Boxrec RULES!!!!

[killersheep]

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 ) at 140 makes PAC as the new no. 1 at 140 (according to BoxRec ). 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 That's why we have weight divisions...

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...
.

FAIL, EPIC FAIL.............

[XaduBoxer]

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 That's why we have weight divisions...

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...
.

FAIL, EPIC FAIL.............

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...
.

[killersheep]

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 That's why we have weight divisions...

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...
.

FAIL, EPIC FAIL.............

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...
.

Surely, you don't need me to point out the flaw in your argument, it's pretty obvious.

[XaduBoxer]

FAIL, EPIC FAIL.............

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...
.

Surely, you don't need me to point out the flaw in your argument, it's pretty obvious.

OK here's the facts, you can eat this if you want...

PAC's present rankings:
#2 at 135 Ring Mag
#5 at 147 Ring Mag
#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?
.

[killersheep]

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...
.

Surely, you don't need me to point out the flaw in your argument, it's pretty obvious.

OK here's the facts, you can eat this if you want...

PAC's present rankings:
#2 at 135 Ring Mag
#5 at 147 Ring Mag
#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?
.

let's try this again FAIL.

[XaduBoxer]

Surely, you don't need me to point out the flaw in your argument, it's pretty obvious.

OK here's the facts, you can eat this if you want...

PAC's present rankings:
#2 at 135 Ring Mag
#5 at 147 Ring Mag
#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?
.

let's try this again FAIL.

I think you got no fingers coz you can't point out or type long sentences...
.

[killersheep]

OK here's the facts, you can eat this if you want...

PAC's present rankings:
#2 at 135 Ring Mag
#5 at 147 Ring Mag
#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?
.

let's try this again FAIL.

I think you got no fingers coz you can't point out or type long sentences...
.

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.

[XaduBoxer]

Surely, you don't need me to point out the flaw in your argument, it's pretty obvious.

OK here's the facts, you can eat this if you want...

PAC's present rankings:
#2 at 135 Ring Mag
#5 at 147 Ring Mag
#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?
.

let's try this again FAIL.

BoxRec rankings has its own flaws...

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?
.

[killersheep]

OK here's the facts, you can eat this if you want...

PAC's present rankings:
#2 at 135 Ring Mag
#5 at 147 Ring Mag
#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?
.

let's try this again FAIL.

BoxRec rankings has its own flaws...

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?
.

Oh, so you had no point the whole time.