Boxrec RULES!!!!

[XaduBoxer]

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

My guess (it's only a guess or else ask BoxRec yourselves) is BoxRec's computerized ranking system is programmed to give more points to the boxer's ranking in P4P category and also more points for fights in higher weight division. Also more points if the boxer fought highly ranked boxers which is very obvious... I guess, currently PAC can be ranked at 135 or 140 or 147 just like what BoxRec, Fightnews and Ring Mag did...

That's my guess...

This is why I didn't want to get into this, you're just talking and not making a point.

I have evidence that back my claim. We can both agree that PAC has not fought at 140.

You have no evidence to prove that PAC should be ranked at 140, it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence to justify your case. Until you have a valid reason to put PAC ahead of Hatton at 140 go to your room and let the grown-ups talk.

Yes it's a fact that PAC has not fought at 140 but it's also a fact that he already fought at 147.

For example, if PAC fought and annihilated the man at 147 then it's also a given that PAC is expected to annihilate the man at 140. Just think it that way...

[killersheep]

My guess (it's only a guess or else ask BoxRec yourselves) is BoxRec's computerized ranking system is programmed to give more points to the boxer's ranking in P4P category and also more points for fights in higher weight division. Also more points if the boxer fought highly ranked boxers which is very obvious... I guess, currently PAC can be ranked at 135 or 140 or 147 just like what BoxRec, Fightnews and Ring Mag did...

That's my guess...

This is why I didn't want to get into this, you're just talking and not making a point.

I have evidence that back my claim. We can both agree that PAC has not fought at 140.

You have no evidence to prove that PAC should be ranked at 140, it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence to justify your case. Until you have a valid reason to put PAC ahead of Hatton at 140 go to your room and let the grown-ups talk.

Yes it's a fact that PAC has not fought at 140 but it's also a fact that he already fought at 147.

For example, if PAC fought and annihilated the man at 147 then it's also a given that PAC is expected to annihilate the man at 140. Just think it that way...

um what?

[Andre]

My guess (it's only a guess or else ask BoxRec yourselves) is BoxRec's computerized ranking system is programmed to give more points to the boxer's ranking in P4P category and also more points for fights in higher weight division. Also more points if the boxer fought highly ranked boxers which is very obvious... I guess, currently PAC can be ranked at 135 or 140 or 147 just like what BoxRec, Fightnews and Ring Mag did...

That's my guess...

This is why I didn't want to get into this, you're just talking and not making a point.

I have evidence that back my claim. We can both agree that PAC has not fought at 140.

You have no evidence to prove that PAC should be ranked at 140, it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence to justify your case. Until you have a valid reason to put PAC ahead of Hatton at 140 go to your room and let the grown-ups talk.

Yes it's a fact that PAC has not fought at 140 but it's also a fact that he already fought at 147.

For example, if PAC fought and annihilated the man at 147 then it's also a given that PAC is expected to annihilate the man at 140. Just think it that way...

Bull sh!t Floyd originally jumped 140 cause Kostya was there . He won at 147 and never got rated by anyone at 140 .

Its why allot of people are knockers of him and think he picked his way through and aimed at his marks.

Just cause he fought at the weight twice but then beat others at 147 doesnt mean the points from his 147 stint should be also added to the 140 should they?
If they should in your mind ;whats the difference between that and what your supporting in the above posts against Killersheeps true valid point against that system?

Surley you think it is a crap system really down deep don't you?

[Dizaster]

This is why I didn't want to get into this, you're just talking and not making a point.

I have evidence that back my claim. We can both agree that PAC has not fought at 140.

You have no evidence to prove that PAC should be ranked at 140, it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence to justify your case. Until you have a valid reason to put PAC ahead of Hatton at 140 go to your room and let the grown-ups talk.

Yes it's a fact that PAC has not fought at 140 but it's also a fact that he already fought at 147.

For example, if PAC fought and annihilated the man at 147 then it's also a given that PAC is expected to annihilate the man at 140. Just think it that way...

Bull sh!t Floyd originally jumped 140 cause Kostya was there . He won at 147 and never got rated by anyone at 140 .

Its why allot of people are knockers of him and think he picked his way through and aimed at his marks.

Just cause he fought at the weight twice but then beat others at 147 doesnt mean the points from his 147 stint should be also added to the 140 should they?
If they should in your mind ;whats the difference between that and what your supporting in the above posts against Killersheep?

Well that's exactly it I think.. I wrote about 16 pages and 2 points back why I thought their was arguements for both... But this is a perfect highlight of why skipping a division (140) and destroying someone above it (147) (a fighter who was FAR from the biggest challenge in that higher weight anyway), does not mean you are going to knock off the top person at the weight below (140, and a tough Hatton)
It's a tough tough call in itself to knock someone off the top of 140 who has over and over earned his spot there, by someone who went from 1 fight at 135 to 1 fight 147. And not against the very top guys at either of those weights...

I think it's a case where Boxrec needed to go: "Hey, look what the points system gave us guys? Pac above Hatton at 140?.. I think we need to adjust that. Considering .... blah blah blah.." (every point that has been made against it in this thread)
That makes more sense..

[XaduBoxer]

Come'on people, Killer started this thread protesting why PAC is rated #1 by BoxRec at 140 when in fact PAC has not fought at 140 (Killer's main argument why PAC can't be rated at 140)... Then I pointed out that BoxRec, WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, Fightnews ranked boxers even if they haven't fought in a certain division...

Now if PAC will be rated by BoxRec at 147, a division he just fought at, BoxRec will still rank PAC as #1 at 147 because PAC has the highest points among boxers at 147 according to BoxRec computerized points system. Higher than Margo, Mosley, Cotto...

