Boxrec RULES!!!!

[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.

[mike_tha_man]

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.

[Youngblood]

This is where I start to dislike pacfans again, and sadly, it is often one or 2 fans that do it for me...

[XaduBoxer]

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.

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...

Heck, I didn't even complained why PAC is NOT the no. 1 P4P at BoxRec... for they have their own basis...

Also PBF is already retired, he can't be included in any present rankings...
.

[killersheep]

I'm just trying to explain BoxRec's rankings here...

And you are failing.

[XaduBoxer]

I'm just trying to explain BoxRec's rankings here...

And you are failing.

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...
.

[killersheep]

I'm just trying to explain BoxRec's rankings here...

And you are failing.

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.

[XaduBoxer]

And you are failing.

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.

Ahh welcome Mr. Perfect (never failed ) ... 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...
.

[Spicoli]

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

[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 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.

Ahh welcome Mr. Perfect (never failed ) ... 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...
.

Yes in my crazy fantasy world, you have to fight in a weight class to be ranked in it.

[Spicoli]

Wonder if he knows what the definition of a fluffer is...rah rah SaddoBoxer