Boxrec RULES!!!!

[Spicoli]

I am very interested how Pac is ranked at #1 in the 140 division least in the eyes of Boxrec and more so in the eyes of one of Pacs top cheerleaders...do tell Saddoboxer

[killersheep]

If I failed, I think your rumblings on BoxRec is a worse failure... Try to contact them and question them why they have PAC #1 at 140 and let's see what you will get...
.

I haven't failed at all, my point stands you can't rank a fighter as #1 in a division they haven't fought in. I don't need boxrec to justify their flawed system.

Ahh welcome Mr. Perfect (never failed ) ... So you think you're larger than BoxRec and you will not hear their explanation why PAC is #1 at 140... Go on... live in your fantasy world...
.

Yes in my crazy fantasy world, you have to fight in a weight class to be ranked in it.

[XaduBoxer]

I am very interested how Pac is ranked at #1 in the 140 division least in the eyes of Boxrec and more so in the eyes of one of Pacs top cheerleaders...do tell Saddoboxer

My guess (it's only a guess or else ask BoxRec yourselves) is BoxRec's computerized ranking system is programmed to give more points to the boxer's ranking in P4P category and also more points for fights in higher weight division. Also more points if the boxer fought highly ranked boxers which is very obvious... I guess, currently PAC can be ranked at 135 or 140 or 147 just like what BoxRec, Fightnews and Ring Mag did...

That's my guess...

[killersheep]

Here is Boxrec's official reason for having PAC at # 1 at 140

r_a_new = r_a + 0.345*v*cd*r_b*had_b + (0.345/(1+2*cd))*v*(r_b*had_b - r_a*had_a)
r_b_new = r_b - 0.345*v*cd*r_b*had_b - (0.345/(1+2*cd))*v*(r_b*had_b - r_a*had_a)

1. The ratings are decreased for moving up to higher weight divisions by the square of the reciprocal ratio of the weights limits of the divisions--and they are increased by the same factor for moving down the divisions.
2. The ratings are equalized between divisions in relation to average points of the boxers ranked #8, #9, #10, #11 and #12 in a division.

There you go, straight from boxrec. Still don't get how that put's him ahead of anyone that's fought at 140.

[killersheep]

I am very interested how Pac is ranked at #1 in the 140 division least in the eyes of Boxrec and more so in the eyes of one of Pacs top cheerleaders...do tell Saddoboxer

My guess (it's only a guess or else ask BoxRec yourselves) is BoxRec's computerized ranking system is programmed to give more points to the boxer's ranking in P4P category and also more points for fights in higher weight division. Also more points if the boxer fought highly ranked boxers which is very obvious... I guess, currently PAC can be ranked at 135 or 140 or 147 just like what BoxRec, Fightnews and Ring Mag did...

That's my guess...

This is why I didn't want to get into this, you're just talking and not making a point.

I have evidence that back my claim. We can both agree that PAC has not fought at 140.

You have no evidence to prove that PAC should be ranked at 140, it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence to justify your case. Until you have a valid reason to put PAC ahead of Hatton at 140 go to your room and let the grown-ups talk.

[XaduBoxer]

I haven't failed at all, my point stands you can't rank a fighter as #1 in a division they haven't fought in. I don't need boxrec to justify their flawed system.

Ahh welcome Mr. Perfect (never failed ) ... So you think you're larger than BoxRec and you will not hear their explanation why PAC is #1 at 140... Go on... live in your fantasy world...
.

Yes in my crazy fantasy world, you have to fight in a weight class to be ranked in it.

Sorry but that's not the case in real world rankings organization... Valero haven't fought at 135 yet but he's already ranked there by Fightnews (see not only BoxRec)... I think we have discussed this before (7 months ago?) in the case of PAC and Guzman being ranked at 135 even they have not fought yet in that division...

Anyway, it seems you're enjoying in your crazy fantasy world... continue living in it... coz what matters most is if you enjoy it or not...
.

[XaduBoxer]

Here is Boxrec's official reason for having PAC at # 1 at 140

r_a_new = r_a + 0.345*v*cd*r_b*had_b + (0.345/(1+2*cd))*v*(r_b*had_b - r_a*had_a)
r_b_new = r_b - 0.345*v*cd*r_b*had_b - (0.345/(1+2*cd))*v*(r_b*had_b - r_a*had_a)

1. The ratings are decreased for moving up to higher weight divisions by the square of the reciprocal ratio of the weights limits of the divisions--and they are increased by the same factor for moving down the divisions.
2. The ratings are equalized between divisions in relation to average points of the boxers ranked #8, #9, #10, #11 and #12 in a division.

There you go, straight from boxrec. Still don't get how that put's him ahead of anyone that's fought at 140.

That formula is too complicated for us humans...

That's why I told you to email and ask BoxRec... I'm sure they have a valid explanation why PAC is #1 at 140... That's the most sensible action to do... Just do it Mr. killer...

.

[killersheep]

Ahh welcome Mr. Perfect (never failed ) ... So you think you're larger than BoxRec and you will not hear their explanation why PAC is #1 at 140... Go on... live in your fantasy world...
.

Yes in my crazy fantasy world, you have to fight in a weight class to be ranked in it.

Sorry but that's not the case in real world rankings organization... Valero haven't fought at 135 yet but he's already ranked there by Fightnews (see not only BoxRec)... I think we have discussed this before (7 months ago?) in the case of PAC and Guzman being ranked at 135 even they have not fought yet in that division...

Anyway, it seems you're enjoying in your crazy fantasy world... continue living in it... coz what matters most is if you enjoy it or not...
.

That's it? I thought for sure you would have tried to prove your point by now.

