Boxrec RULES!!!!

[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

[ono]

PAC never fought that weight but he's already scheduled to fight the recognized no. 1 man at 140 (Hatton) on May 2, 2009 in Las Vegas, USA...

link to fight schedule -> BoxRec Boxing Records

Being the no.1 P4P and scheduled to fight the no. 1 (now former ) at 140 makes PAC as the new no. 1 at 140 (according to BoxRec ). Why complain if PAC has not fought at 140? PAC already fought at even higher weight at 147 !!!
.

Why not make Klitschko # 1 at all weights then? He's fought at even higher weights too!!

You got a tiny point... BUT Klitschko needs to fight (or had fought) at minimumweight/mini-flyweight (105 lbs.) and win convincingly in order to be considered as #1 in all weight division. BUT Klitschko can't and will not ever make the 105 lbs. limit That's why we have weight divisions...

At this moment, I think PAC can make 135 and 140... He can be ranked as #1 in those divisions being the #1 overall P4P...
.

[pacfan]

Haha! I was on page 1 reading between Killersheep and Saddoboxer, and then skipped straight to page 5 and it's still going the same..

Dare I read the other 3 in between.

Love rivalries on here..

You had me LOL'd on this one, Diz. That's exactly what I was thinking and I'm still LOL. I'm amazed and more amused at the unusually passionate devotion of Saddoboxer and Killasheep on this somewhat inane issue, not to mention some riders-on (there ain't no such word) taking some potshots in between. Well I needed a good entertainment for my otherwise boring weekend and this thread gave me just that. Who needs a boxing on lazy sundays if there are Saddoboxer and Killasheep debating, and it doesn't even matter whether the issue makes sense or not! Love you guys...

[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....

[leftylee]

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?

So why use data from other weight classes? Computerized or not.

Why don't you ask BoxRec? Or why don't you take a sleep for now Mr. Killer?

Can I go now? Nice talking to you...
.

That's a clear indication Killersheep just chewed you up and spat you out. And that my friend, is what he just done with you.

He had you off big time here.

Seriousley, your logic is beyond garbage and full of bias and flaws.

I know you adore Pac, but I didn't think that much. Damn!

[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)...
.

[XaduBoxer]

So why use data from other weight classes? Computerized or not.

Why don't you ask BoxRec? Or why don't you take a sleep for now Mr. Killer?

Can I go now? Nice talking to you...
.

That's a clear indication Killersheep just chewed you up and spat you out. And that my friend, is what he just done with you.

He had you off big time here.

Seriousley, your logic is beyond garbage and full of bias and flaws.

I know you adore Pac, but I didn't think that much. Damn!

Whatever you say Judge Lefty...
.

[XaduBoxer]

How about Ring Magazine's rankings? It looked acceptable enough... PAC is highly ranked simultaneously at 147 and 135 divisions (No PAC rankings at 140? I guess, maybe after the Hatton fight then PAC will be ranked at the same time in 3 divisions, 135, 140 and 147 by Ring Mag )...

Welterweight
Limit: 147 pounds
1. Antonio Margarito
2. Miguel Cotto
3. Shane Mosley
4. Joshua Clottey
5. Manny Pacquiao
6. Carlos Quintana
7. Zab Judah
8. Luis Collazo
9. Andre Berto
10. Isaac Hlatswayo

Lightweight
Limit: 135 pounds
CHAMPION: Juan Manuel Marquez
1. Nate Campbell
2. Manny Pacquiao
3. Juan Diaz
4. Joel Casamayor
5. David Diaz
6. Julio Diaz
7. Antonio Pitalua
8. Michael Katsidis
9. Ali Funeka
10. Yuri Romanov

[killersheep]

How about Ring Magazine's rankings? It looked acceptable enough... PAC is highly ranked simultaneously at 147 and 135 divisions (No PAC rankings at 140? I guess, maybe after the Hatton fight then PAC will be ranked at the same time in 3 divisions, 135, 140 and 147 by Ring Mag )...

