Boxrec RULES!!!!

[XaduBoxer]

Come'on people, Killer started this thread protesting why PAC is rated #1 by BoxRec at 140 when in fact PAC has not fought at 140 (Killer's main argument why PAC can't be rated at 140)... Then I pointed out that BoxRec, WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, Fightnews ranked boxers even if they haven't fought in a certain division...

Now if PAC will be rated by BoxRec at 147, a division he just fought at, BoxRec will still rank PAC as #1 at 147 because PAC has the highest points among boxers at 147 according to BoxRec computerized points system. Higher than Margo, Mosley, Cotto...

Does anybody has any problems with BoxRec ranking PAC as #1 at 147?? PAC has just fought in that division...

BoxRec, WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, Fightnews, Ring Mag ranking system could be flawed... Better live with it people since there's no perfect system... They could be flawed on how they calculate the rankings and others were flawed by corruption and boxing politics...

That's all my points...
.

[TitoFan]

Come'on people, Killer started this thread protesting why PAC is rated #1 by BoxRec at 140 when in fact PAC has not fought at 140 (Killer's main argument why PAC can't be rated at 140)... Then I pointed out that BoxRec, WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, Fightnews ranked boxers even if they haven't fought in a certain division...

Now if PAC will be rated by BoxRec at 147, a division he just fought at, BoxRec will still rank PAC as #1 at 147 because PAC has the highest points among boxers at 147 according to BoxRec computerized points system. Higher than Margo, Mosley, Cotto...(ABSURD BEYOND WORDS)

Does anybody has any problems with BoxRec ranking PAC as #1 at 147??(ABSO-FUKING-LUTELY) PAC has just fought in that division...

BoxRec, WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, Fightnews, Ring Mag ranking system could be flawed...(NO "COULD BE" ABOUT IT... IT IS FLAWED) Better live with it people since there's no perfect system... They could be flawed on how they calculate the rankings and others were flawed by corruption and boxing politics...

That's all my points...
.

Never have I seen a topic beaten to death as much as this one. In the end, does this change anything?

[Julius Rain]

that is weird, although i think pac is going to beat hatton. I do not agree in ranking pac as number 1 in a division he has not fought in yet.

boxrec is only good for boxing records, NOT RANKINGS!

well maybe boxrec are just saving themselves the time of having to change it after pac vs hatton

[XaduBoxer]

Come'on people, Killer started this thread protesting why PAC is rated #1 by BoxRec at 140 when in fact PAC has not fought at 140 (Killer's main argument why PAC can't be rated at 140)... Then I pointed out that BoxRec, WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, Fightnews ranked boxers even if they haven't fought in a certain division...

Now if PAC will be rated by BoxRec at 147, a division he just fought at, BoxRec will still rank PAC as #1 at 147 because PAC has the highest points among boxers at 147 according to BoxRec computerized points system. Higher than Margo, Mosley, Cotto...(ABSURD BEYOND WORDS)

Does anybody has any problems with BoxRec ranking PAC as #1 at 147??(ABSO-FUKING-LUTELY) PAC has just fought in that division...

BoxRec, WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, Fightnews, Ring Mag ranking system could be flawed...(NO "COULD BE" ABOUT IT... IT IS FLAWED) Better live with it people since there's no perfect system... They could be flawed on how they calculate the rankings and others were flawed by corruption and boxing politics...

That's all my points...
.

Never have I seen a topic beaten to death as much as this one. In the end, does this change anything?

My friend Tito, the answer is a big NO ... The flaws been there long time ago... No matter how many grumblings threads you started, how many emails you sent to these rankings organizations, how many protest letters you sent to them, they will still stick to their own ratings system since they can back it up. They can justify their own published rankings since they have some basis of doing it even how "flawed" it is to the eyes of many people...

Better ignore it or just live with it... That's life in boxing...
.

[kingfrnk]

Come'on people, Killer started this thread protesting why PAC is rated #1 by BoxRec at 140 when in fact PAC has not fought at 140 (Killer's main argument why PAC can't be rated at 140)... Then I pointed out that BoxRec, WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, Fightnews ranked boxers even if they haven't fought in a certain division...

Now if PAC will be rated by BoxRec at 147, a division he just fought at, BoxRec will still rank PAC as #1 at 147 because PAC has the highest points among boxers at 147 according to BoxRec computerized points system. Higher than Margo, Mosley, Cotto...

Does anybody has any problems with BoxRec ranking PAC as #1 at 147?? PAC has just fought in that division...

BoxRec, WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, Fightnews, Ring Mag ranking system could be flawed... Better live with it people since there's no perfect system... They could be flawed on how they calculate the rankings and others were flawed by corruption and boxing politics...

That's all my points...
.

i have a problem with that point. Oscar isnt rated at 147 at ALL so why the hell would pac get rated at 147 at all?? that just stupid to rank Pac at 147 cause he beat oscar who wasnt rated at 147.

[XaduBoxer]

Come'on people, Killer started this thread protesting why PAC is rated #1 by BoxRec at 140 when in fact PAC has not fought at 140 (Killer's main argument why PAC can't be rated at 140)... Then I pointed out that BoxRec, WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, Fightnews ranked boxers even if they haven't fought in a certain division...

Now if PAC will be rated by BoxRec at 147, a division he just fought at, BoxRec will still rank PAC as #1 at 147 because PAC has the highest points among boxers at 147 according to BoxRec computerized points system. Higher than Margo, Mosley, Cotto...

Does anybody has any problems with BoxRec ranking PAC as #1 at 147?? PAC has just fought in that division...

BoxRec, WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, Fightnews, Ring Mag ranking system could be flawed... Better live with it people since there's no perfect system... They could be flawed on how they calculate the rankings and others were flawed by corruption and boxing politics...

That's all my points...
.

i have a problem with that point. Oscar isnt rated at 147 at ALL so why the hell would pac get rated at 147 at all?? that just stupid to rank Pac at 147 cause he beat oscar who wasnt rated at 147.

As expected, many people will have problems if BoxRec will rank PAC #1 at 147 division. Just like how many people had problems with PAC #1 at 140 or if ranked #1 at 135 division...
.