Boxrec RULES!!!!

[XaduBoxer]

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 ...
.

So you also agree that PAC is #5 p4p behind JMM?

I have no crazy problem with that... they have their own basis and computations for that... heck, Vazquez is no. 3 P4P, JMM 4 and PAC 5... There's no point of arguing with that...

But having no problem with BoxRec rankings doesn't mean I totally agree with them completely... lol
.

[OumaFan]

Saddoboxer's got alien persistence when it comes to Pac and a healthy devotion to , do you guys really want to get into this?

[OumaFan]

do you realize we have a thread wishing Manny Pacquaio happy birthday

I'm at a loss for words with that one, I've prided myself on pointless threads but come on

[Spicoli]

do you realize we have a thread wishing Manny Pacquaio happy birthday

I'm at a loss for words with that one, I've prided myself on pointless threads but come on

Not as priceless as the one started a couple of months ago,"Pac has just finished his shower and is now going to the gym"..... LmaOFF

An actual thead,anything to draw attention I suppose

[XaduBoxer]

My final thoughts before I leave this thread:

There's no point of criticizing BoxRec's computerized rankings point system. It may not be the perfect one but that's how they calculated each boxer's points. That's their basis. They have a mathematical formula.

Currently on their system, PAC is ranked no. 1 at 140 division (that's where they put PAC presently) but if they place PAC at 135 division, he will only be at no. 2 behind JMM. That's how their system works...
.

[killersheep]

My final thoughts before I leave this thread:

There's no point of criticizing BoxRec's computerized rankings point system. It may not be the perfect one but that's how they calculated each boxer's points. That's their basis. They have a mathematical formula.

Currently on their system, PAC is ranked no. 1 at 140 division (that's where they put PAC presently) but if they place PAC at 135 division, he will only be at no. 2 behind JMM. That's how their system works...
.

After 5 pages all you have is "because they said so"? I'm really dissapointed, I thought for sure by now you would have a reason why PAC should be ahead of Hatton at 140.

[XaduBoxer]

My final thoughts before I leave this thread:

There's no point of criticizing BoxRec's computerized rankings point system. It may not be the perfect one but that's how they calculated each boxer's points. That's their basis. They have a mathematical formula.

Currently on their system, PAC is ranked no. 1 at 140 division (that's where they put PAC presently) but if they place PAC at 135 division, he will only be at no. 2 behind JMM. That's how their system works...
.

After 5 pages all you have is "because they said so"? I'm really dissapointed, I thought for sure by now you would have a reason why PAC should be ahead of Hatton at 140.

I've mentioned my own reasons why PAC could be ahead of Hatton at 140 but you immediately trashed it. Your main reason why you can't accept it because PAC has not fought at 140 which were not really observed by rankings orgs and therefore not a very valid point.

[killersheep]

My final thoughts before I leave this thread:

There's no point of criticizing BoxRec's computerized rankings point system. It may not be the perfect one but that's how they calculated each boxer's points. That's their basis. They have a mathematical formula.

Currently on their system, PAC is ranked no. 1 at 140 division (that's where they put PAC presently) but if they place PAC at 135 division, he will only be at no. 2 behind JMM. That's how their system works...
.

After 5 pages all you have is "because they said so"? I'm really dissapointed, I thought for sure by now you would have a reason why PAC should be ahead of Hatton at 140.

I've mentioned my own reasons why PAC could be ahead of Hatton at 140 but you immediately trashed it. Your main reason why you can't accept it because PAC has not fought at 140 which were not really observed by rankings orgs and therefore not a very valid point.

I'm confused, if you are ranking who is the best fighter at 140 why would you use any data from another weight class?

[DaxxKahn]

My final thoughts before I leave this thread:

There's no point of criticizing BoxRec's computerized rankings point system. It may not be the perfect one but that's how they calculated each boxer's points. That's their basis. They have a mathematical formula.

Currently on their system, PAC is ranked no. 1 at 140 division (that's where they put PAC presently) but if they place PAC at 135 division, he will only be at no. 2 behind JMM. That's how their system works...
.

After 5 pages all you have is "because they said so"? I'm really dissapointed, I thought for sure by now you would have a reason why PAC should be ahead of Hatton at 140.

I've mentioned my own reasons why PAC could be ahead of Hatton at 140 but you immediately trashed it. Your main reason why you can't accept it because PAC has not fought at 140 which were not really observed by rankings orgs and therefore not a very valid point.

How the hell can you justify Pac above Malignaggi, Bradley and Holt let alone Hatton at 140? The man has yet to have 1 fight there....


















!!!!!!!!!!!!!!THIS JUST IN!!!!!!!!!!!!

IVAN CALDERON RANKED #1 AT HEAVYWEIGHT

WHY??

BECAUSE THE COMPUTER SAID SO

[TitoFan]

My final thoughts before I leave this thread:

There's no point of criticizing BoxRec's computerized rankings point system. It may not be the perfect one but that's how they calculated each boxer's points. That's their basis. They have a mathematical formula.

Currently on their system, PAC is ranked no. 1 at 140 division (that's where they put PAC presently) but if they place PAC at 135 division, he will only be at no. 2 behind JMM. That's how their system works...
.

After 5 pages all you have is "because they said so"? I'm really dissapointed, I thought for sure by now you would have a reason why PAC should be ahead of Hatton at 140.

I've mentioned my own reasons why PAC could be ahead of Hatton at 140 but you immediately trashed it. Your main reason why you can't accept it because PAC has not fought at 140 which were not really observed by rankings orgs and therefore not a very valid point.

SaddoBoxer, you'd have a little more credibility around these parts if you'd just be able to utter just 15 simple words: "Yes, I agree BoxRec's wrong by making Pac # 1 at 140 where he's never even fought."

Don't get me wrong, I'm as huge a Pac fan as anyone, especially now after having dismantled and humiliated the Golden Boy. But beyond that is where we part company. I can see things for the way they are, and do not continue to pursue arguments I know are wrong. Just a thought....

[killersheep]

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 ...
.

So you also agree that PAC is #5 p4p behind JMM?

I have no crazy problem with that... they have their own basis and computations for that... heck, Vazquez is no. 3 P4P, JMM 4 and PAC 5... There's no point of arguing with that...

But having no problem with BoxRec rankings doesn't mean I totally agree with them completely... lol
.

So you're back to not having a point.