Welterweight
Limit: 147 pounds
1. Antonio Margarito
2. Miguel Cotto
3. Shane Mosley
4. Joshua Clottey
5. Manny Pacquiao
6. Carlos Quintana
7. Zab Judah
8. Luis Collazo
9. Andre Berto
10. Isaac Hlatswayo

Lightweight
Limit: 135 pounds
CHAMPION: Juan Manuel Marquez
1. Nate Campbell
2. Manny Pacquiao
3. Juan Diaz
4. Joel Casamayor
5. David Diaz
6. Julio Diaz
7. Antonio Pitalua
8. Michael Katsidis
9. Ali Funeka
10. Yuri Romanov

The case of the ring has nothing to do with what we're talking about here, specifically because he has fought in these two divisions within the last year. You then bring up fightnews whose credibility is only one step above boxrec's, this argument is beyond over even if you don't realize it.
Let me explain a few things to you here, fightnews is not a sanctioning or officially recognized ranking institution, it is an entity that exists first and foremost to publish current news and events in the world of boxing and MMA, their rankings have very little credibility, because it is simply the opinions of fightnews staff. BoxRec, is literally a site based on keeping records and in general the schedules, the ranking system they use is mostly a plaything for the owners of the site and if you would do any research on the computerized system, you would realize that it mostly used as a resource of marketability of fighters rather than a realistic snapshot of the current standings of boxing this is alluded to by the moderators on the forum of boxrec itself where they discuss the most recent addition to the formula gives a fighter a higher ranking based on who well they rate the promoter. Please do a little research yourself a little bit, because you are coming off as a Pacquiao stalker rather than a fan of the sport.

[XaduBoxer]

How about Ring Magazine's rankings? It looked acceptable enough... PAC is highly ranked simultaneously at 147 and 135 divisions (No PAC rankings at 140? I guess, maybe after the Hatton fight then PAC will be ranked at the same time in 3 divisions, 135, 140 and 147 by Ring Mag )...

Welterweight
Limit: 147 pounds
1. Antonio Margarito
2. Miguel Cotto
3. Shane Mosley
4. Joshua Clottey
5. Manny Pacquiao
6. Carlos Quintana
7. Zab Judah
8. Luis Collazo
9. Andre Berto
10. Isaac Hlatswayo

Lightweight
Limit: 135 pounds
CHAMPION: Juan Manuel Marquez
1. Nate Campbell
2. Manny Pacquiao
3. Juan Diaz
4. Joel Casamayor
5. David Diaz
6. Julio Diaz
7. Antonio Pitalua
8. Michael Katsidis
9. Ali Funeka
10. Yuri Romanov

The case of the ring has nothing to do with what we're talking about here, specifically because he has fought in these two divisions within the last year. You then bring up fightnews whose credibility is only one step above boxrec's, this argument is beyond over even if you don't realize it.
Let me explain a few things to you here, fightnews is not a sanctioning or officially recognized ranking institution, it is an entity that exists first and foremost to publish current news and events in the world of boxing and MMA, their rankings have very little credibility, because it is simply the opinions of fightnews staff. BoxRec, is literally a site based on keeping records and in general the schedules, the ranking system they use is mostly a plaything for the owners of the site and if you would do any research on the computerized system, you would realize that it mostly used as a resource of marketability of fighters rather than a realistic snapshot of the current standings of boxing this is alluded to by the moderators on the forum of boxrec itself where they discuss the most recent addition to the formula gives a fighter a higher ranking based on who well they rate the promoter. Please do a little research yourself a little bit, because you are coming off as a Pacquiao stalker rather than a fan of the sport.

Ahhh so you only believed in official sanctioning and ranking organizations like WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO and other XYZ boxing organizations?

Here's their rankings at 135, explain to me the rankings of Valero and Barrera in these official sanctioning and ranking organizations (underlined in red):




You can't just criticize BoxRec (or FightNews), these sanctioning and ranking orgs, official or otherwise are all the same...

Even Ring Magazine's ranking system, it has it's own flaws and credibility problems (especially now that it's owned by Golden Boy)...
.

[DAWGSWIN]

To BoxRec's credit, they dropped Valuev from 7 to 13 after his "win" yesterday!

[killersheep]

How about Ring Magazine's rankings? It looked acceptable enough... PAC is highly ranked simultaneously at 147 and 135 divisions (No PAC rankings at 140? I guess, maybe after the Hatton fight then PAC will be ranked at the same time in 3 divisions, 135, 140 and 147 by Ring Mag )...

