Lockett at no.4 and Mitchel in WBO rankings!!!

boxbet · Post by **boxbet** » 10 Jan 2007, 19:04

Gary Lockett is at no.4 ahead of Sturm, Sam Soliman, Ouma, Castillejo.
Mitchel also at no.4 in super feather.

states · Post by **states** » 10 Jan 2007, 19:13

Holy Shit! The WBO are ranking Sports Network fighters higher than they deserve?

I would say ranking Mitchell at 4 is a joke, but the WBO rankings went beyond a joke many years ago.

Taki... · Post by **Taki...** » 10 Jan 2007, 19:18

The WBO does tend to chuck up the most unlikely top 5 rankings at times. Some of their #1 contenders are a bit dodgy... Stieglitz, Gevor, Earl, Bautista.

REAL_DEAL · Post by **REAL_DEAL** » 10 Jan 2007, 23:23

lockett was at number 2/3 last time hes dropped then.

Neri · Post by **Neri** » 11 Jan 2007, 02:22

Remember when Michael Jennings was the Welterweight WBO #1 to Margarito ?

Razor · Post by **Razor** » 11 Jan 2007, 06:12

Neri1983 wrote:Remember when Michael Jennings was the Welterweight WBO #1 to Margarito ?

yiddo14 · Post by **yiddo14** » 11 Jan 2007, 07:28

states wrote:Holy Shit! The WBO are ranking Sports Network fighters higher than they deserve?

I would say ranking Mitchell at 4 is a joke, but the WBO rankings went beyond a joke many years ago.

WBU used to be Fwanks toy....looks like he has gone up in the world.

Mitchell at 4 is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard of in boxing!!!

rhino222 · Post by **rhino222** » 11 Jan 2007, 07:39

frank has had a big thumb in the WBO pie for a long long time. a high ranking would normally lead to a title fight in about 6 months...

almost as if frank has 'tipped' the WBO off with reference to TV slots etc...

Lenny · Post by **Lenny** » 11 Jan 2007, 07:47

wasn't Gavin Rees also a number 1 contender for the WBO at one stage?

far worse than Jennings

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 11 Jan 2007, 07:49

Imagine what Guzman would do Mitchell

, maybe there hoping Guzman vacates to fight Pacman/Barrera/Marquez and they can throw someone horrible in with Mitchell for the belt

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 11 Jan 2007, 08:02

The WBO have made a small fortune from the sanctioning fees paid over the years by SN WBO champions, is it any wonder they seem so compliant?

caster · Post by **caster** » 11 Jan 2007, 08:35

Got to laugh at the WBO rankings. I mean, Michael Jennings (a good fighter though he is), was NO. 1 and at the time not the best Welter in the gym.

I think he's now no 8 which is still laughable - he's only no. 5 in the British rankings.

What are they doing to the sport??

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 11 Jan 2007, 09:11

There have been some very good WBO champs down the years e.g. Barrera, Calzaghe, Cotto, JMM, Naz etc but for the most part the WBO has always been a joke. I cant believe that they are now recognised as bona fide title organisation when in fact theyre a step up from the WBU. The rankings mentioned here underline this

Lenny · Post by **Lenny** » 11 Jan 2007, 09:15

The ranking still need a hell of a lot of sorting out and they don't force their mandatories as much as they should but recently some of the WBO champs have been close to being the number 1's in the division.

The WBA and the IBF have hardly been covering themselves in glory with things like the cruiserweight champions and Judah keeping his title after the Baldomir loss

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 11 Jan 2007, 09:36

dr_devious wrote:There have been some very good WBO champs down the years e.g. Barrera, Calzaghe, Cotto, JMM, Naz etc but for the most part the WBO has always been a joke. I cant believe that they are now recognised as bona fide title organisation when in fact theyre a step up from the WBU. The rankings mentioned here underline this

Dont forget Delahoya, Guzman, Darius Michawaski (spelt wrong), Klitchkos, Eubanks its certainly gained some credability

WBA have 3 'champs' in some divisions. The WBA, IBF, WBC all are willing to strip the no1 guy in the division at the first opportunity to get more sanctioning fees. The WBC is infamous for its level of corruption.

Look at the WBC, WBA, IBFs rankings in any division and try to justify them as top10 in their division, you won't be able to do it. And all have horrible fighters in their top15s

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 11 Jan 2007, 09:51

There have been some good WBO champions, but it's not the ownership of the belt that has made them so.

The reason that some of these guys have been long reigning champs for the WBO, and not stripped for not taking on some dubious mandatory, is that they were popular fighters who generated a lot of revenue.

If you are a belt holder with little or no following (see Glen Johnson) you are likely to be stripped by the ABC bodies as they don't want people unifying and then holding up the belts, defending once a year.

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 11 Jan 2007, 10:14

jamesmcdonnell wrote:There have been some good WBO champions, but it's not the ownership of the belt that has made them so.

The reason that some of these guys have been long reigning champs for the WBO, and not stripped for not taking on some dubious mandatory, is that they were popular fighters who generated a lot of revenue.

If you are a belt holder with little or no following (see Glen Johnson) you are likely to be stripped by the ABC bodies as they don't want people unifying and then holding up the belts, defending once a year.

Sounds fair but even Taylor got stripped for fighting BHOPs and stripped again for fighting Winky

All belts are anti-unification because they get less revenue

Neri · Post by **Neri** » 11 Jan 2007, 10:14

The sanctioning bodies must have been outraged by Bernard Hopkins fulfilling all his mandatory requirements. Bet they all had a party when Hopkins lost to Taylor and they now had someone who maybe they could strip a belt off now and again.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 11 Jan 2007, 10:57

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:There have been some good WBO champions, but it's not the ownership of the belt that has made them so.

The reason that some of these guys have been long reigning champs for the WBO, and not stripped for not taking on some dubious mandatory, is that they were popular fighters who generated a lot of revenue.

If you are a belt holder with little or no following (see Glen Johnson) you are likely to be stripped by the ABC bodies as they don't want people unifying and then holding up the belts, defending once a year.
Sounds fair but even Taylor got stripped for fighting BHOPs and stripped again for fighting Winky

All belts are anti-unification because they get less revenue

Yes, that's the case, they are all anti unification, especially since their own 'super champion' rules.

m1kee50 · Post by **m1kee50** » 11 Jan 2007, 17:20

Neri1983 wrote:The sanctioning bodies must have been outraged by Bernard Hopkins fulfilling all his mandatory requirements. Bet they all had a party when Hopkins lost to Taylor and they now had someone who maybe they could strip a belt off now and again.

great excuse for fighting any old mug, that one 'but hes my mandatory!'

Owain · Post by **Owain** » 12 Jan 2007, 23:52

Lenny Albert wrote:wasn't Gavin Rees also a number 1 contender for the WBO at one stage?

far worse than Jennings

I consider myself an ardent Welsh fight fan but no way could I justify Gavin Rees previous ranking or Locketts current ranking. They've even got Tony Doherty in at no.10 in the welterweight division when he hasn't fought anyone of any significance outside of the British rankings yet. Doherty clearly has ability but he is untested and is obviously not a world class operator. He had a tough fight against Taz Jones and it will be interesting to see how he does in the re-match, though I do expect him to win clearly this time - maybe even a stoppage. As some posters have already indicated the WBO rankings sem to be more about boxing politics than actual ability.

WELSH WARRIORS
http://www.johnnyowen.com