My proof that PR is not really that relevant

I did some seo for several sites and now I have the privilege to do some seo to a brand new site in a niche where I already ranked 1st a site for 5 main keywords. I want to outrank the first site because he screwd me over with the payment.
So I bought a niche related older domain and started blasting it. I used all types of backlinks and most of them where high quality.
The funny thing is I got this site to PR 3 in like 2 and 1/2 months and its still not ranking good for its keywords- plays around between spots 30-150 in google.
The site that ranks first for my keywords is a PR 2 site.
Ofourse at first I tought that my site has PR 3 from the old domain but the thing is that the NEW pages I did most backlinks for also have PR 3 (2 pages)
3 PR 2 pages, a lot of PR 1 and 0 pages.
So my conclusion with an example is that PR is not really that relevant when looking at competition.

it actually doesnt need any proofs, everyone knows PR is irrelevant.

How??

---------------

Search for any term on Google and you will find out that there are many Low PR

sites ranking high.


Research done...lulz

Just because your new site is higher pr doesnt mean it should rank higher. The original still has aged content and I assume more back links than your site.

Pr is just one of the 200+ constraints Google users to rank your site. Having high pr is only part of the equation.

WordKey said:

Pr is just one of the 200+ constraints Google users to rank your site. Having high pr is only part of the equation.

Click to expand...

It has unique content, products, 500 words articles, all types of links.
The thing is that the only difrence between the sites is the age of the content itself.
And I have more links then the first ranking site, also my site is not really ranking for anything in google, it does in yahoo and bing
This sucks