Welterweight
Limit: 147 pounds
1. Antonio Margarito
2. Miguel Cotto
3. Shane Mosley
4. Joshua Clottey
5. Manny Pacquiao
6. Carlos Quintana
7. Zab Judah
8. Luis Collazo
9. Andre Berto
10. Isaac Hlatswayo

Lightweight
Limit: 135 pounds
CHAMPION: Juan Manuel Marquez
1. Nate Campbell
2. Manny Pacquiao
3. Juan Diaz
4. Joel Casamayor
5. David Diaz
6. Julio Diaz
7. Antonio Pitalua
8. Michael Katsidis
9. Ali Funeka
10. Yuri Romanov

The case of the ring has nothing to do with what we're talking about here, specifically because he has fought in these two divisions within the last year. You then bring up fightnews whose credibility is only one step above boxrec's, this argument is beyond over even if you don't realize it.
Let me explain a few things to you here, fightnews is not a sanctioning or officially recognized ranking institution, it is an entity that exists first and foremost to publish current news and events in the world of boxing and MMA, their rankings have very little credibility, because it is simply the opinions of fightnews staff. BoxRec, is literally a site based on keeping records and in general the schedules, the ranking system they use is mostly a plaything for the owners of the site and if you would do any research on the computerized system, you would realize that it mostly used as a resource of marketability of fighters rather than a realistic snapshot of the current standings of boxing this is alluded to by the moderators on the forum of boxrec itself where they discuss the most recent addition to the formula gives a fighter a higher ranking based on who well they rate the promoter. Please do a little research yourself a little bit, because you are coming off as a Pacquiao stalker rather than a fan of the sport.

Ahhh so you only believed in official sanctioning and ranking organizations like WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO and other XYZ boxing organizations?

Here's their rankings at 135, explain to me the rankings of Valero and Barrera in these official sanctioning and ranking organizations (underlined in red):




You can't just criticize BoxRec (or FightNews), these sanctioning and ranking orgs, official or otherwise are all the same...

Even Ring Magazine's ranking system, it has it's own flaws and credibility problems (especially now that it's owned by Golden Boy)...
.

No I only believe the Ring, I think I have made pretty clear my view on the ABC straps, they are crap and rankings are bought and sold to the highest bidder. Next..............................

[XaduBoxer]

Gotta love them having PAC #1 at 140 when he's never fought at that weight.

They will probably fight each other next so they belong to the same division and I think it will be at 140 division...

On PAC placed above Hatton on the 140 rankings, I think you can't deny that PAC's boxing record and accomplishments is way above Hatton's and now that they belong to the same division, it carries that PAC is ranked higher than Hatton...

It's not pretty but that's how some rankings orgs operate...
.

[Spicoli]

Sorry SaddoBoxer but that is a load of shite!Overall accomplishments per division are one thing but it's not a crash a division free card supported by 'probably' and 'I thinks' against the best they have.There are always one too many jumps.No matter where they are 'ranked' at 140 I think Hatton is numero uno!
I can picture Kenny saying this HAHA,

Merry christmas

[killersheep]

Gotta love them having PAC #1 at 140 when he's never fought at that weight.

They will probably fight each other next so they belong to the same division and I think it will be at 140 division...

On PAC placed above Hatton on the 140 rankings, I think you can't deny that PAC's boxing record and accomplishments is way above Hatton's and now that they belong to the same division, it carries that PAC is ranked higher than Hatton...

It's not pretty but that's how some rankings orgs operate...
.

PAC has acheived nothing at 140 because he's never fought there. Perhaps instead of talking you should reread this thread. We are going to have to agree to disagree here because we fundamentally have differing opinions on what rankings should be.

I believe that rankings should reflect the current state of the game based on merit in the category heading (AKA facts), therefore I believe that rankings of Light Welter should reflect things that have happened at Light Welter.

You believe that a fighters ranking should be based on the opinion of how you THINK (AKA speculation) a fighter would do at a weight class. This makes no sense especially since it is not even definate (however likely it may seem) that PAC will even fight at 140.

To follow up with your bringing the alphabet soup into the mix, I have in fact written complaint letters to all the guilty parties, however I am not optimistic in getting a reply.