Quote Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer View Post
Quote Originally Posted by killersheep View Post
Quote Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer View Post
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