Boxrec RULES!!!!

[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.

[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]

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.

Are you sure? Is that all you want from me? LOL ha ha
.

[killersheep]

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.

Are you sure? Is that all you want from me? LOL ha ha
.

Well since you aren't confident enough in your argument to bring in your own evidence for your case, we can safely say you had no point to begin with and you're just talking. Therefore the thread stands as valid. It's ridiculous to have PAC ranked at #1 at 140.

[XaduBoxer]

Yes that's what I want.

Are you sure? Is that all you want from me? LOL ha ha
.

Well since you aren't confident enough in your argument to bring in your own evidence for your case, we can safely say you had no point to begin with and you're just talking. Therefore the thread stands as valid. It's ridiculous to have PAC ranked at #1 at 140.

Of course you have all the right to grumble here but as what I suggested, please contact BoxRec for it might be a big mistake putting PAC at #1 at 140... It's really unbelievable... Please do contact BoxRec...

Don't forget to post BoxRec's reply here, OK?
.

[killersheep]

Are you sure? Is that all you want from me? LOL ha ha
.

Well since you aren't confident enough in your argument to bring in your own evidence for your case, we can safely say you had no point to begin with and you're just talking. Therefore the thread stands as valid. It's ridiculous to have PAC ranked at #1 at 140.

Of course you have all the right to grumble here but as what I suggested, please contact BoxRec for it might be a big mistake putting PAC at #1 at 140... It's really unbelievable... Please do contact BoxRec...

Don't forget to post BoxRec's reply here, OK?
.

It's your responsibility don't pawn your work off on me.

[killersheep]

[XaduBoxer]

Well since you aren't confident enough in your argument to bring in your own evidence for your case, we can safely say you had no point to begin with and you're just talking. Therefore the thread stands as valid. It's ridiculous to have PAC ranked at #1 at 140.

Of course you have all the right to grumble here but as what I suggested, please contact BoxRec for it might be a big mistake putting PAC at #1 at 140... It's really unbelievable... Please do contact BoxRec...

Don't forget to post BoxRec's reply here, OK?
.

It's your responsibility don't pawn your work off on me.

You're the one who protested about it, questioning about it... For me, I just accepted it as it is... but could be a big fatal mistake
.

[Spicoli]

..........guess the crutches are needed after all.No independent thought from fanboy numba 1.

[killersheep]

..........guess the crutches are needed after all.No independent thought from fanboy numba 1.

Actually he's convinced me...........I now believe only in boxrec rankings!!

PAC # 5 p4p right behind JMM!!!!!!!!1111

[XaduBoxer]

Nice artwork there killa... I love it... I didn't know you're a great artist and debater (?) ...
.

[killersheep]

Nice artwork there killa... I love it... I didn't know you're a great artist and debater (?) ...
.

You get a response from BoxRec yet?

[XaduBoxer]

..........guess the crutches are needed after all.No independent thought from fanboy numba 1.

It's very difficult to justify for BoxRec's behalf so why not ask BoxRec for such very unbelievable ranking of PAC?

I just take it as it is since for me, there's possibility that PAC can be considered as no. 1 at 140 as what I pointed out in my previous posts here... It's also possible, that this is a big error... Hope killa can contact/email BoxRec...

[XaduBoxer]

Nice artwork there killa... I love it... I didn't know you're a great artist and debater (?) ...
.

You get a response from BoxRec yet?

I have no problem with them placing PAC as #1 at 140... Why hassle myself about this...

To those who vehemently protested about this ranking, why not throw tomatoes, rotten eggs, etc. on BoxRec ...
.