Re: Do you consider the WBO to be....
it's funny back in 2006 when i joined people where laughing at how the wbo was considered a title. people even thought cotto was a glass jawed 1 dimensional joke of a minor world titlist back at 140.
but when the wbc stripped joel casamayor for fighting a better fighter than his mando...even though his mando had an injury....and the title given on a platter to erik morales to get the 4th world title. wba was sitting comfortably inside don kings pocket. with the valuev ruiz evander fights...pointless and useless. ibf was the most respected for choosing tough proven journeyman contenders over young green loudmouth well promoted prospects (salido-cruz being a good example who where clearly the best fighters in the division outside the titlists). but that dissappeeared when ibf wouldnt unify with other titles...and with the history of rank fixing.
the wbo gained respectability due to it's super middle history personally. hearns/eubank/calzaghe/collins. that sort of lineage sort of lined a sort of reverence in some way. that it actually has a history.
ibo might be joining or at least allow under promoted but good fighters some decent exposure. nkosinathi joyi being an example. had he won another 'title' it would be alright.
who cares the more titles the more they become useless and allow matches to happen.
they just got to unify. you want to have the best fighter in the division to have your belt. if they unify they are the best in the division...i just dont get how they cant see that as a positive thing.