Boxrec RULES!!!!

[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?

[XaduBoxer]

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?

BoxRec did it... As I've said no point in continuing to question BoxRec's rankings... We all know it's a computerized ranking point system.

Goodbye?

[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....

[XaduBoxer]

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....

My friend Tito, I know how you feel and so with Mr. Killer and many others with BoxRec placing PAC as #1 at 140. You know boxing ranking organizations like BoxRec and FightNews would ranked a boxer in a division that he has not fought yet as long as his next scheduled fight will be in that division or he already signify his intentions to fight in that division. BoxRec and FightNews do this all the time.

Let's take a look at FightNews current rankings at 135:



You see Edwin Valero at no. 6 who haven't fought or has no considerable fights at 135 yet. You see Barrera at no. 7, who (I think) only fought once at 135 against an aged unknown boxer. So how did Fightnews able to highly ranked Valero and Barrera at 135 if they haven't fought or has no considerable fights at 135? Surely Fightnews (and BoxRec) based the ranking on the previous performances of Valero and Barrera in their previous divisions.

Now with BoxRec placing PAC at #1 at 140 it's obvious that BoxRec considers PAC's boxing accomplishments greater than those boxers currently in the 140 division. PAC's next fight (I think) will probably be against Hatton at 140 on May 2, 2009. I think that possible Hatton fight is where BoxRec based their present ranking of PAC at 140 division instead of 135 or 147.

BoxRec and FightNews do this kind of rankings. That's the hard reality...

My friend Tito, I hope I got some of my credibility back (as if or assuming I have some credibility on this site)...
.