Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
Quote Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer View Post
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...
.