Does anybody has any problems with BoxRec ranking PAC as #1 at 147?? PAC has just fought in that division...

BoxRec, WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, Fightnews, Ring Mag ranking system could be flawed... Better live with it people since there's no perfect system... They could be flawed on how they calculate the rankings and others were flawed by corruption and boxing politics...

That's all my points...
.

[TitoFan]

Come'on people, Killer started this thread protesting why PAC is rated #1 by BoxRec at 140 when in fact PAC has not fought at 140 (Killer's main argument why PAC can't be rated at 140)... Then I pointed out that BoxRec, WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, Fightnews ranked boxers even if they haven't fought in a certain division...

Now if PAC will be rated by BoxRec at 147, a division he just fought at, BoxRec will still rank PAC as #1 at 147 because PAC has the highest points among boxers at 147 according to BoxRec computerized points system. Higher than Margo, Mosley, Cotto...(ABSURD BEYOND WORDS)

Does anybody has any problems with BoxRec ranking PAC as #1 at 147??(ABSO-FUKING-LUTELY) PAC has just fought in that division...

BoxRec, WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, Fightnews, Ring Mag ranking system could be flawed...(NO "COULD BE" ABOUT IT... IT IS FLAWED) Better live with it people since there's no perfect system... They could be flawed on how they calculate the rankings and others were flawed by corruption and boxing politics...

That's all my points...
.

Never have I seen a topic beaten to death as much as this one. In the end, does this change anything?

[Julius Rain]

that is weird, although i think pac is going to beat hatton. I do not agree in ranking pac as number 1 in a division he has not fought in yet.

boxrec is only good for boxing records, NOT RANKINGS!

well maybe boxrec are just saving themselves the time of having to change it after pac vs hatton

[XaduBoxer]

Come'on people, Killer started this thread protesting why PAC is rated #1 by BoxRec at 140 when in fact PAC has not fought at 140 (Killer's main argument why PAC can't be rated at 140)... Then I pointed out that BoxRec, WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, Fightnews ranked boxers even if they haven't fought in a certain division...

Now if PAC will be rated by BoxRec at 147, a division he just fought at, BoxRec will still rank PAC as #1 at 147 because PAC has the highest points among boxers at 147 according to BoxRec computerized points system. Higher than Margo, Mosley, Cotto...(ABSURD BEYOND WORDS)

Does anybody has any problems with BoxRec ranking PAC as #1 at 147??(ABSO-FUKING-LUTELY) PAC has just fought in that division...

BoxRec, WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, Fightnews, Ring Mag ranking system could be flawed...(NO "COULD BE" ABOUT IT... IT IS FLAWED) Better live with it people since there's no perfect system... They could be flawed on how they calculate the rankings and others were flawed by corruption and boxing politics...

That's all my points...
.

Never have I seen a topic beaten to death as much as this one. In the end, does this change anything?

My friend Tito, the answer is a big NO ... The flaws been there long time ago... No matter how many grumblings threads you started, how many emails you sent to these rankings organizations, how many protest letters you sent to them, they will still stick to their own ratings system since they can back it up. They can justify their own published rankings since they have some basis of doing it even how "flawed" it is to the eyes of many people...

Better ignore it or just live with it... That's life in boxing...
.

[kingfrnk]

Come'on people, Killer started this thread protesting why PAC is rated #1 by BoxRec at 140 when in fact PAC has not fought at 140 (Killer's main argument why PAC can't be rated at 140)... Then I pointed out that BoxRec, WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, Fightnews ranked boxers even if they haven't fought in a certain division...

Now if PAC will be rated by BoxRec at 147, a division he just fought at, BoxRec will still rank PAC as #1 at 147 because PAC has the highest points among boxers at 147 according to BoxRec computerized points system. Higher than Margo, Mosley, Cotto...

Does anybody has any problems with BoxRec ranking PAC as #1 at 147?? PAC has just fought in that division...

BoxRec, WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, Fightnews, Ring Mag ranking system could be flawed... Better live with it people since there's no perfect system... They could be flawed on how they calculate the rankings and others were flawed by corruption and boxing politics...

That's all my points...
.

i have a problem with that point. Oscar isnt rated at 147 at ALL so why the hell would pac get rated at 147 at all?? that just stupid to rank Pac at 147 cause he beat oscar who wasnt rated at 147.

[XaduBoxer]

Come'on people, Killer started this thread protesting why PAC is rated #1 by BoxRec at 140 when in fact PAC has not fought at 140 (Killer's main argument why PAC can't be rated at 140)... Then I pointed out that BoxRec, WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, Fightnews ranked boxers even if they haven't fought in a certain division...

Now if PAC will be rated by BoxRec at 147, a division he just fought at, BoxRec will still rank PAC as #1 at 147 because PAC has the highest points among boxers at 147 according to BoxRec computerized points system. Higher than Margo, Mosley, Cotto...

Does anybody has any problems with BoxRec ranking PAC as #1 at 147?? PAC has just fought in that division...

BoxRec, WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, Fightnews, Ring Mag ranking system could be flawed... Better live with it people since there's no perfect system... They could be flawed on how they calculate the rankings and others were flawed by corruption and boxing politics...

That's all my points...
.

i have a problem with that point. Oscar isnt rated at 147 at ALL so why the hell would pac get rated at 147 at all?? that just stupid to rank Pac at 147 cause he beat oscar who wasnt rated at 147.

As expected, many people will have problems if BoxRec will rank PAC #1 at 147 division. Just like how many people had problems with PAC #1 at 140 or if ranked #1 at 135 division...
.