Boxrec RULES!!!!

[killersheep]

Nice artwork there killa... I love it... I didn't know you're a great artist and debater (?) ...
.

You get a response from BoxRec yet?

I have no problem with them placing PAC as #1 at 140... Why hassle myself about this...

To those who vehemently protested about this ranking, why not throw tomatoes, rotten eggs, etc. on BoxRec ...
.

So you also agree that PAC is #5 p4p behind JMM?

[Spicoli]

..........guess the crutches are needed after all.No independent thought from fanboy numba 1.

It's very difficult to justify for BoxRec's behalf so why not ask BoxRec for such very unbelievable ranking of PAC?

I just take it as it is since for me, there's possibility that PAC can be considered as no. 1 at 140 as what I pointed out in my previous posts here... It's also possible, that this is a big error... Hope killa can contact/email BoxRec...

You wanna jump through rhetorical hoops or do you actually have a debatable stance on your #1 favorite fighter.Why should he be ranked on par with Hatton at 140 as best when he has never competed there?Yaaawn....checking watch

[XaduBoxer]

You get a response from BoxRec yet?

I have no problem with them placing PAC as #1 at 140... Why hassle myself about this...

To those who vehemently protested about this ranking, why not throw tomatoes, rotten eggs, etc. on BoxRec ...
.

So you also agree that PAC is #5 p4p behind JMM?

I have no crazy problem with that... they have their own basis and computations for that... heck, Vazquez is no. 3 P4P, JMM 4 and PAC 5... There's no point of arguing with that...

But having no problem with BoxRec rankings doesn't mean I totally agree with them completely... lol
.

[OumaFan]

Saddoboxer's got alien persistence when it comes to Pac and a healthy devotion to , do you guys really want to get into this?

[OumaFan]

do you realize we have a thread wishing Manny Pacquaio happy birthday

I'm at a loss for words with that one, I've prided myself on pointless threads but come on

[killersheep]

I have no problem with them placing PAC as #1 at 140... Why hassle myself about this...

To those who vehemently protested about this ranking, why not throw tomatoes, rotten eggs, etc. on BoxRec ...
.

So you also agree that PAC is #5 p4p behind JMM?

I have no crazy problem with that... they have their own basis and computations for that... heck, Vazquez is no. 3 P4P, JMM 4 and PAC 5... There's no point of arguing with that...

But having no problem with BoxRec rankings doesn't mean I totally agree with them completely... lol
.

So you're back to not having a point.

[Spicoli]

do you realize we have a thread wishing Manny Pacquaio happy birthday

I'm at a loss for words with that one, I've prided myself on pointless threads but come on

Not as priceless as the one started a couple of months ago,"Pac has just finished his shower and is now going to the gym"..... LmaOFF

An actual thead,anything to draw attention I suppose

[XaduBoxer]

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...
.

[killersheep]

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.

[XaduBoxer]

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.

[killersheep]

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.

I'm confused, if you are ranking who is the best fighter at 140 why would you use any data from another weight class?

[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.

I'm confused, if you are ranking who is the best fighter at 140 why would you use any data from another weight class?

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?

[killersheep]

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.

I'm confused, if you are ranking who is the best fighter at 140 why would you use any data from another weight class?

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.

[XaduBoxer]

I'm confused, if you are ranking who is the best fighter at 140 why would you use any data from another weight class?

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...
.

[Dizaster]

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..