Boxrec RULES!!!!

[killersheep]

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)

1. 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.
2. 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.

[XaduBoxer]

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)

1. 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.
2. 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.

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...

.

[killersheep]

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)

1. 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.
2. 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.

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...

.

It's your point to prove.

[Spicoli]

You sell many used cars with that weak stuff Saddo Boxer.... Do you have a stance/opinion and or point.....or should we rely on your crutch in Boxrec etc....I'm waiting for the gong to sound overhere

[XaduBoxer]

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)

1. 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.
2. 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.

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...

.

It's your point to prove.

My point is, these rankings orgs (BoxRec, Fightnews, Ring Mag, etc.) composed of several boxing experts and using powerful computers publicly published their rankings - rankings that they believed is true and correct according to their set of criteria... They have some basis on their rankings...

There could be flaws in their system so why not try asking them, email them... You might be right... PAC can't be #1 at 140...
.

[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...

.

It's your point to prove.

My point is, these rankings orgs (BoxRec, Fightnews, Ring Mag, etc.) composed of several boxing experts and using powerful computers publicly published their rankings - rankings that they believed is true and correct according to their set of criteria... They have some basis on their rankings...

There could be flaws in their system so why not try asking them, email them... You might be right... PAC can't be #1 at 140...
.

Again it's your point to make. I don't know anyone that takes Fightnews or Boxrec's ranks seriously other than you and Fightnews and Boxrec. And since that is 100% the basis of your "point" PROVE IT.

[Youngblood]

I think what happened here Killer ...is he saw you noticing a boxrec flaw, and somehow took it as a slight against God Almighty, and felt the need to argue his religion with an endless barrage of 's.

[XaduBoxer]

I think what happened here Killer ...is he saw you noticing a boxrec flaw, and somehow took it as a slight against God Almighty, and felt the need to argue his religion with an endless barrage of 's.

That's why I suggested to Mr. killer to email and contact BoxRec... He don't want to do it... He's one hard headed mofo...

It's possible... It could be a big mistake... PAC #1 at 140, it's unbelievable... I can't believed it....
.

[XaduBoxer]

It's your point to prove.

My point is, these rankings orgs (BoxRec, Fightnews, Ring Mag, etc.) composed of several boxing experts and using powerful computers publicly published their rankings - rankings that they believed is true and correct according to their set of criteria... They have some basis on their rankings...

There could be flaws in their system so why not try asking them, email them... You might be right... PAC can't be #1 at 140...
.

Again it's your point to make. I don't know anyone that takes Fightnews or Boxrec's ranks seriously other than you and Fightnews and Boxrec. And since that is 100% the basis of your "point" PROVE IT.

I don't want to belittle your humble opinion, you're entitled to it even how "tiny" it is...

BoxRec and Fightnews has millions of readers that probably agrees and believes in their rankings... It's openly and publicly published for everyone to see...

And you? You just wanting me to prove my point... ha ha

There's my point, published by BoxRec and Fightnews to millions of readers... These orgs can back up what's listed in their rankings unless it's a total mistake... Who knows, PAC was erroneously mistakenly placed at #1 at 140...
.

[killersheep]

My point is, these rankings orgs (BoxRec, Fightnews, Ring Mag, etc.) composed of several boxing experts and using powerful computers publicly published their rankings - rankings that they believed is true and correct according to their set of criteria... They have some basis on their rankings...

There could be flaws in their system so why not try asking them, email them... You might be right... PAC can't be #1 at 140...
.

Again it's your point to make. I don't know anyone that takes Fightnews or Boxrec's ranks seriously other than you and Fightnews and Boxrec. And since that is 100% the basis of your "point" PROVE IT.

I don't want to belittle your humble opinion, you're entitled to it even how "tiny" it is...

BoxRec and Fightnews has millions of readers that probably agrees and believes in their rankings... It's openly and publicly published for everyone to see...

And you? You just wanting to prove my point to you... ha ha

There's my point, published by BoxRec and Fightnews to millions of readers... These orgs can back up what's listed in their rankings unless it's a total mistake... Who knows, PAC was erroneously mistakenly placed at #1 at 140...
.

Yes that's what I want.