Official result or your own scores ? Which takes precedent when ranking boxers ?

you, sir, are a heretic and unbeliever. you have disqualified yourself from the conversation.

 

more importantly, where at the moment is williams ranked based off that "win"? any list worth reading will clearly reflect that williams got his ass kicked. any list that gave him credit for that "win" is irrelevant

 

I rank based on how I scored it, e.g Lewis has 2 wins over Holyfield.

 

And you, sir, are an encapsulation of logical fallacy; to bestow upon someone a false dilemma as you did is very stupid.

 

that's more to do with a conclusion based on choices right?

either way the options of "accept every single decision" or "accept non at all" are clearly bull**** options.

It's only natural when making your OWN rankings you use your OWN scores.

 

Oh, shut it.

 

My own judgement counts more for my own rankings than the most incompetent/corrupt people in boxing, the judges.

I actually judge more on performance than wins/losses tbh.

If fighter A loses his biggest fight by razor close/either way decision & performs brilliantly & fighter B receives an utter gift/his opponent gets robbed & he performs under par.... assuming all fighters are on the same tier p4p/ability, I`ll give more ATG points to fighter A because reality is more important than 3 fat ****s (judges) make belief & their ridiculousness should not affect a fighters career.

We are all boxing judges in our own right, especially when it comes to our own list.

 

The difference is tho... the majority on here probably know more about boxing than they do about medicine seeing as this is a boxing forum, scoring a round of boxing when you have been watching the sport for many years is a bit different from taking a guess of which pill is best to save your life so lets not get crazy, not to mention slightly off topic..

 

STFU

What`s really appalling is the fact that 3 fat corrupt/clueless ****s are being PAID to put a dent in a hardworking fighters legacy by not telling it like it is because its `better for business` that a certain name fighter gets the verdict... people like you hitting out with **** like that are what`s enabling these disgraces to keep ****ing this sport in the ass & getting away with it.

 

Basically close fight ie: Hagler Leonard I give it to the officials.

Crazy result such as Hagler Antufermo I go by my own scores.

Basically if I have it more than 3 or 4 points out of the official scores.

 

My rankings take precedent!!! I pretty well follow RING(mag) rankings as being PARAMOUNT!!!! I believe Nat Fleisher really started rankings i 1922 withTex Rickard ,(Dempseys pilot) But Police Gazette ( richard Fox) had ratings at or before. I follow Nats belief that rankings should be based on level of competion,activity and performance. to bad ranking organganzations work for most part on rating fighters who pay THIER sanctiony fees

 

Have you witnessed such a payment? I've been ringside and at afterparties plenty of times and never saw a briefcase handed from promoter to judge.

What is not conjecture or a fantastical adjunct to the real narrative is the actual scoring or ruling of TKO in a fight. It is the actual completion of the narrative, absolute completion. And in boxing, you are either absolutist or not absorbed in the narrative, the creator of a narrative of "otherness". You either believe in the official result or are partaking in a fantasy sport which revolves around your own narcissism.

 

If you scored it a draw, why rank it as a loss/win?

 

You're going to tell me that, upon following instructions in this thread to watch and score round 6, that you're ok with the fact two out of three judges gave it to Pacquiao?

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=288713