When ranking fighters, do you go by OFFICIAL decisions or who you think won?

I try to keep my bias for my favorire fighters under controll and go by who I think won since my rankings don't have any effect on anything anyway. If I headed a boxing organization like the WBA or a magazine like Ring that would be different and I would have to take the official decision into account. I noticed Ring did not lower Pacquiao or raise Bradley in their rankings after Bradley's win over Pacquiao.

For all you know between now and then erroneous decisions will be reviewed and corrected. But then they'll be official so we should just go off the offical decisions :)

I only go by official decision. In 100 years, the history books will say L or W, and our opinions won't mean ****. i agree with this post 100% eventhough most thought JMM beat pac once or twice the official line says JMM lost to pac twice. and for all those that say pac beat tim so they dont consider tim the champ, did you say that about the last pac v JMM? because MOST thought JMM beat pac. the crowd even boo'd pac when the decision was read. and some of the pac fans posted " the judges say pac won and they do this for a living not just posting their opinions so we go by what the judges say" how ironic those statements are now that the judges gave the nod to tim over pac.

if the fight is close you have to credit the official decision to judges who put in reasonable cards if it's a robbery you call it like you see it.

This is why i go by both i think i go by a bit of both, but depends on situation. If underdog won close but controversial fight i will use that to rank him a bit higher, but if the clear favorite won controversially i dotn use it to rank him higher. But if you go by both then you are beginning to use your human bias. If I were a Pacquiao fan, I could argue in the Marquez fight we go by Official Decisions, and in the Bradley fight, we all really know who won. It is not consistent, I am breaking my own rules to allow my guy to always win, and then I will rank accordingly. What a dumb question Thought I had retards ignored... I think it should depend on how a fighter performs, not necessarily whether they get the W or L. But a boxer could perform better then expected and still lose a close one

I think it should depend on how a fighter performs, not necessarily whether they get the W or L.

and may I add hatton beat mayweather/cortez you may :)

agreed, Marquez beat Pacquiao and Pacquiao beat Bradley, boxing fans know. and may I add hatton beat mayweather/cortez

i think i go by a bit of both, but depends on situation. If underdog won close but controversial fight i will use that to rank him a bit higher, but if the clear favorite won controversially i dotn use it to rank him higher.

agreed, Marquez beat Pacquiao and Pacquiao beat Bradley, boxing fans know.This is why i go by both

I only go by official decision. In 100 years, the history books will say L or W, and our opinions won't mean ****. For all you know between now and then erroneous decisions will be reviewed and corrected.

I only go by official decision. In 100 years, the history books will say L or W, and our opinions won't mean ****.

why would you go by the official decision if it's clearly wrong? agreed, Marquez beat Pacquiao and Pacquiao beat Bradley, boxing fans know.

In the case of Pac-Marquez it's both. Pac kept his spot because he officially won while Marquez went up in rankings because a lot of people thought that he was the unofficial winner.

Well there is no way on this planet that Pacman is a better fighter than Martinez, Floyd, or Ward. So whether he officially lost to Bradley, (or you think he won), I do, doesn't mean anything. Pfp means the best fighters regardless of weight. He gets walked by more than just them. The ship has sailed, popularity doesn't mean pfp, Ward is the man now.

why would you go by the official decision if it's clearly wrong?

Depends on how bad the decision was. I thought Hopkins beat Jermain Taylor but didn't feel it was an outrageous decision. So I probably wouldn't give him credit for a win there. I felt Pernell Whitaker beat Chavez and Jose Luis Ramirez and consider those wins on his resume. I don't give him credit for a win over Oscar because it was a closer fight.