Boxrec RULES!!!!

[leftylee]

LOL ... Even Team Hatton acknowledged that Pacquiao is the man...

"Manny is the man and if you want to fight the man they have got the whip hand."

I'm not sure why you can't accept that PAC is greater than Hatton including at 140... LOL...
.

No source and out of context as expected. I will not acknowledge PAC has done anything at 140 until he does something at 140.

Ohh you're still sticking to your 140 argument... Since you're a believer of Ring Mag, PAC is ranked at #5 at 147 and ranked #2 at 135 at the same time, it means PAC has done everything from 135 to 147 according to Ring Mag... 140 is just but in between 135 and 147...

BTW, the source (link) of Team Hatton accepting that PAC is the man :

Daily Star: Simply The Best 7 Days A Week :: In The Ring :: �20m Hart pay Pacq-et

The Daily Star is considered a load of shitt. That bad I wouldn't wipe my ass with it, nevermind buy it. It's full of lies and rumours.

Using a tabloid newspaper as your souce You really have went to new low's

[TitoFan]

Wow... I consider myself a veteran of the forum (been here about 3 1/2 yrs), and I've probably never seen such a long-lasting, unwielding argument such as this one. At least one that hasn't degenerated into a "name-calling", "manhood-questioning", "mother-mentioning" free for all. Kudos to both.



For the record, I still agree with Killersheep's point of view. And what I want to say to Saddoboxer is:

Hey bro... it doesn't diminish from Pacquiao's greatness to say he shouldn't be ranked # 1 at 140, if that's what worries you. In my eyes, Pac is close to being, if not THE #1 p4p fighter in the world right now. And you KNOW how many points he went up in MY personal "fanbook" after he whipped Oscar. But no way he's # 1 at 140 when he has never fought there. That's just the way it goes.

[XaduBoxer]

My point is, that's how BoxRec do the ratings. Let's take a look of BoxRec top 3 boxers with their corresponding points in 147, 140 and 135 divisions:

147
1. Antonio Margarito 1327
2. Shane Mosley 832
3. Miguel Angel Cotto 722

140
1. Manny Pacquiao 1673
2. Ricky Hatton 1469
3. Andriy Kotelnik 905

135
1. Juan Manuel Marquez 1592
2. Nate Campbell 1097
3. Joan Guzman 813

If BoxRec places Pacquiao in any of these 3 divisions, he will be the #1 in that division since he has the highest points among the boxers.

The argument that he can't be #1 because he hasn't fought in that division can't be used here. PAC fought at 147 and 135 and he still has the highest points so BoxRec will consider him as #1 in those divisions. So those using this argument can't complain if BoxRec put PAC as #1 in 147 or in 135 division since he fought in those divisions.

We all know long time ago that BoxRec computerized points ranking system could be flawed. Why all the grumbles?

BoxRec can place PAC as #1 in 147 or 140 or 135 division since he has the highest points among the boxers in those divisions.

You can continue complaining but that's how BoxRec do it...
.

[killersheep]

My point is, that's how BoxRec do the ratings. Let's take a look of BoxRec top 3 boxers with their corresponding points in 147, 140 and 135 divisions:

147
1. Antonio Margarito 1327
2. Shane Mosley 832
3. Miguel Angel Cotto 722

140
1. Manny Pacquiao 1673
2. Ricky Hatton 1469
3. Andriy Kotelnik 905

135
1. Juan Manuel Marquez 1592
2. Nate Campbell 1097
3. Joan Guzman 813

If BoxRec places Pacquiao in any of these 3 divisions, he will be the #1 in that division since he has the highest points among the boxers.

The argument that he can't be #1 because he hasn't fought in that division can't be used here. PAC fought at 147 and 135 and he still has the highest points so BoxRec will consider him as #1 in those divisions. So those using this argument can't complain if BoxRec put PAC as #1 in 147 or in 135 division since he fought in those divisions.

We all know long time ago that BoxRec computerized points ranking system could be flawed. Why all the grumbles?

BoxRec can place PAC as #1 in 147 or 140 or 135 division since he has the highest points among the boxers in those divisions.

You can continue complaining but that's how BoxRec do it...
.

And that's why their system is utter crap. The grumbles continue because you keep trying to defend a flawed system. This thread wouldn't have lasted as many pages and posts if you had not started making shit up and quoting tabloids to try to verify what can't be proven.

PS. Boxrec, The WBC, The WBA and the WBO still have not written anything back in defense of Pacquiao or Valero, must be because of the holiday season.

[XaduBoxer]

My point is, that's how BoxRec do the ratings. Let's take a look of BoxRec top 3 boxers with their corresponding points in 147, 140 and 135 divisions:

147
1. Antonio Margarito 1327
2. Shane Mosley 832
3. Miguel Angel Cotto 722

140
1. Manny Pacquiao 1673
2. Ricky Hatton 1469
3. Andriy Kotelnik 905

135
1. Juan Manuel Marquez 1592
2. Nate Campbell 1097
3. Joan Guzman 813

If BoxRec places Pacquiao in any of these 3 divisions, he will be the #1 in that division since he has the highest points among the boxers.

The argument that he can't be #1 because he hasn't fought in that division can't be used here. PAC fought at 147 and 135 and he still has the highest points so BoxRec will consider him as #1 in those divisions. So those using this argument can't complain if BoxRec put PAC as #1 in 147 or in 135 division since he fought in those divisions.

