Floyd is #7 All time according to a "fair and objective site"

[Larry the boss]

It's consistent in that it applies the same criteria to everyone. Just ****s out a formula based on the official results.

But lots of things can be consistent and be terrible (consistently).

ok...............

[IronDanHamza]

So because something is fair and balanced you have to agree with everything that it says? Lol shrug anyway, whatever. It was kind of funny to see him freak out and then get banned. I wonder what the ban was for.

The point is its not fair and it's not balanced.

It's terrible and illogical hence why Floyd is considered #1 WW of all time.

He tried to use it to support his argument when the very same "fair and objective" ranking system (laughable) has Floyd #7 of all time, something he doesn't agree with and is now making excuses for.

Very easy to follow.

[Larry the boss]

the point is its not fair and it's not balanced.

It's terrible and illogical hence why floyd is considered #1 ww of all time.

He tried to use it to support his argument when the very same "fair and objective" ranking system (laughable) has floyd #7 of all time, something he doesn't agree with and is now making excuses for.

Very easy to follow.

bingo!!!!!!!!

[Sweet Pea 50]

So Tunney basically caught a ban in his zeal defending Boxrecs fairness and objectivity.

Said website has Mayweather #7 all time.

[imperial1]

Where is Charlie Z on this list he's 51-1

[Dinamita 03]

Marquez at #31 all time P4P? I can dig that list

[lizard_man]

ken overlin isn't even top 100 on their list. Ezzard Charles lost to Marciano twice yet Charles > Marciano?

bull**** list.

[BrometheusBob.]

The point is its not fair and it's not balanced.

It's terrible and illogical hence why Floyd is considered #1 WW of all time.

He tried to use it to support his argument when the very same "fair and objective" ranking system (laughable) has Floyd #7 of all time, something he doesn't agree with and is now making excuses for.

Very easy to follow.

I'm not saying whether it is correct or defendable, only that it is consistent and fair. How does it treat any boxers differently than any other boxers? What is unfair about an incorrect, but consistent objective scoring? A scoring system can be "terrible" and "illogical" but STILL be "fair" and "consistent".

The fact that Floyd is #7 on their p4p atg list or #1 atg WW is absolutely not proof that it is not fair or not consistent. It scores everyone using the same exact methodology. All this proves is that the scoring methodology happened to have Floyd higher than one might anticipate.

[The Gambler1981]

I like boxrec's division rankings a little bit but pound for pound they always are odd to say the least.

But really that can be said of any pound for pound list considering the vast amount of criteria anyone can use.

[toshmurph]

Floyd's somewhere in the top 10-15 in my book. I'd have to sit down and really think about this list. There's really been a lot of great fighters throughout history...

If Mayweathers "top 10-15 in your book" then I'd be curious to know how many fighters "Are in your book"...