Quote Originally Posted by killersheep View Post
Quote Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer View Post
Quote Originally Posted by killersheep View Post

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?