Boxrec RULES!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amat

The thing is though Diz, you don't rank guys P4P in the division. You can see why too.

Because P4P is mythical and has no set guidelines. There is no path becoming ranked top pound for pound it's just something that's purely subjective.

If Manny beat Margarito, would he be favored to beat anyone at 140? Absolutely he would. However, you can't rank him at a division until he has actually fought there. Surely you see the absurdity in this, if writers can just decide that since they think Pac would beat any fighter in the 140 lb division, he is automatically the champion of that division. Last time I checked that's not how you become a champion of a division, or even ranked number 1.
That would be like making Margarito number 1 at 140, because he would likely beat everyone at 140.

---

That's right... And it would be ridiculous to automatically rank a fighter a champion of a division he hasn't fought at.. that's silly.. But again as you said, the P4P ranking this is just a mythical subjective ranking, and that is how they've put Manny at the top of 140... As much of a stretch that it is considering he hasn't fought there...

But yes, I think the out and out problem here, is that Boxrec rates fighter in division they havn't even fought at.... They just need to make a blanket rule to not do that anymore... A fighter must fight at a certain weight to be ranked there... I think that's entirely fair, and would cut out all arguement and actually eliminate a lot of the subjectivity as well. I would agree with that...

But in that kind of mythical realm,,, Say there were 2 guys at 140 who had both fought the exact same people and won, were the top 2 at the division, but hadn't fought each other yet, would you be able to rank one above the other? or because they'd both fought the exact same opponents, and not met themselves yet, they could just have to be ranked even? Nuh, their overall potential would probably be assessed, and you'd put them at 1 and 2 until they meat, where really anything can happen to decide the true 1 and 2... So ummmm... I forgot what my point was :confused: and in fact I thought it was going to be a pretty dumb point as well... Perhaps just disregard all that..


Boxrec may just need to change how they do it so they just straight out don't rate fighters at weights they havn't fought at yet..... Or explain really well how they are able to do it convingly.....?
Shit, I think that's where this arguement was at on page 2...

Boxrec does this all the time bros...

and i don't know why...and if im not mistaken i remember also they rank Guzman at lightweight just before the campbell fight was announce or even made.. they rank him within top ten but he never fought in that division yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amat

Boxrec has point values assessed to every fighter and then they categorize the fighters by weight classes. They have Hatton-Pacquiao on for May 2nd, so they have Pacquiao fighting at 140. Since he has the most points, he is the champion of the 140 division.

The good thing is that people with sense know that at the very least, to be champion at a weight division you have to have fought in it. No one at boxrec actually ranks fighters it's all mathmatics.

---

Yeah that's exactly how BoxRec rates the boxers, by points system and if those boxers were bunched in one division, the one with highest points become #1. But be aware that you can't just put one boxer in a particular division if he didn't signify to fight in that division, has no scheduled fight in that division or has not fought in that division or can he even make weight in that division.

Boxrec uses computers to do this stuff and we all know that long time ago. I won't call PAC as the "champion" at 140 since this title is only used by official boxing sanctioning bodies, those who awards belts. PAC is just rated #1 at 140 by BoxRec not as a champion.

We all know that this is how BoxRec do its ratings and computations of points system, why all the grumbles? Do you have problems with that then email BoxRec for an explanation ...
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amat

The thing is though Diz, you don't rank guys P4P in the division. You can see why too.

Because P4P is mythical and has no set guidelines. There is no path becoming ranked top pound for pound it's just something that's purely subjective.

If Manny beat Margarito, would he be favored to beat anyone at 140? Absolutely he would. However, you can't rank him at a division until he has actually fought there. Surely you see the absurdity in this, if writers can just decide that since they think Pac would beat any fighter in the 140 lb division, he is automatically the champion of that division. Last time I checked that's not how you become a champion of a division, or even ranked number 1.

That would be like making Margarito number 1 at 140, because he would likely beat everyone at 140.

I don't want to read 7 pages, this should be puerely agreeable even if you think that the first punch Pacquiao landed Hatton would be sprawled across the mat, it doesn't matter.

---

I agree with the highlighted statement above granting Margarito has a scheduled fight at 140, or signifies that he will fight at 140 and if he can make the weight limit of 140 lbs.

And most important, Margarito's BoxRec points is higher than everyone currently rated at 140... ;)
.

I have no problems with Pac being #1 P4P..but I have no doubts Ricky is the best at 140. He has a belt. He have looked great and has been there for years. And it doesn't mean Pac beats him simply because he has fought and won at a higher weight. Jeez..he fought a completely shot fighter and I've seen posts that he would beat Cotto.I mean WTF?! So given that analogy does that mean he beats Mosley too? Hell no.

