when it comes to Pac and a healthy devotion to :lolhaha:, do you guys really want to get into this?

do you realize we have a thread wishing Manny Pacquaio happy birthday :confused:

I'm at a loss for words with that one, I've prided myself on pointless threads but come on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

I have no problem with them placing PAC as #1 at 140... Why hassle myself about this... ;D

To those who vehemently protested about this ranking, why not throw tomatoes, rotten eggs, etc. on BoxRec ... ;D
.

---

So you also agree that PAC is #5 p4p behind JMM?

---

I have no crazy problem with that... they have their own basis and computations for that... heck, Vazquez is no. 3 P4P, JMM 4 and PAC 5... There's no point of arguing with that... ;D

But having no problem with BoxRec rankings doesn't mean I totally agree with them completely... lol ;D
.

---

So you're back to not having a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OumaFan

do you realize we have a thread wishing Manny Pacquaio happy birthday :confused:

I'm at a loss for words with that one, I've prided myself on pointless threads but come on

---

Not as priceless as the one started a couple of months ago,"Pac has just finished his shower and is now going to the gym".....:rofmaoal: LmaOFF

An actual thead,anything to draw attention I suppose

My final thoughts before I leave this thread:

There's no point of criticizing BoxRec's computerized rankings point system. It may not be the perfect one but that's how they calculated each boxer's points. That's their basis. They have a mathematical formula.

Currently on their system, PAC is ranked no. 1 at 140 division (that's where they put PAC presently) but if they place PAC at 135 division, he will only be at no. 2 behind JMM. That's how their system works...
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

My final thoughts before I leave this thread:

There's no point of criticizing BoxRec's computerized rankings point system. It may not be the perfect one but that's how they calculated each boxer's points. That's their basis. They have a mathematical formula.

Currently on their system, PAC is ranked no. 1 at 140 division (that's where they put PAC presently) but if they place PAC at 135 division, he will only be at no. 2 behind JMM. That's how their system works...
.

---

After 5 pages all you have is "because they said so"? I'm really dissapointed, I thought for sure by now you would have a reason why PAC should be ahead of Hatton at 140.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

My final thoughts before I leave this thread:

There's no point of criticizing BoxRec's computerized rankings point system. It may not be the perfect one but that's how they calculated each boxer's points. That's their basis. They have a mathematical formula.

Currently on their system, PAC is ranked no. 1 at 140 division (that's where they put PAC presently) but if they place PAC at 135 division, he will only be at no. 2 behind JMM. That's how their system works...
.

---

After 5 pages all you have is "because they said so"? I'm really dissapointed, I thought for sure by now you would have a reason why PAC should be ahead of Hatton at 140.

---

I've mentioned my own reasons why PAC could be ahead of Hatton at 140 but you immediately trashed it. Your main reason why you can't accept it because PAC has not fought at 140 which were not really observed by rankings orgs and therefore not a very valid point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

My final thoughts before I leave this thread:

There's no point of criticizing BoxRec's computerized rankings point system. It may not be the perfect one but that's how they calculated each boxer's points. That's their basis. They have a mathematical formula.

Currently on their system, PAC is ranked no. 1 at 140 division (that's where they put PAC presently) but if they place PAC at 135 division, he will only be at no. 2 behind JMM. That's how their system works...
.

---

After 5 pages all you have is "because they said so"? I'm really dissapointed, I thought for sure by now you would have a reason why PAC should be ahead of Hatton at 140.

---

I've mentioned my own reasons why PAC could be ahead of Hatton at 140 but you immediately trashed it. Your main reason why you can't accept it because PAC has not fought at 140 which were not really observed by rankings orgs and therefore not a very valid point.

---

I'm confused, if you are ranking who is the best fighter at 140 why would you use any data from another weight class?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

After 5 pages all you have is "because they said so"? I'm really dissapointed, I thought for sure by now you would have a reason why PAC should be ahead of Hatton at 140.

---

I've mentioned my own reasons why PAC could be ahead of Hatton at 140 but you immediately trashed it. Your main reason why you can't accept it because PAC has not fought at 140 which were not really observed by rankings orgs and therefore not a very valid point.

---

I'm confused, if you are ranking who is the best fighter at 140 why would you use any data from another weight class?

---

BoxRec did it... As I've said no point in continuing to question BoxRec's rankings... We all know it's a computerized ranking point system.

Goodbye?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

I've mentioned my own reasons why PAC could be ahead of Hatton at 140 but you immediately trashed it. Your main reason why you can't accept it because PAC has not fought at 140 which were not really observed by rankings orgs and therefore not a very valid point.

---

I'm confused, if you are ranking who is the best fighter at 140 why would you use any data from another weight class?

---

BoxRec did it... As I've said no point in continuing to question BoxRec's rankings... We all know it's a computerized ranking point system.

Goodbye?

---

So why use data from other weight classes? Computerized or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

I'm confused, if you are ranking who is the best fighter at 140 why would you use any data from another weight class?

---

BoxRec did it... As I've said no point in continuing to question BoxRec's rankings... We all know it's a computerized ranking point system.

Goodbye?

