Gotta love them having PAC #1 at 140 when he's never fought at that weight.
Printable View
Gotta love them having PAC #1 at 140 when he's never fought at that weight.
holy crap! they really do and actually have him above Hatton. how is this possible??
i don't even talk about it anymore, because boxrec's rankings are ALWAYS wayyy off.. they work on some sort of point system i believe, but it's horrible..
crystal ball ftw.
That's what I usually do too, but this was so off I actually lol'ed.Quote:
Originally Posted by RP33
I don't understand how even a computer run point system could figure that.
Thats is a insult to Hatton, Pac has never fought at 140 yet!
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlebif
not only to Hatton mate but the whole 140 division... ;D
the hell with their ratings.. they should stick to recording wins and losses..
LOL demented
Boxrtec rankings have always been known for being a joke to put it nicely
Great for 2 thngs..
1 a fighters record and upcoming scheduale
2. a good laugh now and again
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
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!!Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxerPAC 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...Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
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 !!!
.
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... ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by killersheepWhy not make Klitschko # 1 at all weights then? He's fought at even higher weights too!!Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxerPAC 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...Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
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 !!!
.
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
.
FAIL, EPIC FAIL.............Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxerYou 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... ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by killersheepWhy not make Klitschko # 1 at all weights then? He's fought at even higher weights too!!Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer
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
.
That's all... Why not say something why it fails? Just like how I illustrate why Klitscho can't be #1 in all weight divisions... :lolhaha:Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepFAIL, EPIC FAIL.............Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxerYou 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... ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
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
.
.
Surely, you don't need me to point out the flaw in your argument, it's pretty obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxerThat's all... Why not say something why it fails? Just like how I illustrate why Klitscho can't be #1 in all weight divisions... :lolhaha:Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepFAIL, EPIC FAIL.............Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer
.
OK here's the facts, you can eat this if you want... ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by killersheepSurely, you don't need me to point out the flaw in your argument, it's pretty obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxerThat's all... Why not say something why it fails? Just like how I illustrate why Klitscho can't be #1 in all weight divisions... :lolhaha:Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
.
PAC's present rankings:
#2 at 135 Ring Mag
#5 at 147 Ring Mag :lolhaha:
#1 at 135 Fightnews
#1 at 140 BoxRec
You see that? PAC is ranked at 135, 140 and 147 with #1 at 135 and 140... So why all the fuzz? :lolhaha:
.
let's try this again FAIL.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxerOK here's the facts, you can eat this if you want... ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by killersheepSurely, you don't need me to point out the flaw in your argument, it's pretty obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer
PAC's present rankings:
#2 at 135 Ring Mag
#5 at 147 Ring Mag :lolhaha:
#1 at 135 Fightnews
#1 at 140 BoxRec
You see that? PAC is ranked at 135, 140 and 147 with #1 at 135 and 140... So why all the fuzz? :lolhaha:
.
I think you got no fingers coz you can't point out ;D or type long sentences... :lolhaha:Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheeplet's try this again FAIL.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxerOK here's the facts, you can eat this if you want... ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
PAC's present rankings:
#2 at 135 Ring Mag
#5 at 147 Ring Mag :lolhaha:
#1 at 135 Fightnews
#1 at 140 BoxRec
You see that? PAC is ranked at 135, 140 and 147 with #1 at 135 and 140... So why all the fuzz? :lolhaha:
.
.
:tumbleweed:Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxerI think you got no fingers coz you can't point out ;D or type long sentences... :lolhaha:Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheeplet's try this again FAIL.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer
.
OK here we go..........the big mystery.............the fatal flaw in your argument...............there is no justification for ranking a fighter in a weight class he hasn't fought in yet or you are nullifying the entire point of the ranking system itself. Furthermore, if we delve deeper into your "argument" (that has no basis in reality), we find a feeble attempt to defend a glaring flaw in a computerized ranking system. You would have to say that PAC had no #1 rankings in any weight class until PBF retired because Floyd could make weight. That's right you used the fact that PAC was p4p # 1 and "could make weight" at 140 as justification of him being # 1 at 140, therefore since Floyd could have made weight at 130 all those wars PAC had in that division, would still have PBF on top. Hence, the epic fail.
sorry man but some fans and some people are delusional if they think a fighter should be ranked number 1 in a division they haven't even fought in yet. everything else is irrelevant. no matter how much you want to justify it by whatever, if you never fought at a weight you can not be number one in it period.:cool:
This is where I start to dislike pacfans again, and sadly, it is often one or 2 fans that do it for me...
We all know that BoxRec used a computerized ranking system and for them (or the computers) to ranked PAC #1 at 140 has some basis and reasons. BoxRec didn't just pick PAC's name and put in #1 position at 140. When they execute their computerized ranking system, it came out that PAC's credential and past performances is no. 1 when considered at 140 weight division. I'm just trying to explain BoxRec's rankings here...Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep:tumbleweed:Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxerI think you got no fingers coz you can't point out ;D or type long sentences... :lolhaha:Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
.