Mr.saddoboxer..I see your point. I'm a fan of your idol and I think I can help you out a bit with what you're tryin to say. Pac after bein a champ at 115 immediately fought at 122 next. He jumped over 118. After bein a champ and basically dominating at 122..I think it is fair and reasonable to rank him as the division's best at 118 if he decides to fight there next. BUT... the thing Mr.Killersheep failed to emphasize is that he hasn't dominated at 147 yet (unlike at 122).and probably would never do.Only fought there once. Plus the fact that there are legit guys and more established fighters at 140. We're talkin about Ricky Hatton here. Who fights best at 140. Please don't get too carried away with the win against Oscar. Ricky Hatton is the real deal at 140. But to make you feel good I think Pac can beat him and I'm picking your idol to win. IMO style's makes fight. I think Pac COULD be a force at 140 because of the fact that the last time he fought he hit the scales weighing 142.closer to 140 than 147. He looked awesome. Yes he COULD very well be the next 'KING' and COULD potentially be the 'better KING' of the division. BUT Ricky Hatton is the 'more deserving and legit KING of the division' today.

P.S.
Please pay attention to the BUTs and COULDs.;)

Well, since Saddoboxer is afraid to get any facts from anyone, I actually did write to BoxRec, the day this thread started and guess what.......no response, I expect the same from everyone organization I wrote to.

Summary of thread: Use the Ring rankings everyone else just makes shit up. P4P rankings do not give carte blanche, QED Mayweather's career. Mayweather was the linear champ at 147 and had titles at 135 and 140, but during no point would anyone consider him the best at 140. PAC did not even beat "The Man" at 147 or 135 he beat "A man". As a matter of fact PAC is now following PBF's career almost verbatim now, taking the weakest strap holders and cash cows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

LOL ... Even Team Hatton acknowledged that Pacquiao is the man...

"Manny is the man and if you want to fight the man they have got the whip hand."

I'm not sure why you can't accept that PAC is greater than Hatton including at 140... LOL...
.

---

No source and out of context as expected. I will not acknowledge PAC has done anything at 140 until he does something at 140.

---

Ohh you're still sticking to your 140 argument... Since you're a believer of Ring Mag, PAC is ranked at #5 at 147 and ranked #2 at 135 at the same time, it means PAC has done everything from 135 to 147 according to Ring Mag... 140 is just but in between 135 and 147...

BTW, the source (link) of Team Hatton accepting that PAC is the man ;D :

Daily Star: Simply The Best 7 Days A Week :: In The Ring :: �20m Hart pay Pacq-et

---

The Daily Star is considered a load of shitt. That bad I wouldn't wipe my ass with it, nevermind buy it. It's full of lies and rumours.

Using a tabloid newspaper as your souce :lolhaha: You really have went to new low's :LOLATYOU:

Wow... I consider myself a veteran of the forum (been here about 3 1/2 yrs), and I've probably never seen such a long-lasting, unwielding argument such as this one. At least one that hasn't degenerated into a "name-calling", "manhood-questioning", "mother-mentioning" free for all. Kudos to both.

;D

For the record, I still agree with Killersheep's point of view. And what I want to say to Saddoboxer is:

Hey bro... it doesn't diminish from Pacquiao's greatness to say he shouldn't be ranked # 1 at 140, if that's what worries you. In my eyes, Pac is close to being, if not THE #1 p4p fighter in the world right now. And you KNOW how many points he went up in MY personal "fanbook" after he whipped Oscar. But no way he's # 1 at 140 when he has never fought there. That's just the way it goes.

:) ;)

My point is, that's how BoxRec do the ratings. Let's take a look of BoxRec top 3 boxers with their corresponding points in 147, 140 and 135 divisions:

147
1. Antonio Margarito 1327
2. Shane Mosley 832
3. Miguel Angel Cotto 722

140
1. Manny Pacquiao 1673
2. Ricky Hatton 1469
3. Andriy Kotelnik 905

135
1. Juan Manuel Marquez 1592
2. Nate Campbell 1097
3. Joan Guzman 813

If BoxRec places Pacquiao in any of these 3 divisions, he will be the #1 in that division since he has the highest points among the boxers.

The argument that he can't be #1 because he hasn't fought in that division can't be used here. PAC fought at 147 and 135 and he still has the highest points so BoxRec will consider him as #1 in those divisions. So those using this argument can't complain if BoxRec put PAC as #1 in 147 or in 135 division since he fought in those divisions.

We all know long time ago that BoxRec computerized points ranking system could be flawed. Why all the grumbles?

BoxRec can place PAC as #1 in 147 or 140 or 135 division since he has the highest points among the boxers in those divisions.

You can continue complaining but that's how BoxRec do it...
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leftylee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

No source and out of context as expected. I will not acknowledge PAC has done anything at 140 until he does something at 140.