---

So why use data from other weight classes? Computerized or not.

---

Why don't you ask BoxRec? Or why don't you take a sleep for now Mr. Killer?

Can I go now? Nice talking to you...
.

:lol:

Haha! I was on page 1 reading between Killersheep and Saddoboxer, and then skipped straight to page 5 and it's still going the same.. :)

Dare I read the other 3 in between.

Love rivalries on here..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

My final thoughts before I leave this thread:

There's no point of criticizing BoxRec's computerized rankings point system. It may not be the perfect one but that's how they calculated each boxer's points. That's their basis. They have a mathematical formula.

Currently on their system, PAC is ranked no. 1 at 140 division (that's where they put PAC presently) but if they place PAC at 135 division, he will only be at no. 2 behind JMM. That's how their system works...
.

---

After 5 pages all you have is "because they said so"? I'm really dissapointed, I thought for sure by now you would have a reason why PAC should be ahead of Hatton at 140.

---

I've mentioned my own reasons why PAC could be ahead of Hatton at 140 but you immediately trashed it. Your main reason why you can't accept it because PAC has not fought at 140 which were not really observed by rankings orgs and therefore not a very valid point.

---

How the hell can you justify Pac above Malignaggi, Bradley and Holt let alone Hatton at 140???? The man has yet to have 1 fight there....


















!!!!!!!!!!!!!!THIS JUST IN!!!!!!!!!!!!

IVAN CALDERON RANKED #1 AT HEAVYWEIGHT

WHY?????

BECAUSE THE COMPUTER SAID SO:-\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

PAC never fought that weight but he's already scheduled to fight the recognized no. 1 man at 140 (Hatton) on May 2, 2009 in Las Vegas, USA...

link to fight schedule -> BoxRec Boxing Records

Being the no.1 P4P and scheduled to fight the no. 1 (now former ;D ) at 140 makes PAC as the new no. 1 at 140 (according to BoxRec ;D ). Why complain if PAC has not fought at 140? PAC already fought at even higher weight at 147 !!!
.

---

Why not make Klitschko # 1 at all weights then? He's fought at even higher weights too!!

---

You got a tiny point... BUT Klitschko needs to fight (or had fought) at minimumweight/mini-flyweight (105 lbs.) and win convincingly in order to be considered as #1 in all weight division. BUT Klitschko can't and will not ever make the 105 lbs. limit :lolhaha: That's why we have weight divisions... ;D

At this moment, I think PAC can make 135 and 140... He can be ranked as #1 in those divisions being the #1 overall P4P... ;D
.

---

http://www.funnyforumpics.com/forums...dawsonfail.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dizaster

:lol:

Haha! I was on page 1 reading between Killersheep and Saddoboxer, and then skipped straight to page 5 and it's still going the same.. :)

Dare I read the other 3 in between.

Love rivalries on here..

---

You had me LOL'd on this one, Diz. That's exactly what I was thinking and I'm still LOL. I'm amazed and more amused at the unusually passionate devotion of Saddoboxer and Killasheep on this somewhat inane issue, not to mention some riders-on (there ain't no such word) taking some potshots in between. Well I needed a good entertainment for my otherwise boring weekend and this thread gave me just that. Who needs a boxing on lazy sundays if there are Saddoboxer and Killasheep debating, and it doesn't even matter whether the issue makes sense or not! Love you guys...;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

My final thoughts before I leave this thread:

There's no point of criticizing BoxRec's computerized rankings point system. It may not be the perfect one but that's how they calculated each boxer's points. That's their basis. They have a mathematical formula.

Currently on their system, PAC is ranked no. 1 at 140 division (that's where they put PAC presently) but if they place PAC at 135 division, he will only be at no. 2 behind JMM. That's how their system works...
.

---

After 5 pages all you have is "because they said so"? I'm really dissapointed, I thought for sure by now you would have a reason why PAC should be ahead of Hatton at 140.

---

I've mentioned my own reasons why PAC could be ahead of Hatton at 140 but you immediately trashed it. Your main reason why you can't accept it because PAC has not fought at 140 which were not really observed by rankings orgs and therefore not a very valid point.

---

SaddoBoxer, you'd have a little more credibility around these parts if you'd just be able to utter just 15 simple words: "Yes, I agree BoxRec's wrong by making Pac # 1 at 140 where he's never even fought."

Don't get me wrong, I'm as huge a Pac fan as anyone, especially now after having dismantled and humiliated the Golden Boy. But beyond that is where we part company. I can see things for the way they are, and do not continue to pursue arguments I know are wrong. Just a thought....

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

BoxRec did it... As I've said no point in continuing to question BoxRec's rankings... We all know it's a computerized ranking point system.

Goodbye?

---

So why use data from other weight classes? Computerized or not.

---

Why don't you ask BoxRec? Or why don't you take a sleep for now Mr. Killer?

Can I go now? Nice talking to you...
.

---

That's a clear indication Killersheep just chewed you up and spat you out. And that my friend, is what he just done with you.

He had you off big time here.

Seriousley, your logic is beyond garbage and full of bias and flaws.

I know you adore Pac, but I didn't think that much. Damn! :o