Did the wbo title matter in the 80's/90's ?

Always??

Before 1995 it wasn't even as highly considered a the NABF.

Keith

 

Watch Herbie Hide vs Riddick Bowe from 1995 on HBO Jim Lampley made it a point to let the viewers know that HBO did NOT recognize the WBO as a legit world title and it was not billed as a title fight either and all of that knowing that there fighter Bowe was heavily favored to easy take the title.

The WBO was called the WBOgus up until a few years ago. It had almost no credibility when I joined the site. Sad how easily it was accepted as a real title by fans just to fit there agenda when discussing fighters. And promotors and the TV stations billing it as a world title match just to make money.

 

Now that's just silly talk, Robert.

 

Robert are you this stupid atsch. Obviously yes.
I noted at SMW the belts were all invented around the same time, so even the WBC & WBA were new belts at the weight . At SMW they are all at the same level.

Then look at this with the WBA & WBC
Consider M Beyer defending his WBC title against 26-14-5 fighter who was coming off of a win against a 0-2-0 fighter
Or that Mundine when defending the WBA title against a 24-13-5 fighter who was the same fighter that WBC champ Beyer was defending against above.

 

Uh, no it wasn't. In fact, before the mid-80's, your so-called "big four" didn't even exist. The WBO was no more important than the IBO or the WBF or any of those other fringe belts until the mid-90's, when some of the better fighters in the weight classes started to hold it, in large part because Universum and Frank ****** were able to get their big names WBO title shots quickly.

Oddly, the IBF became a big belt almost immediately after they started. I don't remember why, but right at the beginning then-champ Larry Holmes dumped his WBC title in favor of the IBF belt, which instantly lent it credibility.

 

it's funny how that was compared to the last decade where lamon brewster's 2 year WBO heavyweight title reign was the most entertaining out of all of them compared to byrd's reign full of gift decisions and john ruiz stinking out the joint in every one of his fights save the fights he got his ass whooped...as ive said before brewster-lyakovich fight for the wbo heavyweight title is the last heavyweight title fight to date i consider classic

 

I agree

 

It's one of the four sanctioning bodies and has been since creation.

 

The fighter makes the belt worth something not the other way round.

 

Does it matter now?

 

brewster vs Lycovich was a great fight- and the WBO title happend to be in the picture
kevin kelley vs troy dorsey was a 10 times better fight..but that didnt make the WBC Continental Americas featherweight title anymore credible , because that was the title up for grabs

 

Bull****. I've already gone through it before.

From Wikipedia:

Here are the initial WBO champs in each weight class. You tell me if anyone was treating it like a major title at inception:

105 - Rafael Torres (career record 16-9)
108 - Jose de Jesus (career record 31-9)
112 - Elvis Alvarez (career record 31-8)
115 - Jose Ruiz Matos (career record 22-4, though to be fair he was killed while holding the title)
118 - Israel Contreras (career record 38-3, mostly against bums, but did have one legit win over Luisito Espinosa...for the WBA title)
122 - Kenny Mitchell (career record 22-15)
126 - Maurizio Stecca (career record 49-4)
130 - John John Molina
135 - Mauricio Aceves (career record 26-16-1)
140 - Hector Camacho
147 - Genaro Leon (career record 48-11-2)
154 - John David Jackson
160 - Doug DeWitt (career record 33-8-5)
168 - Tommy Hearns
175 - Michael Moorer
190 - Boone Pultz (career record 25-3, but never in his career fought someone with 20+ wins)
HW - Francesco Damiani (career record 30-2)

So basically, you got 2 good fighters who were well known at the time (Camacho and Molina...both Puerto Ricans based where the WBO is based), 1 blown up and way past prime star (Hearns), 2 hotshot prospects who eventually became stars (Moorer and Jackson), 4 regional-level fighters (Damiani, Stecca, DeWitt and Ruiz) and 8 guys who weren't even good gatekeepers much less contenders. Does that sound to you like people were respecting the WBO as a real belt at inception?

Seriously, this thread should be done.

 

Sure, when people try to count BS titles that guys won when the body wasn't even recognized.

 

I can remember when it originated and it took a long time to gain anywhere near the credibility it has now.It seemed to be an easier way for the more popular European fighters to get a belt in the early days,Eubank being one of the first real "names" I remember giving it exposure.I'm surprised it got to the stage it has because I'm fairly sure that Ring refused to acknowledge it for a long time and I can remember it being poo-pooed at least till the mid-90's.

 

I'm not certain about this but I remember when Leonard fought Lalonde,reading that the WBC fought to get the division recognised so Ray could fight for the LH belt and force Lalonde to cut weight.