---

Ohh you're still sticking to your 140 argument... Since you're a believer of Ring Mag, PAC is ranked at #5 at 147 and ranked #2 at 135 at the same time, it means PAC has done everything from 135 to 147 according to Ring Mag... 140 is just but in between 135 and 147...

BTW, the source (link) of Team Hatton accepting that PAC is the man ;D :

Daily Star: Simply The Best 7 Days A Week :: In The Ring :: �20m Hart pay Pacq-et

---

The Daily Star is considered a load of shitt. That bad I wouldn't wipe my ass with it, nevermind buy it. It's full of lies and rumours.

Using a tabloid newspaper as your souce :lolhaha: You really have went to new low's :LOLATYOU:

---

I'm not a Brit... I'm not aware that British papers are full of shit... But I think these shitty British papers (managed by shitty people) doesn't really reflect the majority characteristics of its people...
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

My point is, that's how BoxRec do the ratings. Let's take a look of BoxRec top 3 boxers with their corresponding points in 147, 140 and 135 divisions:

147
1. Antonio Margarito 1327
2. Shane Mosley 832
3. Miguel Angel Cotto 722

140
1. Manny Pacquiao 1673
2. Ricky Hatton 1469
3. Andriy Kotelnik 905

135
1. Juan Manuel Marquez 1592
2. Nate Campbell 1097
3. Joan Guzman 813

If BoxRec places Pacquiao in any of these 3 divisions, he will be the #1 in that division since he has the highest points among the boxers.

The argument that he can't be #1 because he hasn't fought in that division can't be used here. PAC fought at 147 and 135 and he still has the highest points so BoxRec will consider him as #1 in those divisions. So those using this argument can't complain if BoxRec put PAC as #1 in 147 or in 135 division since he fought in those divisions.

We all know long time ago that BoxRec computerized points ranking system could be flawed. Why all the grumbles?

BoxRec can place PAC as #1 in 147 or 140 or 135 division since he has the highest points among the boxers in those divisions.

You can continue complaining but that's how BoxRec do it...
.

---

And that's why their system is utter crap. The grumbles continue because you keep trying to defend a flawed system. This thread wouldn't have lasted as many pages and posts if you had not started making shit up and quoting tabloids to try to verify what can't be proven.

PS. Boxrec, The WBC, The WBA and the WBO still have not written anything back in defense of Pacquiao or Valero, must be because of the holiday season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leftylee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Ohh you're still sticking to your 140 argument... Since you're a believer of Ring Mag, PAC is ranked at #5 at 147 and ranked #2 at 135 at the same time, it means PAC has done everything from 135 to 147 according to Ring Mag... 140 is just but in between 135 and 147...

BTW, the source (link) of Team Hatton accepting that PAC is the man ;D :

Daily Star: Simply The Best 7 Days A Week :: In The Ring :: �20m Hart pay Pacq-et

---

The Daily Star is considered a load of shitt. That bad I wouldn't wipe my ass with it, nevermind buy it. It's full of lies and rumours.

Using a tabloid newspaper as your souce :lolhaha: You really have went to new low's :LOLATYOU:

---

I'm not a Brit... I'm not aware that British papers are full of shit... But I think these shitty British papers (managed by shitty people) doesn't really reflect the majority characteristics of its people...
.

---

You used a tabloid as your source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leftylee

The Daily Star is considered a load of shitt. That bad I wouldn't wipe my ass with it, nevermind buy it. It's full of lies and rumours.

Using a tabloid newspaper as your souce :lolhaha: You really have went to new low's :LOLATYOU:

---

I'm not a Brit... I'm not aware that British papers are full of shit... But I think these shitty British papers (managed by shitty people) doesn't really reflect the majority characteristics of its people...
.

---

You used a tabloid as your source.

---

:lol:

still to this day to come across a boxing rankings system ive liked mainly due to the fact 95% of us at the very least have disagreements with most of them.

suffice to say pac being number 1 at 140 despite never ever fighting in the division and hattons 44-0 having more than earned his number 1 status in there is a complete disgrace!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leftylee

The Daily Star is considered a load of shitt. That bad I wouldn't wipe my ass with it, nevermind buy it. It's full of lies and rumours.

Using a tabloid newspaper as your souce :lolhaha: You really have went to new low's :LOLATYOU:

---

I'm not a Brit... I'm not aware that British papers are full of shit... But I think these shitty British papers (managed by shitty people) doesn't really reflect the majority characteristics of its people...
.

---

You used a tabloid as your source.

---

How about finding a tabloid quoting PAC saying "Hatton is the man"? Nothing? Nada?

At least there's an existing tabloid quoting Team Hatton saying that PAC is the man... ;) Sometimes there's truth to some rumours... ;D
.