We all know long time ago that BoxRec computerized points ranking system could be flawed. Why all the grumbles?

BoxRec can place PAC as #1 in 147 or 140 or 135 division since he has the highest points among the boxers in those divisions.

You can continue complaining but that's how BoxRec do it...
.

And that's why their system is utter crap. The grumbles continue because you keep trying to defend a flawed system. This thread wouldn't have lasted as many pages and posts if you had not started making shit up and quoting tabloids to try to verify what can't be proven.

PS. Boxrec, The WBC, The WBA and the WBO still have not written anything back in defense of Pacquiao or Valero, must be because of the holiday season.

We all knew already that BoxRec points system of ratings could be flawed... If BoxRec put PAC at 147 division (PAC fought there), PAC will be still #1 in 147 division and again you will complain why PAC will be ahead of such boxers like Margarito but this time you cannot use the argument that PAC can't be that high is that division since he has not fought there... It will not be a valid argument and you will look for another reason why PAC can't be ranked that high at 147... Same thing...

Better for you to ignore BoxRec since whatever grumblings you will make, they can rate PAC as #1 in 147, 140 or 135 division... Their computerized point system of rankings will back it up...
.

[Youngblood]

Redundancy x infinity.

[Spicoli]

Jeezus,this still going on??Some dogs just have to be left to chase their tails I guess.

[XaduBoxer]

No source and out of context as expected. I will not acknowledge PAC has done anything at 140 until he does something at 140.

Ohh you're still sticking to your 140 argument... Since you're a believer of Ring Mag, PAC is ranked at #5 at 147 and ranked #2 at 135 at the same time, it means PAC has done everything from 135 to 147 according to Ring Mag... 140 is just but in between 135 and 147...

BTW, the source (link) of Team Hatton accepting that PAC is the man :

Daily Star: Simply The Best 7 Days A Week :: In The Ring :: �20m Hart pay Pacq-et

The Daily Star is considered a load of shitt. That bad I wouldn't wipe my ass with it, nevermind buy it. It's full of lies and rumours.

Using a tabloid newspaper as your souce You really have went to new low's

I'm not a Brit... I'm not aware that British papers are full of shit... But I think these shitty British papers (managed by shitty people) doesn't really reflect the majority characteristics of its people...
.

[killersheep]

Ohh you're still sticking to your 140 argument... Since you're a believer of Ring Mag, PAC is ranked at #5 at 147 and ranked #2 at 135 at the same time, it means PAC has done everything from 135 to 147 according to Ring Mag... 140 is just but in between 135 and 147...

BTW, the source (link) of Team Hatton accepting that PAC is the man :

Daily Star: Simply The Best 7 Days A Week :: In The Ring :: �20m Hart pay Pacq-et

The Daily Star is considered a load of shitt. That bad I wouldn't wipe my ass with it, nevermind buy it. It's full of lies and rumours.

Using a tabloid newspaper as your souce You really have went to new low's

I'm not a Brit... I'm not aware that British papers are full of shit... But I think these shitty British papers (managed by shitty people) doesn't really reflect the majority characteristics of its people...
.

You used a tabloid as your source.

[leftylee]

The Daily Star is considered a load of shitt. That bad I wouldn't wipe my ass with it, nevermind buy it. It's full of lies and rumours.

Using a tabloid newspaper as your souce You really have went to new low's

I'm not a Brit... I'm not aware that British papers are full of shit... But I think these shitty British papers (managed by shitty people) doesn't really reflect the majority characteristics of its people...
.

You used a tabloid as your source.

[HattonTheHammer]

still to this day to come across a boxing rankings system ive liked mainly due to the fact 95% of us at the very least have disagreements with most of them.

suffice to say pac being number 1 at 140 despite never ever fighting in the division and hattons 44-0 having more than earned his number 1 status in there is a complete disgrace!!

[XaduBoxer]

The Daily Star is considered a load of shitt. That bad I wouldn't wipe my ass with it, nevermind buy it. It's full of lies and rumours.

Using a tabloid newspaper as your souce You really have went to new low's

I'm not a Brit... I'm not aware that British papers are full of shit... But I think these shitty British papers (managed by shitty people) doesn't really reflect the majority characteristics of its people...
.

You used a tabloid as your source.

How about finding a tabloid quoting PAC saying "Hatton is the man"? Nothing? Nada?

At least there's an existing tabloid quoting Team Hatton saying that PAC is the man... Sometimes there's truth to some rumours...
.

[Andre]

The Daily Star is considered a load of shitt. That bad I wouldn't wipe my ass with it, nevermind buy it. It's full of lies and rumours.

Using a tabloid newspaper as your souce You really have went to new low's

I'm not a Brit... I'm not aware that British papers are full of shit... But I think these shitty British papers (managed by shitty people) doesn't really reflect the majority characteristics of its people...
.

You used a tabloid as your source.

Killer sheep you have the patience of a saint,I dont know how you do it in regards to someone with no ears and just a mouth driven from one continual point.

For me, it has to be; (no fight no blame) otherwise Im bound to point out personality flaws or the egos control over the real whole mind as my main points.

There are about 10 old posters who rarley come into this section now becuase of this type of rubbish that just keeps getting strewn over and fukin over for no other reason than someones ego.