Boxrec RULES!!!!

[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.

[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]

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?
.

[Spicoli]

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

[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.

[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...
.