BoxRec

Only last week Manuel Medina was the WBO champion who had just beaten a guy who was on a roll despatching world class fighters.

Having lost, but not disgraced himself, in the rematch one would expect him to lose a few ranking points.

But I think Boxrec have taking it a bit extreme!

Victor Polo, Bobby Boy Valderez, Bungu, Ramirez, Abelyean, shouldn't be near him at the moment.

Can somebody please state how on earth can Johnny Tapia be ranked 5th, Scott Harrison ranked 4th yet Manuel Medina is all the way down in 17th.

Manuel Medina is still a top 6 fighter, write the guy off at your peril.

stujones wrote:Only last week Manuel Medina was the WBO champion who had just beaten a guy who was on a roll despatching world class fighters.

Having lost, but not disgraced himself, in the rematch one would expect him to lose a few ranking points.

But I think Boxrec have taking it a bit extreme!

Victor Polo, Bobby Boy Valderez, Bungu, Ramirez, Abelyean, shouldn't be near him at the moment.

Can somebody please state how on earth can Johnny Tapia be ranked 5th, Scott Harrison ranked 4th yet Manuel Medina is all the way down in 17th.

Manuel Medina is still a top 6 fighter, write the guy off at your peril.

It'a a bad ranking, but not the worst. The worst involve mandatory challengers who are thus guaranteed a shot when it's obvious to everyone they are only guaranteed a kicking. The Armenian lined up to fight Joe Calzaghe recently is a good example (thankfully, Joe didn't fancy hurting his hands on the guy's head). And, if I recall correctly, the Colombian Jimmy Garcia was number one contender to WBA super-featherweight champion Gabriel Ruelas in 1995. Garcia got his shot, took a bad beating for 11 rounds, collapsed and died. Totally avoidable.

its boxrec ranking they dont mean anything in the boxing world

sorry boxrec

actually Oliver McCall at 6th is the worst for me

Yes i agree the Boxrec ratings are way off in most cases, "just because you beat the man doesn't mean you become the man", lol does that sound philosophical?! What i mean is a guy can win 20 in a row against good opposition and then get KO'd in a couple of rounds by a guy with a worse record and they sort of exchange places, that should not happen IMO. The opponent level should be the main factor, how is McCall at 6? How come Tyson is 3 and Vitali 10? Ruiz above Wlad Klitschko? Gomez and Mesi above Rahman? I disagree with these ratings myself.

REAL_DEAL wrote:actually Oliver McCall at 6th is the worst for me

Was going to say the same thing myself mate. Boxrec's rankings are ganting!

where was medina before he fought Harrison the first time? cos thats roughly where he should be now.

Not at bloody 17 I hope, Also with regard to another post having Ruiz above Wlad is not such a bad ranking. But McCall at 6 is rediculous.

stujones wrote:Not at bloody 17 I hope, Also with regard to another post having Ruiz above Wlad is not such a bad ranking. But McCall at 6 is rediculous.

i can kind of understand how statistically that has happened, but perhaps age, and inactivity and the time passed since a good win should be taken more into consideration.

I suppose statistically he did lose to Tapia, but he was the IBF CHAMPION going into the bout (2002), okay so technically he is 1-3 in his last four contest, but look at the ranking of his opponents. It was only the Marquez contest where he was completely obliterated, he still showed he belonged in top class in his last fight.

stujones wrote:I suppose statistically he did lose to Tapia, but he was the IBF CHAMPION going into the bout (2002), okay so technically he is 1-3 in his last four contest, but look at the ranking of his opponents. It was only the Marquez contest where he was completely obliterated, he still showed he belonged in top class in his last fight.

yeah i think Medina should be higher than 17, it was the McCall one i was talking abiut, should of made that clear.

He beat Akinwande and hasn't lost since (been in jail though). But there you dont lose points for inactivity, i think you should once you reach a certain age, cos you are very unlikely to be as good as you were.

Like Hector Camacho was #2 middleweight or something earlier this year.

adamiw wrote:

stujones wrote:I suppose statistically he did lose to Tapia, but he was the IBF CHAMPION going into the bout (2002), okay so technically he is 1-3 in his last four contest, but look at the ranking of his opponents. It was only the Marquez contest where he was completely obliterated, he still showed he belonged in top class in his last fight.

yeah i think Medina should be higher than 17, it was the McCall one i was talking abiut, should of made that clear.

He beat Akinwande and hasn't lost since (been in jail though). But there you dont lose points for inactivity, i think you should once you reach a certain age, cos you are very unlikely to be as good as you were.

Like Hector Camacho was #2 middleweight or something earlier this year.

Yeah, I don't understand what Camacho is doing at the moment. He's been active and hasn't lost since DLH - but his opponents have been terrible. What is doing I am not sure.

Also, Larry Holmes was ranked in the top 40 earlier this year, which given the depth of the devision, isn't so rediculous.

http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=000607

cant work out the Camacho situation. He came back with a win in january this year which put him in at #2, then lost to Walsh which put him down to 78th, he won the other night against a journeyman and has moved up to 12th?!?! WTF!!! Up 66 places cos he beat this guy:

http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=006243

Julio Cesar Chavez's revenge win over Willy Wise a couple of weeks back has shot him to #10 at welterweight.