OK here we go..........the big mystery.............the fatal flaw in your argument...............there is no justification for ranking a fighter in a weight class he hasn't fought in yet or you are nullifying the entire point of the ranking system itself. Furthermore, if we delve deeper into your "argument" (that has no basis in reality), we find a feeble attempt to defend a glaring flaw in a computerized ranking system. You would have to say that PAC had no #1 rankings in any weight class until PBF retired because Floyd could make weight. That's right you used the fact that PAC was p4p # 1 and "could make weight" at 140 as justification of him being # 1 at 140, therefore since Floyd could have made weight at 130 all those wars PAC had in that division, would still have PBF on top. Hence, the epic fail.
Heck, I didn't even complained why PAC is NOT the no. 1 P4P at BoxRec... ;D for they have their own basis... ;D
Also PBF is already retired, he can't be included in any present rankings... :lolhaha:
.
And you are failing.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer
BoxRec rankings has its own flaws...Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheeplet's try this again FAIL.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxerOK here's the facts, you can eat this if you want... ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
PAC's present rankings:
#2 at 135 Ring Mag
#5 at 147 Ring Mag :lolhaha:
#1 at 135 Fightnews
#1 at 140 BoxRec
You see that? PAC is ranked at 135, 140 and 147 with #1 at 135 and 140... So why all the fuzz? :lolhaha:
.
Ring Mag has flaws (Wow Ring Mag ranked PAC in 2 divisions at the same time, 135 and 147, that's incredible).
Fightnews has flaws...
But just remember this, PAC being highly ranked by several rankings organizations in several multiple weight divisions has some basis and reasons... I thinks they can fully explain and back up their high rankings fro PAC... Why not send them an email? ;)
.
Wonder if he knows what the definition of a fluffer is...rah rah SaddoBoxer
Oh, so you had no point the whole time.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxerBoxRec rankings has its own flaws...Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheeplet's try this again FAIL.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer
Ring Mag has flaws (Wow Ring Mag ranked PAC in 2 divisions at the same time, 135 and 147, that's incredible).
Fightnews has flaws...
But just remember this, PAC being highly ranked by several rankings organizations in several multiple weight divisions has some basis and reasons... I thinks they can fully explain and back up their high rankings fro PAC... Why not send them an email? ;)
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepAnd you are failing.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer
If I failed, I think your rumblings on BoxRec is a worse failure... Try to contact them and question them why they have PAC #1 at 140 and let's see what you will get... ;)
.
I haven't failed at all, my point stands you can't rank a fighter as #1 in a division they haven't fought in. I don't need boxrec to justify their flawed system.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxerQuote:
Originally Posted by killersheepAnd you are failing.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer
If I failed, I think your rumblings on BoxRec is a worse failure... Try to contact them and question them why they have PAC #1 at 140 and let's see what you will get... ;)
.
Ahh welcome Mr. Perfect (never failed ;D ) ... So you think you're larger than BoxRec and you will not hear their explanation why PAC is #1 at 140... Go on... live in your fantasy world... :lolhaha:Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepI haven't failed at all, my point stands you can't rank a fighter as #1 in a division they haven't fought in. I don't need boxrec to justify their flawed system.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxerQuote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
If I failed, I think your rumblings on BoxRec is a worse failure... Try to contact them and question them why they have PAC #1 at 140 and let's see what you will get... ;)
.
.
I am very interested how Pac is ranked at #1 in the 140 division least in the eyes of Boxrec and more so in the eyes of one of Pacs top cheerleaders...do tell Saddoboxer ???
Yes in my crazy fantasy world, you have to fight in a weight class to be ranked in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxerAhh welcome Mr. Perfect (never failed ;D ) ... So you think you're larger than BoxRec and you will not hear their explanation why PAC is #1 at 140... Go on... live in your fantasy world... :lolhaha:Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepI haven't failed at all, my point stands you can't rank a fighter as #1 in a division they haven't fought in. I don't need boxrec to justify their flawed system.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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
That's my guess... ;)
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)
- 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.
- 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxerMy 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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
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.
Sorry but that's not the case in real world rankings organization... Valero haven't fought at 135 yet but he's already ranked there by Fightnews (see not only BoxRec)... I think we have discussed this before (7 months ago?) in the case of PAC and Guzman being ranked at 135 even they have not fought yet in that division...Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepYes in my crazy fantasy world, you have to fight in a weight class to be ranked in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxerAhh welcome Mr. Perfect (never failed ;D ) ... So you think you're larger than BoxRec and you will not hear their explanation why PAC is #1 at 140... Go on... live in your fantasy world... :lolhaha:Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
.
Anyway, it seems you're enjoying in your crazy fantasy world... continue living in it... coz what matters most is if you enjoy it or not... :lolhaha:
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
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...
.
That's it? I thought for sure you would have tried to prove your point by now.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxerSorry but that's not the case in real world rankings organization... Valero haven't fought at 135 yet but he's already ranked there by Fightnews (see not only BoxRec)... I think we have discussed this before (7 months ago?) in the case of PAC and Guzman being ranked at 135 even they have not fought yet in that division...Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepYes in my crazy fantasy world, you have to fight in a weight class to be ranked in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer
Anyway, it seems you're enjoying in your crazy fantasy world... continue living in it... coz what matters most is if you enjoy it or not... :lolhaha:
.
It's your point to prove.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxerQuote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
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...
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepQuote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxerMy 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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
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...