[killersheep]

Here is Boxrec's official reason for having PAC at # 1 at 140

r_a_new = r_a + 0.345*v*cd*r_b*had_b + (0.345/(1+2*cd))*v*(r_b*had_b - r_a*had_a)
r_b_new = r_b - 0.345*v*cd*r_b*had_b - (0.345/(1+2*cd))*v*(r_b*had_b - r_a*had_a)

1. The ratings are decreased for moving up to higher weight divisions by the square of the reciprocal ratio of the weights limits of the divisions--and they are increased by the same factor for moving down the divisions.
2. The ratings are equalized between divisions in relation to average points of the boxers ranked #8, #9, #10, #11 and #12 in a division.

There you go, straight from boxrec. Still don't get how that put's him ahead of anyone that's fought at 140.

That formula is too complicated for us humans...

That's why I told you to email and ask BoxRec... I'm sure they have a valid explanation why PAC is #1 at 140... That's the most sensible action to do... Just do it Mr. killer...

.

It's your point to prove.

[XaduBoxer]

I am very interested how Pac is ranked at #1 in the 140 division least in the eyes of Boxrec and more so in the eyes of one of Pacs top cheerleaders...do tell Saddoboxer

My guess (it's only a guess or else ask BoxRec yourselves) is BoxRec's computerized ranking system is programmed to give more points to the boxer's ranking in P4P category and also more points for fights in higher weight division. Also more points if the boxer fought highly ranked boxers which is very obvious... I guess, currently PAC can be ranked at 135 or 140 or 147 just like what BoxRec, Fightnews and Ring Mag did...

That's my guess...

This is why I didn't want to get into this, you're just talking and not making a point.

I have evidence that back my claim. We can both agree that PAC has not fought at 140.

You have no evidence to prove that PAC should be ranked at 140, it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence to justify your case. Until you have a valid reason to put PAC ahead of Hatton at 140 go to your room and let the grown-ups talk.

Yes it's a fact that PAC has not fought at 140 but it's also a fact that he already fought at 147.

For example, if PAC fought and annihilated the man at 147 then it's also a given that PAC is expected to annihilate the man at 140. Just think it that way...

[Spicoli]

You sell many used cars with that weak stuff Saddo Boxer.... Do you have a stance/opinion and or point.....or should we rely on your crutch in Boxrec etc....I'm waiting for the gong to sound overhere

[killersheep]

My guess (it's only a guess or else ask BoxRec yourselves) is BoxRec's computerized ranking system is programmed to give more points to the boxer's ranking in P4P category and also more points for fights in higher weight division. Also more points if the boxer fought highly ranked boxers which is very obvious... I guess, currently PAC can be ranked at 135 or 140 or 147 just like what BoxRec, Fightnews and Ring Mag did...

That's my guess...

This is why I didn't want to get into this, you're just talking and not making a point.

I have evidence that back my claim. We can both agree that PAC has not fought at 140.

You have no evidence to prove that PAC should be ranked at 140, it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence to justify your case. Until you have a valid reason to put PAC ahead of Hatton at 140 go to your room and let the grown-ups talk.

Yes it's a fact that PAC has not fought at 140 but it's also a fact that he already fought at 147.

For example, if PAC fought and annihilated the man at 147 then it's also a given that PAC is expected to annihilate the man at 140. Just think it that way...

um what?

[XaduBoxer]

Here is Boxrec's official reason for having PAC at # 1 at 140

r_a_new = r_a + 0.345*v*cd*r_b*had_b + (0.345/(1+2*cd))*v*(r_b*had_b - r_a*had_a)
r_b_new = r_b - 0.345*v*cd*r_b*had_b - (0.345/(1+2*cd))*v*(r_b*had_b - r_a*had_a)

1. The ratings are decreased for moving up to higher weight divisions by the square of the reciprocal ratio of the weights limits of the divisions--and they are increased by the same factor for moving down the divisions.
2. The ratings are equalized between divisions in relation to average points of the boxers ranked #8, #9, #10, #11 and #12 in a division.

There you go, straight from boxrec. Still don't get how that put's him ahead of anyone that's fought at 140.

That formula is too complicated for us humans...

That's why I told you to email and ask BoxRec... I'm sure they have a valid explanation why PAC is #1 at 140... That's the most sensible action to do... Just do it Mr. killer...

.

It's your point to prove.

My point is, these rankings orgs (BoxRec, Fightnews, Ring Mag, etc.) composed of several boxing experts and using powerful computers publicly published their rankings - rankings that they believed is true and correct according to their set of criteria... They have some basis on their rankings...

There could be flaws in their system so why not try asking them, email them... You might be right... PAC can't be #1 at 140...
.

[killersheep]

That formula is too complicated for us humans...

That's why I told you to email and ask BoxRec... I'm sure they have a valid explanation why PAC is #1 at 140... That's the most sensible action to do... Just do it Mr. killer...

.

It's your point to prove.

My point is, these rankings orgs (BoxRec, Fightnews, Ring Mag, etc.) composed of several boxing experts and using powerful computers publicly published their rankings - rankings that they believed is true and correct according to their set of criteria... They have some basis on their rankings...

There could be flaws in their system so why not try asking them, email them... You might be right... PAC can't be #1 at 140...
.

Again it's your point to make. I don't know anyone that takes Fightnews or Boxrec's ranks seriously other than you and Fightnews and Boxrec. And since that is 100% the basis of your "point" PROVE IT.

[Youngblood]

I think what happened here Killer ...is he saw you noticing a boxrec flaw, and somehow took it as a slight against God Almighty, and felt the need to argue his religion with an endless barrage of 's.